Is There Proof That God Exists?

[Mumeishi]

so we assume the contrary.

Not at all. I think my argument is quite clear. Why is this so difficult? Let me repeat myself:

But you are missing the point. These experiments show that 'God' is not a necessary factor for such experiences, therefor using such experiences as evidence for god is unsound, which was my original point.

Are you with me?

the reason why those experiences occur spontaneously is what?

Seizures of the temporal lobe are thought to cause such experiences spontaneously. This is not dissimilar to an epileptic fit, which can also be localised. I don't have any knowledge of how such seizures start.

what about this situation:
The relationship seems to be an ordinary causal one:
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state permitting > religious experience
X > certain (consciousness/brain) state preventing > experience ends

or
X > religious experience
X stops > experience ends

the idea is that there is some sense (call it the third eye for lack of better term) that can percieve aspects of God that the normal five senses can't perceive and some things facilitate the opening of the third eye and some things facilitate the closing of the third eye.

Yes, I've come across this idea and if there is a 'third eye' the temporal lobe seems like a very good candidate (although there are two of them of course). Again, my point is that this structure and the resulting religious experiences have been shown to be activated 'artificially' by a magnetic field and presumably any seizure which happens to occur in that area may lead to such experiences. There is no evidence of your proposed mysterious undetectable agency 'X'. I would invoke Occam's razor to excise 'X' as unevidenced and unnecessary. There is no more reason to assume 'x' than there is to invoke 'football pixies' which intervene every time my foot makes contact with a ball at speed.

Anyway what sort of diety would allow his means of communion with man to be usurped in such a base manner? I was under the impression that religious experiences were supposed to be God making direct contact with the soul (or vice versa). Is the soul the temporal lobe? 'No but perhaps the TL is the bridge between the body and the soul I hear you say'. But then why should God need to go through the physical route to access the soul? And again, why should he let neurosurgeons access the soul with magnets?

it's still logically unsound, as far as i can tell, to attribute divinity to whatever may be leading to religious experiences (the phrase spiritual experiences is more apt in some cases).

I couldn't agree more! LOL

why would you say God is eliminated when the magnet is taken away? if i close my eyes and no longer perceive a horse, is it no longer there?yes, and how do these researchers let you know they've done what you think is sound research? by either saying it or other communication.

I may have misunderstood your point first time round. Again, this is getting into subjectivism and idealism. Do you really want to get into that argument too? The researchers publish their results along with specific details of methodology. Others can criticize this methodology or repeat the experiment. If they get different results then questions must be asked and more research done to clarify the matter. No research can ever be 100% objective, but much observer bias is removed in this way - research techniques are honed over time and greater objectivity becomes possible.

are you sure there's no sound research done in the arena of what you're talking about? the convienient notion perpetuated is that, as far as i know, few scientists are willing to investigate divinity and therefore adherents to science can say that no sound research has been done. i would like to get my hands on some of the work done by david hawkins, a scientist working in these areas.

Feel free to cite some if you find it. I take resorting to the claims of academic conspiracy as a sign of a crackpot theory. You find exactly the same sort of claims among those who claim that the pyramids were built by Atlanteans. The most powerful and wealthy nation on Earth 9the US) is overwhelming theistic, including the President and many of the funders of the government. If there were any possibility of providing evidence which supported Christianity, the moticvation and possible funding would be high. And you are claiming there is a conspiracy *against* theism! A similar argument could be made about some Islamic states.

the idea was whether or not a perception being recreatable by something other than the object of perception being there proves that object does not exist.

I never said that this research 'proves God does not exist'. What it proves is that God is not a necessary factor for religious experiences to occur. It negates the value of such experiences as evidence for God. The 'God hypothesis' has no real explanatory power and is an unnecessary concept.

 

[Mumeishi]

So is this like the moment in an action film where everything goes quiet, the hero surveys the battlefield and realizes that he has won and that he is surrounded only by corpses and perhaps a few allies?

Or do I have a few more wounded theists to impale first?

 

[Mumeishi]

And where's the love interest? I hope she was watching.

 

[Merlin]

High TOXICs Deception

HIGHLYTOXIC you ask a deceptive question, looking for a true answer? Post a pure question for a pure answer.

 

[Mumeishi]

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to me. How on Earth is it deceptive?

Define 'impure' and tell us how can you demonstrate that it is 'impure'.

If 'pure' means 'in accordance with Christian doctrine' or 'not rocking the boat for Christian doctrine' then that's begging the question, because we are still trying to establish any credibility for Christian doctrine.

 

[Merlin]

Ahhhh!.. a simple answer to that one is. Impure = deceptive as in you are sure no one can answer the God(s) question to your terms.

A deceptive question to elicit an unpure answer from you would be ...ummm ...Prove to me that the theory of evolution of the species is true.

You won't rock anyone's boat but the ignorant my fellow.

And all religious infrastructures are basically the same. So when you say Christianity I will substitute the word religion, because we mustn't flame on one sect without all the others that worship a deity(s) should we

Lastly we should examine that wobbly, creaky, change with the times "scientific" soap box (method) that you seem to put so much faith in? yes?...[/color]

 

[Merlin]

Oh, and BTW,Mumeishi, I do apologize for not reading ALL the prior posts that you made on this subject. The ones I did fully read were faulty in their logic, to the point of being amusing. [/color]

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Merlin
Ahhhh!.. a simple answer to that one is. Impure = deceptive as in you are sure no one can answer the God(s) question to your terms.

A deceptive question to elicit an unpure answer from you would be ...ummm ...Prove to me that the theory of evolution of the species is true.

You're quite right. There is no such thing as proof in science, nor should that impossible standard be expected for God. I took the spirit of the question to be 'Is there any evidence for God?'. But you're quite right, that's not what it says.

Then again, no one has not even presented any valid evidence for God, so the question of proof is a long way off.

Originally posted by Merlin

And all religious infrastructures are basically the same. So when you say Christianity I will substitute the word religion, because we mustn't flame on one sect without all the others that worship a deity(s) should we

Very egalitarian of you.

Originally posted by Merlin

Lastly we should examine that wobbly, creaky, change with the times "scientific" soap box (method) that you seem to put so much faith in? yes?...

Scientific method 'proves' itself every day. The computer you are using to reply to me was not made by God. Unless, there is some sort of unexplained cosmic conspiracy to make the world behave exactly as it would if governed by natural rather than supernatural forces, there is little you can do to fault the rationale behind scientific method. Care to try?

Originally posted by Merlin

The ones I did fully read were faulty in their logic, to the point of being amusing.

Well as long as my posts are of some value to someone, even if its for entertainment. But really, unless you are going to support that accusation, it's worthless.

 

[phoenixthoth]

contact, the movie.

joss asks ellie to prove that she loved her father.

points out the inherent difficulty in proving things that are (perhaps by definition) ephemeral in nature.

i've heard somewhere that while there's no evidence against God's existence, there's also no evidence against the existence of pink elephants on alpha centauri. while that may be true, the existence of pink elephants on alpha centauri contradicts what we know wheras the existence of God is a non-contradiction. I'm not, of course, saying that anything that is a non-contradiction exists. what would be a proof of existence in any context? observation? does (insert a country you've never been to here) exist? has any "sound research" been done on its existence? are the observations of observers constituting a proof? but observation will never reveal, for sure, that a God exists. it is impossible to observe an infinite trait in finite time; proof of an infinite trait would, if at all, not come through observation. so if observation won't prove a being with any infinite traits exists, that means something not based on observation will be required. that means science is not going to be helpful whatsoever. the next choice one may make is philosophy but the problem is always going to be the basis of a philosophical argument on unprovable assumptions (what constitutes a proof of existence, what constitutes knowledge, what is existence, etc.).

in general, how does one *prove* that something exists? I'm fairly convinced that observation, while sometimes useful, won't ever be able to observe an infinite trait and, hence, God won't be "proven" to exist observationally as one might "prove" that a computer screen exists through observation. but does observation always prove something exists? does it ever prove something exists? I'm thinking about people who see things that either no one does or only a few others do. do those things observed (that few others can observe, if any) exist? I'm assuming the answer is either yes or no. both seem to lead to consequences many many people wouldn't like; then again, perhaps many people didn't like finding out the Earth was not the center of the universe, either. perhaps fuzzy logic is a perfect fit for ontology. instead of evaluating the truth of "X exists" with either 0 or 1, evaluate it with any value in [0,1]. but then again, there are different kinds of existence: "real" and "imaginary." interesting, to me, that the complex numbers (numbers with "real" and "imaginary" components) are just a higher dimensional version of the real numbers. other terms used are real and illusional, concrete and abstract, form and formless, iconic and conceptual, material and spiritual, lower dimensional and higher dimensional, nonfictional and fictional... the thing to note is that things of the second variety really do exist just in a way much different from the first kind of existence.

i had this idea that everything we observe (matter/energy) is just the icon for the full higher dimensional construct and what we observe is the projection of this higher dimensional space, or spirit world, onto the physical plane. and in some sense, the icon isn't as real, or as complete, as the full construct and is in some sense an illusion. illusions exist.

the universe would have to be the icon for God and God is the preimage of the universe under this projection. in short, God is all that is. from this, i can make a case for omnipresence and omniscience but not omnipotence. :(

 

[sci-fi guy]

Hello Everyone! I'm kind of new to this forum, but I found this topic to be very interesting.

I have many questions about the existence of God. The main one being, why does God choose to keep himself hidden from us humans? I mean hidden in the sense that the only way one can know or feel God is through "faith" alone…no real, tangible way of sensing or feeling God. I would much rather make a decision based on a factual evaluation rather than faith. I haven't forged the relationships that I have in life based on faith. I've based my friendships and relationships on the behavior/traits that I observed in someone else. I THEN made my decision to pursue a friendship or relationship with those people that I deemed worthy, as we all do.

To me, it seems like God is a parent that has gone away on vacation and left a note on the table (the bible) with instructions on how his children should live. Then God reserves the right to cast us into Hell when we make bad/wrong decisions in life. I mean, it takes 18 years before a parent's job is done raising a child…and that's with hands-on interaction everyday! Imagine a parent leaving a note, coming back 18 years later and then casting judgment on their children because they're not happy with the choices that they've made.

Humans are born with all of the senses that are vital for living…touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight. Why no sense of absolute, innate, unquestionable FAITH? The one sense that will determine our eternal destiny. I'd say that's a pretty important sense! It just seems that if it's our very souls that are at stake here, why doesn't God make himself more visible are knowable? It certainly wouldn't change his word and I'm sure many, many people that were on the fence or non-believers would change their minds and reconsider their beliefs.

It seems that in the end, a belief in God is based more on fear of damnation rather than love of God… at least, that's how I've been feeling lately. So much hurt, pain and bad stuff in this world…it just makes me wonder. Why is there so much mystery involved with God…it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. If God is God, then seeing, feeling, touching and talking directly to him wouldn't change a thing. Just things I've been thinking about lately. I wish I had answers as opposed to questions…

 

[Merlin]

hmmmm ahhh ! well you seem to be talking at me rather than to me. Read on..if you would be so kind...

1st point. We do seem to have a misunderstanding... you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species. Are we to have FAITH that these, and only these theories are correct? The answer? Yes.. Faith is required of the scientific method

two ... yes well you are not so egalitarian, so we balance nicely


Three.. The scientific method. Any moron would agree that science explains some of the world around us (for now) Yes, applied science works, (Sometimes). Hind sight is 20/20, Can you imagine a conversation with the Stephen Hawking of the day talking to a religious leader..." the celestial motions can be described thusly ...miles above this earth, there are crystal spheres with stars and planets (wondering stars) imbedded in it, yes dear student (and learned world), this is the paradigm that you will believe (Have FAITH in that scientific method).. for (pick a figure of how long this well meaning ignorance will last.mmmm 300 years is the norm). I would rather of been the pope, in that day. This is so old.

If we should come up with a TOE, it will be the first of many. Don't get me wrong! I love science. My formal study was in two scientific disciplines.However, most of the Darwinian faithful use it (science) as a pseudo religion. Science does not need to be in the business of religion or religious genocide.

 

[FZ+]

you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species.

Whoever gave you the idea that scientific theories are coveted and protected? Who said so?

It's hammering time...

Science is based on unfaith, a tacit assumption that all of our theories are wrong. The theories we hold right now are the ones that we haven't yet found the hammer to bash them into powder with. We have absolutely no faith in these - we just can't get rid of them without a reason to. That's why we keep looking.

I would rather of been the pope, in that day.

The pope was the guy who tortured people who disagreed with this. And because of this religious attitude, science died in europe for many years.

The scientific method is not about a set of ideas that we hold dogmatically close to our hearts. The scientific method is about an attitude of both wonder and skepticism. A child looking at the stars is a better scientist than a professor reciting from books.

The scientific favour for evolution comes from the fact that it gives results and that it is ultimately vulnerable. In fact, darwinism in its old form has long been destroy and replaced.

 

[phoenixthoth]

there are roughly two kinds of people in relation to science and roughly two kinds of people in relation to spiritual matters/religion.

one type of science person basically would agree with what FZ+ just posted. i don't think most of the population knows this and i think most of (or much of) the population does treat science like dogma and it is believed in. science books can sometimes be treated like some people treat bibles: taking everything as true on faith without much thought. to a person who hasn't done the experiment for themselves, it is interesting to note that one will gladly accept/assume that water is H20 (or any result) while rejecting everything in the bible or accept everything in the bible but be skeptical of science.

then there's a nother kind of science person who actually thinks about what they're doing. perhaps the only faith maintained is that it is best to remain unfaithful to the "dogma". FZ+ is probably of the second variety.

there are, believe it or not, the same two types of religious/spiritual people as well.

sheep and ?

 

[Mumeishi]

Learning to challenge and think critically is more sophisticated than learning facts. That's why schoolchildren are initially taught about the world in terms of facts, as if the world was cut up into discrete and absolutely known units. The real world and the real state of human understanding is much more complex than this. Many people's scientific education doesn't go far beyond this rote teaching of facts and consequently they don't really grasp what science is.

I think that much of the anti-science / anti-rational counter-current we see is due to this as science is perceived as this leviathan of dogma and lifeless equations.

Perhaps its a shortcoming of the way we teach. Perhaps it's just an inevitability we have to accept.

 

[Mumeishi]

Merlin,

I never asked for proof of God. Why would I when i know such things are impossible? That question was asked by the thread-starter.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Merlin
1st point. We do seem to have a misunderstanding... you were asking for "proof" that God exists when you can't prove the most fundamental and most coveted (scientific) theories are correct from the big bang to evolution of the species. Are we to have FAITH that these, and only these theories are correct? The answer? Yes.. Faith is required of the scientific method

Personally I disagree with the term 'prove', in both the scientific and theistic arenas. I prefer the ideas of evidence - good evidence, strong evidence, weak evidence, etc.

Some things must be taken as axiomatic, that we exist, that our senses do relate to the real world, that certain aspects of reality are consistent thru the majority of time and space. There is a large leap from accepting that my senses relate to actions in reality and to there being an all-powerful sentient being pulling the strings from behind the cosmic curtain.

While most things are not proven in science, most of the generally accepted concepts are supported by strong, objective evidence.

IMO, good, objective evidence to support the existence of an aware, all-powerful diety that interacts with humans doesn't exist.

However, I consider religion a highly personal affair. If you have had an experience that provides you with the evidence you need, that's fine.

The only objections I have with those of theistic religions is when they try to force thru laws to enforce some religious belief, manipulate school science curriculums to pervert scientific teaching to align with some particular religious view (eg creationism), or when trying to use specious evidence or logic to demonstrate that their position is the most rational.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by radagast

IMO, good, objective evidence to support the existence of an aware, all-powerful diety that interacts with humans doesn't exist.

It does exist. It is all around you, me, everyone. The logical highly organized universe itself is one example. Life itself is another. You and me are yet two more examples. All of these things are so unique, so unlikely and so little understood that there is little or no evidence of any kind to support any theory, hypothesis or belief in its origins or even what it is. I say that all of the above indcate intelligence, purpose and intent involved in their very exisence as well as there organization and functionality. this to me indicates and supports the believe in a higher being, creator. This evidence is supported by my personal experience of which there is no way you or anyone else could know or experience. All of this makes it logical for me to believe in a greater being/creator/God.

Some one else, you for instance, will look at these same things and say it is science and the laws of science and all that is is material objectivity. They say tha there is no evidence that logical supports any other conclusion.

Who is right? Who is logical and who is illogical. If these two opposite opinions are extremes the what of all the opinions in between? Is there degrees of logic? Logic has nothing to do with reality. With right or wrong. My logic is just as valid as your logic yet they point in opposite directions.

This indicates to me the logic is not applicable nor is the laws and rules of science. This is why it is philosophy, metaphysics. I reason one way, accept evidence to indicate and support one set of beliefs. You reason another way, accept the same evidence to indicate and support something entirely different. Who is wrong? Neither. Who is logical? Neither. Logic does not apply and right or wrong cannot yet be determined by objectivity and emperical evidence alone. The answer remains personal and depends on the way we look at the world and reality and what we are willing to accept.

 

[radagast]

Royce,
The Argument by Design, which is how I read the above, suffers severe problems. Things are well organized by what scale? These are all extremely subjective reasonings.

True we live in a reality where certain physical constants, if randomly chosen, would make our reality improbable. This suffers from two troubling aspects: 1) we exist, so even if the constants were arrived at via chance, that can't be used to say it was a higher probability that our existence was designed; 2) it would be a gross assumption to assume that these constants were arrived at by chance, rather than dependent on unobserved, physical reality that dictates there values. eg - if you assume that atoms of sugar aggregate at random, upon solidification from solution, then crystals of sugar seem to defy all probability - yet there is an underlying principle that makes them form, as the lower energy state solution to the problem of how it solidifies.

Once life occurs, the trial and error of natural selection and evolution hones the 'well-organized' aspects of life.

Because there is no objective evidence for said designer that can't be explained just as easily by physical means, and that the designer actually adds complications and raises many added questions, it makes this the less rational choice (objectively speaking) due to Occams razor.

Most severe, of all the problems in the 'argument by design', revolve around the idea that all arguments applied to the universe, can be turned against the 'solution' of the designer. i.e. An intelligent designer, because of his higher complexity, would need an intelligent designer, ad-infinitum. Any (cop-out) idea, such as 'God has always been, so didn't need designing' can also be applied to the underlying reality that caused the physical universe we see, without the immense baggage an all-powerful, sentient creator.

These all apply only to objective inquiry - any personal, non-objective evidence may be quite valid, but in outside the scope of the arguments presented.

Royce, I do not consider your views illogical, however, Occams razor does point toward one view being the more rational - given the evidence we have at present. I would caution that there was a slight 'god-of-the-gaps' aspect to some of the things you said. Just because something is of unknown cause, doesn't lend credence to yet another specific unobserved, unevidenced, yet highly defined cause.

 

[Rader]

Because there is no objective evidence for said designer that can't be explained just as easily by physical means, and that the designer actually adds complications and raises many added questions, it makes this the less rational choice (objectively speaking) due to Occams razor.

Occams Razor > One should not increase beyond what is necessary, the number of constructs required to explain anything.


Someday Occams razor, might be used to cut his own throat, if he finds out that, the only construct needed, is a magic wand, to explain everything.

 

[FZ+]

Someday Occams razor, might be used to cut his own throat, if he finds out that, the only construct needed, is a magic wand, to explain everything.

The trouble with this, and any "God which can do anything" argument, is the need for an infinite number of anti-magic wands to eliminate all the things that don't happen. In short, this sort of construct doesn't explain anything at all.

 

[phoenixthoth]

neither does "God works in mysterious ways" whenever something can't be explained.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by FZ+
The trouble with this, and any "God which can do anything" argument, is the need for an infinite number of anti-magic wands to eliminate all the things that don't happen. In short, this sort of construct doesn't explain anything at all.

Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.

 

[Infomeantion]

I don't understand how you can ask for proof of something existing or not before you define the terms, but then again I don't understand much.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Rader
Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.

I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by radagast
I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

You show in your profile that you are a chemist or interested in its studies.
The development of a gene into a protein, is a good way to understand and comprehend SAS, as the units used in its construction, can be physically seen by us, in the objective world.
A gene can produce not only a protein but a exponential quantity of different types, to effect its end, that is for the biological entity to persist, develope and function. The knowledge in one unit seems to be in all units. On this level SAS is complex in its finished product and simple in its basic construct the gene. This same factor is seen on all levels of the evolutive chain from strings to humans. The farther we delve into the micro the simpler the basic constuct. The knowledge to build complexity is in the simplest constructs.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

If SAS was more complicated, the smaller we delve, that would be true, but we do not find the micro more complicated, than the macro, it is the opposite. Your making the word construct into the word axiom. A construct is a tool that links the laws of the axioms in the builing block. An example to build a wall of bricks you need a constuct=brick and you need fouraxioms=up,down,left,right

 

[radagast]

Radar,
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence (other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

 

[agnostictheist]

General

Not that I have read all the posts, but a small point:

Occam´s razor, IS not the simplist explination is simply the
best one. rather if we have two expinations, that say fit a given
set of data. We pick the one with the less premises, because simply
put we have to "back up" less!

sometimes the simple answer is bassed on ignorance or worse still,
plane flat out wrong!

 

[EvilPoet]

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by radagast
Radar, Rader
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Why is it? Everytime you drop to another evolutive level, SAS is simpler. I am talking about SAS on all levels not just biological levels with brains.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence(other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Self awareness is a gifted property, unique of humans, that for now, we can only test in humans. In can be argued though, that physical mechanisms are self aware, but not the way humans are. Is not the atom self aware of electo-magnetic covalent bonding. Its self aware of nothing else. The constuct is its bonding and the axioms are the properties of the atom. This is by far much simpler than a gene.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

Any system that is simpler than the next complex system is an example.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Rader
The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.

Yes, short out reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence by going straight for the primal drives: start with fear then introduce unconditional love and forgiveness as an escape from that fear.

 

[phoenixthoth]

short it out?

it seem to me that there's a short if reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence is thought to be an infinitely powerful tool able to figure everything out.

seems to me that it's quite the opposite of it shorting out to realize that there are limits to reason and critical, discriminating thought. is that to say that reason and critical thought should be thrown out the window completely or just on something, one thing in fact, which, by definition practically, cannot succumb to the analytical knife?

 

[Mumeishi]

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

 

[Royce]

The following is what I understand and believe to be true. The entity whom some of us call God, the creator is outside of time and space. This in not magical or special. It simply means that God is not of objective material reality. Thus there is no emperical evidence that he does or does not exist.
There is however more to the universe and reality than the objective material universe that we can see and measure. There is no emberical evidence that I exist either. Yes my body is material but what and who and where is Royce, the entity that dwells in that body, is conscious and self aware? There is no way that I or anyone can prove that they exist to another. Yet I am not hiding nor withdrawn. There is no evidence other than my posts that any of you can see or measure that proves that I, Royce, exist in objective reality. I assure you that I, or at least my body, do exist and interact with objective material reality.
I have often wondered why an agnostic or athiest would look at science, the objective material world for emperical evidence of the exiestence of a subjective spiritual being. Is this logical. It reminds me of an old joke: A drunk was down on his ands and knees under a street light looking for something. A cop comes by and asks him what he is doing. The drunk says I'm looking for my keys. The cop asks where he lost them. The drunk says over there pointing down the street. "Well if you lost them over there why are you looking here?"; the cop asks. "Because the light is better here."; says the drunk.
The point: Don't look where God ain't. Look where you will find him. He isn't hiding; he simply is not where your looking.

 

[Mumeishi]

In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

you're very incorrect if you thought that was an argument especially if it was meant to be an argument for the existence of God.

furthermore, the argument behind ALL arguments of science are based on the word 'seems.' gravity SEEMS to operate in an inverse sqare law or space-time SEEMS to be curved or my research SEEMS to be sound and SEEMS to be objective and my logic SEEMS to be limitless and what i wrote SEEMS to be an argument for the existence of God which SEEMS to be incorrect in addition to my thoughts being controlled by aliens SEEMS to be incorrect and we will SEEM to forget that what we consider "evidence" is what SEEMS to be evidence though we only underscore the word SEEM when we think it's a crackpot theory, suggesting that what is considered to be evidence is only what SEEMS to be evidence when it SEEMINGLY suits us and SEEM to forget that we always know that evidence only SEEMS to be evidence.

stop me if i seem to be wrong. i hope you can see the trap that seems to set. if you seem to think I'm wrong, then you may have proved the point that i only seem to be wrong and if you don't stop me then I'm right. either way, i win. at least i win until i underscore the word seems in, "i hope you can see the trap that seems to set."

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?

The words I wrote was that there is no emperical evidence, not that there was no evidence. I realize that nonemperical evidence is unacceptable to some and constitutes no evidence at all.
I do not presuppose the existence of God. When I was young I was agnostic. As I got older and began looking around and meditating I had personal experiences which convinced me of the existence of God, that God is the creator and master of the universe and the sourse of life, love, light and truth. I do not believe in biblical genesis or creationism.
Thru meditation and study I began to realize the the material universe was not all of reality but only one aspect of reality.
I don't have to do anything to demonstrate the reality of God; nor, can I in any way that would be acceptable to you or anyone else. You have to experience alternate realities and God for yourself in order to believe or be convinced. I am saying that we cannot and will not find God under a microscope or in a particle accelerator.
Yet if you believe, and that is the prerequisite, you will see God everywhere you look and wonder why others cannot see him/it.
Any and all material objectivists, as long as they refuse to look or accept that there is more to reality than what they can see and measure, will never find evidence of God. Nor, will they be able to understand those that do believe. It is appearantly a human condition to ridicule and belittle that which we can't understand.
Thus religion is the opiate of the masses, we who do know or believe are deluded or charlitans deluding others, or just plain stupid.
Need I say that it is a two-way road.
However, some of us who have been there, understand.

 

[Mumeishi]

Phoenix,

Good point. We don't know anything with absolute certainty, so all our understanding is ultimately based on how things appear. But its essential to note that there are ways to eliminate much bias and subjective distortion, that science is based on objective verification meaning that the same experiment should produce the same relults no matter who does it. Purely subjective experiences are not admissable as evidence because they contradict one another and without additional verification they may be no more than psychological events.

 

[Mumeishi]

Royce,

No matter how persuasive they seem, subjective experiences on their own have no value as evidence. Take a walk into a mental institution to find out why. Someone may have a personal experience that convinces him that he is John the Baptist, or that aliens are controlling his brain. Someone may have a personal experience that God loves her and another person may have a personal experience that he is the incarnation of Aten the one true god of the sun. They could have a subjective experience that they were flying or able to turn into a jaguar or invincible. I could go on.

 

[Rader]

Ethics ontology epistemology

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameters for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Rader
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not eveyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

[The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameteres for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.

 

[Royce]

Mumeishi, of course you could go on and on (and frequently do ) as could I. Your post affirms just what I said in my last post. My personal experience is unacceptable to anyone and everyone else just as are yours or anyone else's . I may well be just as crazy and deluded as those poor souls in the mental institution. I often wonder and have doubts myself.
My one and only point is that there is "more under the stars than is drempt of by your philosophers, Horatio." Just because you see no evidence of anything proves only that you are looking in the wrong place. If we look only at the physical we see only the physical.
If the only tool that we have is a hammer then we treat everything as if it is a nail (to borrow a phrase from Les). That is my point. As I said in my first post in this thread, there is no proof of God nor can anyone prove the existence of God to anyone else. The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

 

[Rader]

The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

Never better stated. It comes down to consciounsess you either are or are not conscious that God exists. When you reach that level of consciousness you will be conscious of it.

 

[Mumeishi]

*sighs*

 

[Infomeantion]

I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

 

[Merlin]

the big bang and religion

There should be a balance between religion and science. Neither can answer the big question conclusively. I agree with most contemporary cosmological models, and mainstream theories going back to the Big Bang.
The question is ,how does this infinite point become this universe, and what started the process? BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

I have read and understand most of the major theories, all have fatal flaws. Science should strive to describe our universe,and embrace the metaphysical. I suspect (know) that the "spooky action at distance" (Einstein skeptically lamenting collapse of the wave function)and the metaphysical will become part of TOE![/color]

Merlin[/color][/size]

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Infomeantion
I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Mumeishi]

BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.

 

[Infomeantion]

----------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some silly questions that come to mind:

Is there evidence that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' exists?
Is there evidence that evidence exists?
Is 'proof', meaning 'beyond reasonable doubt', a keystone in science or is it called reproducability?
How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
What came first the chicken or the neutron? (Hint: which chicken?)

Sorry, but like I said, I've enjoyed these posts and yours as well, so you can just ignore the chicken one if you want.

 

[Mumeishi]

I suppose you can go into an endless spiral of skepticism if you're really keen, but I don't think I'll be coming along.