[Tar-Palantir]

I feel the need to quote Voltaire, and if he's already be quoted in this thread, then it was about time he was quoted again. He said that 'if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him' sor words to this effect. Discuss.

By this argument, it is shown that demanding an explanation for the existence of God is invalid.

Surely this is basically just saying that it just is, to give an example: in a court of law, the prosicutions legal team couldn't say simiply this man is guilty. Why? He just is. Again we come back to the question of evidence.

This also reminds me slightly of a science cartoon of a few years back. Basically it showed what was known about the workings of the insulin receptor. Basically it read:

Insulin -----> Binds to Receptor ------> Then something happens ------> Glucose taken up into the cell.

The relevance of this cartoon to the threat (there is one!) is that all the evidence seems to be of the 'Then something happens' variety, ie it does not explain how these thing happen.

[CP5670]

Actually, I'm thinking in terms of logical causality: neither time nor quantum mechanics nor Newton have anything to do with it.

But to show you what I mean, here's a quick example in the sort of vein you are talking about.  We are familiar with the time travel paradox where I go back in time and assassinate Hilter before he comes to power in Germany. If I succeed I have no reason to go back, so I don't go back, so I don't assassinate him, so I do have a reason to go back, ad infinitum.  The paradox occurs when we forget that, regardless of temporality, there must be a beginning and end to the logical sequence of causation.  So in quantum theory, which is the basis of your objection, an effect may well preceed its cause temporally, but in that process what brings about the cause must be something else.  If it were not so, the situation would never arise in the first place.  You have to distinguish between temporal sequence and logical sequence here, CP5670.

The process of "bringing about something" is a temporal thing however; the whole concept of cause and effect is completely intertwined with time, which is what QM tells us. See, in a temporal sense from our point of view, this is basically just an open-ended line, while from the logical sequence it is a circle. The process that brings about the cause is the effect itself. If time is disregarded, which is what you are attempting to do, all events are one event that causes itself. Nothing to do with individuals travelling back and forth in time and whatnot.

One more thing about the "beginning and end;" the time sequence can even be unlooped without having any such things; just have it open ended and infinite in both directions compared to our perception of passing time. This is like the open-ended real line; whatever number you take, you will have several that are higher (or lower), so that trying to find a "highest number" is a meaningless pursuit.

Sorry, your god proof fails. (actually, some christian philosopher, Aquinas I think, gave this exact same argument to "prove" that god exists, but it was refuted by Kant)

Fine, I'll clarify. Tautologies don't actually tell us anything about the world; they are merely language talking about itself.  2+2=4 doesn't tell me anything about whether there are two oranges on my desk or not.  But when we ask whether something exists, the subject matter is a contingent a posteriori proposition.  
(For the record, the original philosopher did define "existential proposition" for the purposes of his argument as refering to contingent  a posteriori reality and not tautological statements prior to presenting the argument, but I didn't bother to include it.  My bad.)

Besides, for a tautology, it is entailed by a set of propositions which happens to include only one member (itself), so the original statement was technically true.

That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you quoted there; so much for every proposition being tied to this particular assumption. These two types of propositions are really exactly the same things by the way; there is no way for humans to make propositions that lie completely in either category, and I say that no such distinction is really necessary in the first place.

What's the deal with italicizing those latin things btw? They have more or less become full parts of English.

To CP: I find it very interensting that you and others try to "prove" God can't exist with math and/or "logical" thinking. But you fail in one very important area. You miss that fact that Christians believe God is all powerful, meaning he can do anything he wants, whenever He wants.

Yes, but I made god, and I am thus god's god. Therefore the very fact that I am asserting this is more than sufficient proof for all of you, because I am even more powerful than all powerful.

Christian: How could you know that? To know that would imply that you know everything. And to know everything would imply that you are a god.

That's exactly what I am saying. There is the green dragon (aka the god), the purple dragon and myself, and we are the gods. You now go to hell!

I feel the need to quote Voltaire, and if he's already be quoted in this thread, then it was about time he was quoted again. He said that 'if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him' sor words to this effect. Discuss.

Incidentally, this was given for one the endings in Deus Ex. Then in another place, it is said that, "you will soon have your god, and you will make it with your own hands."

[01010]

Originally posted by CP5670

Incidentally, this was given for one the endings in Deus Ex. Then in another place, it is said that, "you will soon have your god, and you will make it with your own hands."

I never completed Deus Ex, lost interest after the mission in the french chateau.

Carry on.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Tar-Palantir
Surely this is basically just saying that it just is,

Not exactly, no.  What this is saying is that trying to find an explanation for what is by definition inexplicable makes no sense.  This doesn't say anything about whether said inexplicable entity exists or not, but only that if it does, asking for an explanation of its existence is a nonsensical question.

Does God exist?  It can't be irrefutably proven that he does, nor that he doesn't.  It is a matter of seeing which make more sense given our experience of reality.  I do not and will never claim that Christianity is a sure thing, and deny anyone who claims it is.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


...The process that brings about the cause is the effect itself...

I am well acquainted with quantum theory and its possibility of effect temporally preceeding cause.  But it does not imply what you seem to think it does, CP.  This aspect of QM means that the direction of causality does not necessarily have to be the same as the direction of temporality, not that the cause->effect relationship is self-recursive.

For a simple example, lets say we set up a wormhole "time machine" as in this article to give us the ability to do QM type effect-before-cause experiments.  We have a quantum wormhole whose mouths are so arranged that an object entering one will emerge from the other a few moments earlier in the timeline.  Now imagine a ball passing through the wormhole, giving us our QM type effect-before-cause situation.  What will that look like?  The human imagination comes up with the 3 following scenarios:





Option 3 gives the actual way things would work insofar as self-causation goes.  Because of the collision, the ball is knocked into the wormhole, which is a logical prerequisite for the collsion to take place.  But notice that the system is not self-perpetuating: it happens once, and moreover requires a prior cause (Kip Thorn throwing the ball towards his wormholes) to start the scenario at all.

The logical sequence is maintained, despite the temporal reversal of direction.  That's what this aspect of quantum theory does.

Sorry, your god proof fails. (actually, some christian philosopher, Aquinas I think, gave this exact same argument to "prove" that god exists, but it was refuted by Kant)

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Note that this isn't a proof of God.  One can choose either of the two options above.  But number two comes at a subtle, but actually quite hefty, intellectual cost...

That's nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you quoted there;

I made a statement about a posteriori, and thus non-tautological, existential propositions (ones that propose something-or-other exists) but did not explicitly state that I meant a posteriori ones.  You raised an a priori tautological statement as an example for objection.  I clarified my original intended meaning in the argument as a result.

The argument is concerned entirely with existential propostions about contingent reality.  Your tautology is irrelevant, not my quote.

These two types of propositions are really exactly the same things by the way; there is no way for humans to make propositions that lie completely in either category, and I say that no such distinction is really necessary in the first place.

Contingent=may or may not be true, can only be known by observation.  All a posteriori statements are contingent.
Necessary=must be true if true, or must be false if false, require no observation of reality to be demonstrated.  Necessary existential propositions are tautological, telling us nothing about the actual world, just how words are to be defined.

Seems like a pretty big difference to me.  Something of an impassable chasm, actually.

What's the deal with italicizing those latin things btw? They have more or less become full parts of English.

I'm a purist.

[CP5670]

Option 3 gives the actual way things would work insofar as self-causation goes. Because of the collision, the ball is knocked into the wormhole, which is a logical prerequisite for the collsion to take place. But notice that the system is not self-perpetuating: it happens once, and moreover requires a prior cause (Kip Thorn throwing the ball towards his wormholes) to start the scenario at all.

The logical sequence is maintained, despite the temporal reversal of direction. That's what this aspect of quantum theory does.

The problem here arises from the fact that you are taking different frames of reference from which to measure the events, and both the logical and the temporal things are jumbled up if you break down the logical steps into a continuum. From any one frame of reference, you cannot really put it as you did there, since the question arises where did the "other" ball come from. In this case that is indeed what is happening, but by a causal loop, I am talking about something like the hindu "eternal cycle." (the universe as a system must be independent of "outside" things of course, but that is not a problem here)

But we are going off the subject here; as I said, even this sort of periodicity is not necessary, since you can just have a doubly open-ended line of logical causation. There cannot exist things that are not possible to explain (that is, if there exist other things that are possible to explain), in the same way that there cannot exist a number that has no numbers greater than it; that's the whole essence of infinity.

Contingent=may or may not be true, can only be known by observation. All a posteriori statements are contingent.
Necessary=must be true if true, or must be false if false, require no observation of reality to be demonstrated. Necessary existential propositions are tautological, telling us nothing about the actual world, just how words are to be defined.

Seems like a pretty big difference to me. Something of an impassable chasm, actually

"Must be true if true?" I think that is rather obvious. But what I am saying is that there is neither an exclusively contingent statement or a necessary one; all statements are both. (everything requires both observation and theory) Observation itself is completely meaningless without the theory, at least in a practical sense; theory can of course exist without observation but it will not then have any bearing on the real world.

I made a statement about a posteriori, and thus non-tautological, existential propositions (ones that propose something-or-other exists) but did not explicitly state that I meant a posteriori ones. You raised an a priori tautological statement as an example for objection. I clarified my original intended meaning in the argument as a result.

The argument is concerned entirely with existential propostions about contingent reality. Your tautology is irrelevant, not my quote.

What tautology? That statement is indeed independent of others, and as I said earlier, all propositions are existential to some extent anyway by the very fact that they can be stated.

Does God exist? It can't be irrefutably proven that he does, nor that he doesn't. It is a matter of seeing which make more sense given our experience of reality.

This bit sounds good. Now we must turn to rules for forming new axioms so that we get something that does not depend so much on a single person's experience, and more importantly, eliminates other stuff. (the existence probabilities of god, the purple dragon, little green men, and shivans are currently equal, but they all cannot be true and still have things consistent, so we only want one) Also, it makes more sense to go for things that are consistent with existing knowledge first and then, if those fail, try the inconsistent things, since that could possibly save us some work as opposed to the probabilities of it turning out so for the alternative. (god in your sense would be inconsistent with science, so we first assume science and no god, and if/when we reach a dead-end, we ditch science and assume the god, and see where that gets us)

I will let you have the last word this time, as I do not have enough time to continue with this right now (SAT coming up in a week; need to study for that), but perhaps we can resume it sometime later.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


The problem here arises from the fact that you are taking different frames of reference from which to measure the events, and both the logical and the temporal things are jumbled up if you break down the logical steps into a continuum. From any one frame of reference, you cannot really put it as you did there, since the question arises where did the "other" ball come from.

Either you didn't read the article referenced before the illustrations and thus misunderstood what was going on in them, or you need to reformulate the preceeding much more clearly.

but by a causal loop, I am talking about something like the hindu "eternal cycle." (the universe as a system must be independent of "outside" things of course, but that is not a problem here)

An eternal loop falls into much the same category as Error #2: with no initial cause, it is a logical nonsense that it should exist, and if it should exist, logic must be sacrificed.  Where the one is, the other is not and cannot be.

Why must the universe be independent of outside things?  The claim is not self-evident.  What justification can you offer for this?

But we are going off the subject here; as I said, even this sort of periodicity is not necessary, since you can just have a doubly open-ended line of logical causation. There cannot exist things that are not possible to explain (that is, if there exist other things that are possible to explain), in the same way that there cannot exist a number that has no numbers greater than it; that's the whole essence of infinity.

Infinite regress is not logically valid either.  It is antithetical to logic in the same way as the causal loop: if the logical chain is an infinite regress, it can't happen at all, and if it does, logic is removed from the scene.  The infinite stack of turtles is rejected not simply because the world is round, but because it fundamentally makes no sense.  Your analogy with the infinity of a number line fails, because there is no connection between -12 and 2 analogous to the connection between two elements in a logical chain.  Numbers are simply denominations: no causal connection or anything like it is put between them.

"Must be true if true?" I think that is rather obvious. But what I am saying is that there is neither an exclusively contingent statement or a necessary one; all statements are both. (everything requires both observation and theory) Observation itself is completely meaningless without the theory, at least in a practical sense; theory can of course exist without observation but it will not then have any bearing on the real world.

Exactly, it will not have any bearing on the real world.  Likewise, "This is a true statement" is true by virtue of the meanings of the words themselves, and therefore tells us nothing about the world.  "The natural realm exists" is not true by definition, but only true contingently: it is logically possible that it not be true.  It is a completely different sort of statement.  

What you say about observation being dependent on theory (or better, the a posteriori requiring the a priori to be intelligible) is true, but beside the point: it is given that we have our words with which to describe reality and cannot do so without them, but whether the description we posit using them is true is not a function of those words, but of reality.  That is the type of statement under discussion in the argument I posted.  We don't care about the words, only about whether what they are saying is true.

What tautology? That statement is indeed independent of others, and as I said earlier, all propositions are existential to some extent anyway by the very fact that they can be stated.

A tautologous statement is one true by virtue of its logical form alone.  "The hockey team will either win or lose the game" is another such example.  "This is a true statement" tells us nothing about the world, just as "All bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't.  It is merely language defining itself.

This bit sounds good. Now we must turn to rules for forming new axioms so that we get something that does not depend so much on a single person's experience, and more importantly, eliminates other stuff. (the existence probabilities of god, the purple dragon, little green men, and shivans are currently equal, but they all cannot be true and still have things consistent, so we only want one)

And quarks, the past existence of the Roman Empire, and that Shrike is an administrator of HLP.  It's all on an initial playing field.

There's a problem with your proposal though.  No matter how many people's experiences we collate, they are still individual experiences.  The very essence of experience dooms any attempt to go beyond individuals.  No one has ever succeeded in such an attempt.

god in your sense would be inconsistent with science

Now THAT is a pretty bold claim to make.  Your going to have to work pretty hard to justify that one (despite the claims of such as HotSnoJ).

I will let you have the last word this time, as I do not have enough time to continue with this right now (SAT coming up in a week; need to study for that), but perhaps we can resume it sometime later.

Good luck.

[CP5670]

Ah well, I think I can add in one more before ending this and going to bed.

Either you didn't read the article referenced before the illustrations and thus misunderstood what was going on in them, or you need to reformulate the preceeding much more clearly. )

An eternal loop falls into much the same category as Error #2: with no initial cause, it is a logical nonsense that it should exist, and if it should exist, logic must be sacrificed.  Where the one is, the other is not and cannot be.

Infinite regress is not logically valid either.  It is antithetical to logic in the same way as the causal loop: if the logical chain is an infinite regress, it can't happen at all, and if it does, logic is removed from the scene.  The infinite stack of turtles is rejected not simply because the world is round, but because it fundamentally makes no sense.  Your analogy with the infinity of a number line fails, because there is no connection between -12 and 2 analogous to the connection between two elements in a logical chain.  Numbers are simply denominations: no causal connection or anything like it is put between them.

This is not true at all; if we exist at a time when both ends go off into infinity, things can certainly work that way from this particular perspective in time, since the whole concept of "happening" (or causing) only makes any sense from any one perspective within time. This should be obvious enough from the basic theory of real numbers. I'm just giving the real number line as an example; one connection between -12 and 2 is that 2=-12+14, so you can think of it as 14 steps ahead of -12. So if one assigns an event to each number and arranges them in order of causality, you would basically get the real number line, where there is no such thing as a first or last event. (you can rename "infinity" to "god," but infinity is not a number at all, but rather represents a large range of numbers) There is no logical problem at all because the present time is surrounded by infinity in both directions, so any one event you take, you will always have another event preceding it, since the single event is exactly nothing in comparison with any infinity of events; as I said, this is the way the whole concept of infinity works. This is possibly the single most important idea behind all of analysis.

See, you keep thinking in traditional finite terms here, and some of those fail when moving into different levels of infinity. What you are claiming is equivalent to saying that god cannot exist because he was not created (caused) by something else, or that numbers cannot exist unless there is a lowest and highest number. Use math instead!

Why must the universe be independent of outside things?  The claim is not self-evident.  What justification can you offer for this?

Because it is the universe and thus encompasses everything; I should think that this is rather obvious. (or set of universes, if you like; the set of everything must be independent from outside things, since there are no outside things)

Exactly, it will not have any bearing on the real world.  Likewise, "This is a true statement" is true by virtue of the meanings of the words themselves, and therefore tells us nothing about the world.  "The natural realm exists" is not true by definition, but only true contingently: it is logically possible that it not be true.  It is a completely different sort of statement.

What you say about observation being dependent on theory (or better, the a posteriori requiring the a priori to be intelligible) is true, but beside the point: it is given that we have our words with which to describe reality and cannot do so without them, but whether the description we posit using them is true is not a function of those words, but of reality, and that is the type of statement under discussion in the argument I posted.  We don't care about the words, only about whether what they are saying is true.

A tautologous statement is one true by virtue of its logical form alone.  "The hockey team will either win or lose the game" is another such example.  "This is a true statement" tells us nothing about the world, just as "All bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't.  It is merely language defining itself.

I see; I got a different impression from the webster definition. Anyway, those statements are certainly saying something, about the definition of the word in this case. All such statements are bogged down in the confines of language, if you think about it; there is no way to escape that, and no way to really distinguish between your two types of statements.

And quarks, the past existence of the Roman Empire, and that Shrike is an administrator of HLP.  It's all on an initial playing field.

There's a problem with your proposal though.  No matter how many people's experiences we collate, they are still individual experiences.  The very essence of experience dooms any attempt to go beyond individuals.  No one has ever succeeded in such an attempt.

That sounds about right, but it's not as much of a problem as it seems in practice. We can certainly try to minimize the axioms used and use as much theorizing as possible, going only by observations that are generally agreed on. And the axioms that are absolutely necessary are already agreed on by almost everyone, and certainly both of us. There are other, much more formidable, difficulties before us in this process.

I think we need to know first if it is possible for anything in the universe to observe raw data (particle properties, if you will) and make absolutely no deductions on it. If this is possible, everything will be very easy, and if it is not, we are stuck in an existentalist-type universe and all deduction is pointless. If the quantum theory is completely true and all space is indeed discretely quantized, it would be a big step forward in this direction.

Now THAT is a pretty bold claim to make.  Your going to have to work pretty hard to justify that one (despite the claims of such as HotSnoJ).

I think not. This is very simple; the concept of "creation" is meaningless for one thing ("creating" something of nothing is impossible), and if a god existed, he could defy the laws of science at his random whims, and thus they would not be laws at all. If he could not, he would not be a god. Even you have said that god is not subject to science at all. Actually, for that matter, I don't see why he should be subject to logic either, so what's the point of using logic to argue for his existence?

Good luck.

thanks

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670
one connection between -12 and 2 is that 2=-12+14, so you can think of it as 14 steps ahead of -12.

But that is a description, not a causal relation or anything like it.  "All bachelors are unmarried men" carries no causal connection, and neither does "A=A".  Mathematics can be rationally indubitable precisely because it amounts merely to stating and restating definitions.

the present time is surrounded by infinity in both directions,

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.  This is begging the question.  Time could very well be infinite unidirectionally, or not at all.  Infinite possibility does not entail infinite actuality.

Because it is the universe and thus encompasses everything; I should think that this is rather obvious. (or set of universes, if you like; the set of everything must be independent from outside things, since there are no outside things)

Ah, a difference of terms then.  When I say universe, I mean the run-of-the-mill definition of universe as the spatio-temporal natural realm, and not the supernatural.  The set of all existent things is on its own, sure.  But why bring that up in the first place?  (Actually, it probably doesn't matter...)

I see; I got a different impression from the webster definition. Anyway, those statements are certainly saying something, about the definition of the word in this case. All such statements are bogged down in the confines of language, if you think about it; there is no way to escape that, and no way to really distinguish between your two types of statements.

Oh sure, they are saying something.  The difference between them and the second type is this: the first only refine our knowledge, making it clearer to us, whereas the second expand our knowledge.  The first only tell us things we already know, because they are necessarily true.  The second are the ones that actually make a difference, because they might not be true, and whether they are or not is what we want to know.

That sounds about right, but it's not as much of a problem as it seems in practice. We can certainly try to minimize the axioms used and use as much theorizing as possible, going only by observations that are generally agreed on. And the axioms that are absolutely necessary are already agreed on by almost everyone, and certainly both of us.

I doubt you'd find nearly so much agreement between people as you suppose.  One might think a basic greement on things like the existence of time and space would be certain to be agreed upon by all, but Buddhists and Jains and certain forms of Hindu religion(s) will deny that.  How are you going to justify deciding against them, if you do, or for them, if you do that?  Majority rules?  Probably won't work too well.  Considering the endless distinctions made between people, you'll only have minority groups.

I think we need to know first if it is possible for anything in the universe to observe raw data (particle properties, if you will) and make absolutely no deductions on it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, though it sounds interesting.  Please expand and clarify.

If the quantum theory is completely true and all space is indeed discretely quantized, it would be a big step forward in this direction.

What part of quantum theory are you getting that from?  Closest I've ever read was about the quantum energy levels of electrons orbiting an atom.  Quantanised space?

"creating" something of nothing is impossible

I see no logical impossibility.  Demonstrate that.  

Nothing can come from nothing, but if there is already a being with aseity (techincal term for "just-there-ness"), then there is not nothing, so a further creation is entirely logically possible.  

if a god existed, he could defy the laws of science at his random whims, and thus they would not be laws at all.

The laws of nature are descriptions, not prescriptions.  There is nothing necessary about them.  It is not valid to conclude from "Nature usually acts in this way" to "Therefore, nature must always act in this way, and if it did not that would be somehow self-contradictory."  And when a miraculous even does occur, that does not invalidate the scientific law, since it remains true that this is the way nature usually behaves.

Actually, for that matter, I don't see why he should be subject to logic either, so what's the point of using logic to argue for his existence?

[/b]Logic is held to be a property of God himself.  As such, it is not that he is subject to logic or not, but that he is the source of logic.

[CP5670]

But that is a description, not a causal relation or anything like it. "All bachelors are unmarried men" carries no causal connection, and neither does "A=A". Mathematics can be rationally indubitable precisely because it amounts merely to stating and restating definitions.

Okay, that last sentence is simply ridiculous and I think you well know it. (or if not, go argue with a local math professor, pure or applied ) As for the rest, just think of it as model and use to just to represent such a train of causal connections.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. This is begging the question. Time could very well be infinite unidirectionally, or not at all. Infinite possibility does not entail infinite actuality.

I'm just giving a possibility that works and does not involve any "first thing." Actually, this is the best explanation we have at the moment, which is why it is accepted by the majority of the scientific community today.

Ah, a difference of terms then. When I say universe, I mean the run-of-the-mill definition of universe as the spatio-temporal natural realm, and not the supernatural. The set of all existent things is on its own, sure. But why bring that up in the first place? (Actually, it probably doesn't matter...

Just bringing that up, since the causal loop cannot hold for individual particles without creating contradictions; the only way it works is if everything is in the loop and thus nothing can conflict with the system.

Oh sure, they are saying something. The difference between them and the second type is this: the first only refine our knowledge, making it clearer to us, whereas the second expand our knowledge. The first only tell us things we already know, because they are necessarily true. The second are the ones that actually make a difference, because they might not be true, and whether they are or not is what we want to know.

eh? Refining and expanding is the same thing when it comes to knowledge. If we are assuming the existence of an absolute reality, all statements are either true or false in that, and there is no such thing as "might be true." If one has not thought about it enough, it could also be said that my example might be either true or false also, so the same applies to any other statement, and it cannot be immediately said whether or not it is possible to ascertain a given statement's truth just from deduction.

I doubt you'd find nearly so much agreement between people as you suppose. One might think a basic greement on things like the existence of time and space would be certain to be agreed upon by all, but Buddhists and Jains and certain forms of Hindu religion(s) will deny that. How are you going to justify deciding against them, if you do, or for them, if you do that? Majority rules? Probably won't work too well. Considering the endless distinctions made between people, you'll only have minority groups.

They do? I don't know of any religion that rejects the assumption of the existence of an absolute reality; the religions you mentioned above say that the visible absolute reality is a subset of a bigger one. The extentialistists would be the only ones who think like this, but there are other problems if we go by that assumption.

The alternative of course, is pure extentialism, so that there is no such thing as an absolute reality, but then there is nothing further to discuss, and we would all get bored.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here, though it sounds interesting. Please expand and clarify.

Well, this point is a bit complicated and I don't have time to explain everything now, but the principal problem with the observation system today is that what is observed by individuals is not necessarily what is given as output. See, everyone may well (and probably does) observe the same things, as far as raw, pure, observation goes, but they all process and percieve that data differently. And even in the unlikely event that they do deduce the same thing, they may all say different things (simply lie) for reasons of their own. One of the main reasons for the lack of objectivity comes from grouping the sets of particles together in the mind rather than viewing the properties of each particle independently. So if it is possible to build an "observing machine" that can observe with true objectivity and perform no deductions, our problem would probably be solvable. If a true continuum exists, this is of course impossible, but if there is a fundamental unbreakable building block that is larger than a point, then it is quite possible. If the space is also quantized, the property of position would be non-continuous and therefore objectively observable (to certain degrees of error, but that's an entirely different matter).

This probably sounds like rambling, but I will elaboate on it some other time.

What part of quantum theory are you getting that from? Closest I've ever read was about the quantum energy levels of electrons orbiting an atom. Quantanised space?

Well, that much comes from its namesake, since "quantum" means discrete (as opposed to continuous); the latest version of the quantum theory says that space itself is discrete (not just the particles but also the medium they exist in), but this is not accepted by everyone the same way that the "old" quantum theory is. If this is true, it probably is possible to make truly objective observations by measuring individual particle properties. (not accurate, but objective)

I see no logical impossibility. Demonstrate that.

Nothing can come from nothing, but if there is already a being with aseity (techincal term for "just-there-ness"), then there is not nothing, so a further creation is entirely logically possible.

He would "lose" some of himself while creating it though, or it would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Also, the universal material was once part of god, so in a sense, the statement that all of us are just as much god as god himself is quite true from your assumptions.

The laws of nature are descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing necessary about them. It is not valid to conclude from "Nature usually acts in this way" to "Therefore, nature must always act in this way, and if it did not that would be somehow self-contradictory." And when a miraculous even does occur, that does not invalidate the scientific law, since it remains true that this is the way nature usually behaves.

It is "valid" as far as our purposes go; this sort of induction procedure is what science is all about, and without it there would be no science. If there is an exception, it's not a law anymore. The reason that certain special rules are called laws is exactly that; there cannot be exceptions to them, no matter what. If the god can make funky miracles happen all over the place, there would be no such laws at all, since he could randomly violate them at any time. (also, if he can, so can anything else eventually, which further means that the laws are no longer laws) You can reject science and accept religion or vice versa and still remain within the confines of conventional logic, but you cannot have both, or there would be glaring contradictions; the two are fundamentally incompatible.

Logic is held to be a property of God himself. As such, it is not that he is subject to logic or not, but that he is the source of logic.

In that case, he would be the "source" of science as well, and one would have to keep him in the confines of science when trying to determine whether or not he "exists."

This one will really be my last reply here (I would have not written this one but the subject is just irrestible, isn't it? ), unless you happen to reply in half an hour like last time, but that's unlikely.

[Lonestar]

Ther laws of man are not bound to God. Just because we say "this is law cause it always happens this way" doesnt mean there isnt a God who can break them, we are just humans still trying to find out how we tick and the world. To think we are smart enough to denounce God is purely ridiculous. You havent Disproven him, and making Laws dont make him disappear.

[CP5670]

I never said that we have disproven him; I said that it is more reasonable to assume that he does not exist as opposed the other alternative for the purposes of understanding other things. But laws are laws, so you either have the science or you have the god, but not both.

Although as I said, you might as well say that he is not bound to logic either, so he simply exists even if it was possible to prove his non-existence. (and in fact, if someone did indeed somehow find a valid logical proof of there being no god, I bet this is exactly what the theist crowd will say against it; they are only saying this for science and not for logic because science has progressed long beyond a point where it could no longer coexist with religion, and if logic had done/will do the same, their response would be no different)

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by CP5670
I never said that we have disproven him; I said that it is more reasonable to assume that he does not exist as opposed the other alternative for the purposes of understanding other things. But laws are laws, so you either have the science or you have the god, but not both.

Although as I said, you might as well say that he is not bound to logic either, so he simply exists even if it was possible to prove his non-existence. (and in fact, if someone did indeed somehow find a valid logical proof of there being no god, I bet this is exactly what the theist crowd will say against it; they are only saying this for science and not for logic because science has progressed long beyond a point where it could no longer coexist with religion, and if logic had done/will do the same, their response would be no different)

 
So what are you saying there (the bold part).

If I get what I think you are saying; then you mean that science has proved Christianity to be false?

[Thorn]

According to Clive Barker, God is called Hapaxmendios, and he's an evil bastard....

[CP5670]

So what are you saying there (the bold part).

If I get what I think you are saying; then you mean that science has proved Christianity to be false?

Of course, due to the fact that it uses certain key assumptions (existence of certain universal rules, and so on); in the science system, you cannot have arbitrary "miracles" that simply defy any laws, because everything must be bound by some laws directly from the axioms, which god is not supposed to be. You can have a religion with some kind of semi-god that would still fit in with science, but Christianity is a far cry from that with its all-powerful god. This is the same way that Christianity has proved the falsehood of science with its own set of assumptions. Now, like I said, it would still be logical to disown all science and go for religion instead, which is what some people such as yourself seem to be doing (not the most rational/efficient option for discovery purposes, but it would still be quite acceptable), but you cannot have both and expect to have any shred of consistency.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by CP5670


Of course, due to the fact that it uses certain key assumptions (existence of certain universal rules, and so on); in the science system, you cannot have arbitrary "miracles" that simply defy any laws, because everything must be bound by some laws directly from the axioms, which god is not supposed to be. You can have a religion with some kind of semi-god that would still fit in with science, but Christianity is a far cry from that with its all-powerful god. This is the same way that Christianity has proved the falsehood of science with its own set of assumptions. Now, like I said, it would still be logical to disown all science and go for religion instead, which is what some people such as yourself seem to be doing (not the most rational/efficient option for discovery purposes, but it would still be quite acceptable), but you cannot have both and expect to have any shred of consistency.

So let me get this straight, I can either believe in science or I can believe in God (Christianity). And I have no choice to chose to believe both can co-exist. Am I right on the money?

How come the first sciencetists did not think this? What in science makes your statments true?   *Believe me these next questions are part of this.*   How come evolution is more believable then Christianity/God? Isn't evolution random chance and occurrences? How can that fit in a universe that science has found to be orderly and predicable?

How can you math prove that God doesn't exist? I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are (though I'm no math wiz). But would that make it true? Note I'd have to make a least one assumption to do this, or one mistake. You're math is based on the assumption that God doesn't exist and you know everything. How come the Bible can't be my proof like math is yours? The Bible has at least one "scientific" verse (don't know where others are). In Job it says, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." (Job 26). Or I can use Jesus as a base to prove that the Bible is true. I can do that because there are other writers around His time who wrote of Him. How come these are not valid arguments but you math is?

[Tiara]

A religion does not rely on the fact that a god actualy exists, it depends on faith.

Now, I do not believe in a god, but everyone who is religious just because they say there is a god that controls all, knows all, does all, etc etc etc etc etc etc... Will be seen by me as "unusual" people.

But nonetheless I will respect their beliefs.

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
How can you math prove that God doesn't exist? I could come up with a math problem to say you are older or younger then you are (though I'm no math wiz)

Euclid managed it. Or has he been mentioned already? Anyway, the whole things invalid anyway, since my mate Mike (who's taking a degree in Hard Sums) has managed to prove that Pi is not only exactly three, but also exactly two. At the same time. He's also proved that 2 = -1, and that "a" can never equal a prime number.

[Alikchi]

That proves it, then. God is Mike.

[Knight Templar]

err.. Mike is the Archangel, IIRC.