A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"
Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people.
I do not think that religious belief indicates a lack of intelligence either. In fact, for the purpose of this thread, you can assume that I have sub normal intelligence, because the argument needs to stand on its own.
The logic begins with information theory. We need at least the ability to flip state from zero to one to store information.
Zeros and ones by themselves cannot make decisions. Nor can any multi state device you might envision.
The simplest decision making device is a NAND gate. It takes two inputs and gives one output. You can design more complicated logic devices, but you need at least this much to make decisions.
A creator is posited to be responsible for our universe. The details don't matter: whether this is the fundies personal god or the uninvolved god of the deists, this creator needs reason. It needs to think, to decide.
It therefore needs information storage and logic gates. The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist.
Therefore, if this creator exists at all, it can only be a natural product of physics. I don't insist that it be our physics, but logic gates plainly need rules. The gates don't even have to be entirely accurate, but they must be functional.
I make no assertions that it could not come together and not be a product of evolution, although that would be more likely. I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.
If a creator claims to be self created or to have existed forever, it must be lying or insane.
No god is possible.
Perhaps we first need to understand your definition of God to provide any worthwhile discussions.
No, we don't. It's not that easy, Penny.
The proof is what it is. It says that any creator must be a natural product of physics. It requires no other attributes other than being the creator and being able to reason.
Surely all gods must have at least those two things in common?
If one views God as the origin of all things including the universe (often symbolically described as the heavens) then God resided or rather was in and of the nothing before the big bang. In some philosophies of God before things were created there was only the void/nothingness/parentless. From the void came structure then form Which points to the big bang and evolution.
If information is needed to obey the laws of physics then information must have existed in the nothing or void before the big bang to bring us where we are today.
You aren't reading this correctly, Penny.
I'm not arguing against a creator. I think that's both unlikely and unnecessary, but I admit the possibility.
Go back and read it again. You missedit entirely.
I don't think I missed it? Probably more that you are not familiar with the way I understand God I don't know?
Nevertheless, lets see if I missed it? You said a creator would have to have existed and stored its information somewhere and would need to go from 0 to 1. I said it was in the void. In the nothingness before the big bang. The big bang would have had the ability to use its stored energy right? So the stored energy existed in the nothing before the big bang. Whatever was stored in the nothing was the information needed for evolution to do its thing. This stored energy or information (I describe this as unrealized potential) is the creator. The 0 is the nothing. The 1 is the big bang.
No, Penny, that doesn't work at all.
It doesn't "go from zero to one". It needs a storage mechanism. The zero/one is just a simple way of describing information storage. It needs storage, but that is not enough. it needs decision making equipment. Try again.
Why does it need decision making process in your mind? Did it need that for the big bang do you think?
No, Penny, this has nothing to do with any bangs, big or small.
Tell me how a decision can be made if all you have is stored information? Explain that to me.
It has everything to do with the big bang since it is the origin of our universe and everything in it. Did it have a gate? If so then there is the gate you require. If not then no gate was required.
You are completely missing the point. I can only suggest you go back and read yet again: I am perfectly willing to accept a creator.
You might need to spell it out. First you need information and somewhere to store it then a gate what did I miss? Existed forever or was self created?
A thinking being needs information storage and a logic gate. The primordial universe does not.
Hence why I asked you to define your understanding of God. My understanding is it is not a being as you might be understanding it.
We already covered that, Penny. I have no understanding of any gods - such things are impossible. What I am proving is that a creator cannot be a god. That's the part you haven't grasped yet.
Penny, your own logic is working against you by you asking this singular question. A Decision? Is the final thought in the thought making process before action. Once a decision is made, then 99.99% of the time there is an action, which derives from the decision. The other .01% is no action comes from making the decision, because the decision was to take no action.
And your point is? The big bang made the decision before its 99.99% course of action? If so ok thats what I wanted to know.
No, Penny. That's not it. Insentient matter doesn't need to make decisions.
Penny, you obviously are not staying on the topic. The topic is not the big-bang. You mentioning it, is only distortion and misdirection tactics, to explain the possibility of a god or creator.
A creator or god has to be grounded to some rules. There would be some form or surroundings to the existence of a creator or god.
The argument of "cause and effect" would remain in effect, even in the realm where supposed creator or god existed. Therefore, what created the creator? What created god?
The argument then turns to god or creator always existed, if so then the same can be said for the Universe.
It's an endless argument, because of the unanswered question- Why does the Universe exist? The singular question is a question that never needs to be answered. Those who require a different answer are the ones trying to re-enforce their belief in a god or in some power and control position, which they derive wealth from.
Why does the Universe exist? Who cares and Why should it matter? If you want to apply a reason- to support human life. Because, if the Universe wasn't in existence, then neither would human life.
In my mind I am on topic and it is relevant to the original post. Using physics as a logical way to explain the existence or non existence of a creator would mean though that we do have to go way back there. Not here and now.
Since physics judging by the response to my questions cannot apply prior to the big bang it cannot prove existence or non existence of a creator as the original post claims.
This is the point of all my questions.
You are right however it is an endless argument. Simply because before the big bang nothing can be proved or disproved. Through physics or otherwise.
Agree to disagree....
You are correct in some way. intellect by itself can do nothing, if for example, I conceive of this typing on replying, I still need impetus to make it reality -
something has to be the mover....
Another example: When you eat the tree of knowledge, it means that you have to go down and experience. Everybody says: " Boy, that eve sure was nasty, wasn't she aweful? Well she was nothing more than a symbol of emotion- but she had to be the DRIVING FORCE FOR INTELLECT.
It takes emotion to move logic.......
Just apply your own definition of god and see what happens.
What ever it is called, the supreme thing in existence must be "God".
Your arguement merely re-names God... "evolution".
What ever the first thing is that created the "pre-existing logic gates" is God.
The creation of physics and the dependency we have to physics does not dis-prove the existence of a supreme being, that is not dependent on physics to exist.
...if a creator claims to be self-created or to have existed forever...
Then it must be lying... ???
Nonsense. Redefining the god class to include toasters doesn't help anything.
The proof is that any creator must be a natural product of physics. Redefining words doesn't change that.
Nonsense. It cannot make any decision to create, cannot plan, cannot think without the gates and the physics to drive them.
This is very basic.
if a creator claims to be self-created or to have existed forever...
Then it must be lying... ???
pcunix, you are conceptually placing an orange inside of a grape. It must be creator and the physics (rules) is determined by the Creator, not rules and creator comes into being and employs them. The biggest One is the Creator, since Creator created us our reasoning end with knowing the Creator. It's foolish thinking to place restrictions on the Creator. As you know, any statement, positive or negative, about an unknown is a restriction to all that it could be. If creator is red, than creator doesn't have the probability of being any of the other colors. A restriction to the unknown Creator has been placed.
By now you are probably wondering where does this all go. It goes to the fact that you will always be a subject of the Creator, bound to His discipline.
Ah, complete disregard of the argument, That's more typical of theists - don't even bother with the logic, simply assert that God IS and be done with it.
No matter how small or simple a machine is, it is still inert.
You have a materialistic opinion.
You think 2 dimensionally. You leave out the qualia or self awareness machine in your argument. You believe that "everything is physical and must constrain itself to a physical parameter and operate within than false dilemma.
An abacus is a fancy club in the hands of a gorilla.
It takes a thinking mind to use it to calculate. Show me that self awareness that is used to ""like the construction and color of the abacus"". If you cannot empirically show me the existence of that self awareness, how much it weighs, etc, It suddenly doesnt negate the existence of the abacus or the self awareness behind it.
All it does is show presumptions of what existence is.
Nope. You are arguing something completely different.
You can't have your creator through magic. Oh, I'm sure that satisfies you, but it does not address the argument. You have simply side stepped it and want to pretend that information can be stored without physics. It cannot be. Your god would be a void.
You say :
"It therefore needs information storage and logic gates. The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist."
So if these things exist before the Creator of your theory, who's the creator that created them ? Material and physic things has to be created by some sort of creator. They can't just happen. Or maybe you believe in magic !
And then :
""...I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.
If a creator claims to be self created or to have existed forever, it must be lying or insane.
No god is possible."
You are not proving anything. What you have here is your personal theory. You think that a Creator is like a human being, as you state that this creator has to use preexisting storage and physics to achieve a creation. You just go as far as to say that any creator to claims being self created must be insane. Hello ? What can possibly be more insane that thinking a Creator has a mouth to state that ? And then you imply that it has to reason. To reason you need a mind. How do you know creators have minds ?
And So.... who is the Creator that Created the preexistent storage and physics ? You need a Creator to have that storage . And then...who's the Creator that created that Creator ?
Your theory is flawed,because as you think that Creators need physical stuff to create, there must be one first Creator creating that material. So If there is one first Creator creating that first materials, this Creator has to be God. Because it have to create itself as well.
So with your theory, because this nonsense is no proof of anything, it's only your personal theory, you are stating that indeed there's a God, aka the First Creator.
And you achieve this by involving material and physic stuff that has to be created by 'something' in the beginning of everything. Something with a mind to reason. I personally think, that's the most accurate description of a God.
I'm an Atheist, and as such, I don't believe your theory. But I'm sure Creationists are very happy with the result of your deep thinking.
You don't need a creator to create the creator if the physics and the storage media always existed.
That's the point. What the theists always miss is how their creator came to be - mouth and all. Yes, of course the very idea is ludicrous, but if we give them that, just for the sake of argument, we get to where I started: how can this thing be sentient if it existed forever?
Sentience requires too much. The non-creator position only requires physics - it doesn't need specific arrangements that can store information, it doesn't require even more complicated arrangements that can function as logic gates.
In our non-theistic version of things, the ability to store and process information is what we call life and it came about only a few billion years ago.
In the theist version, these abilities either sprang into existence or always existed. But it could NOT, because a complex, thinking thing NEEDS information storage and needs logic gates.
That's the point.
Also, this isn't a theory. It's a proof.
I do like your theory but there is one major flaw with it- the fact that "God" does exist. now before you jump to any conclusions hear me out. "God is not a deity or a being of a higher intelligence. The force that many have come to call "God" is nothing more than the energy that makes up anything and everything in the universe. Even science tells us that on the subatomic level, everything is made of pure energy. It is this energy that we are made of so therefore in the symbolic meaning, it is the creator. the words of the bible are not meant to be taken litterally, to fully understand the words held within one must look at the symbolism behind the words and read between the lines. Now I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or tell anyone that they are wrong. and at this point in time I would like to say that This is not neccessarily the truth it is just simply what I believe in but it makes perfect sense to me and many others I keep contact with. And if any of you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a christian, catholic, baptist, etc. your assumptions would be false. I have studied many religions the world over and all of the major ones send the same message, one that their followers dont even fully understand and most do not practice what they preach. The message is simple, love "God" and all things that exist equally, forgive any acts done against you or others, do unto others as you would have them do for you, turn the other cheek, seek wisdom and truth and nothing else but love, etc. It is this message that is at the heart of any reasonable religion and that is the message I follow. A true leader does not lead with his words, he leads with his actions. It is these actions that define who we are. anyways I am off topic. As I said before, "God" is truly nameless, faceless, and does not judge us. "God" is simply the collective of energy that is existence. This power has helped me many times in my life and I know that it exists because I have felt it many times before. To find it, all one must do is search within themselves to find it.
You do? Your god is insentient energy? How useless..
It is not useless and more importantly it is not my "God" the idea of gods is a rediculous one in my opinion and so are religions. All they are are more excuses for our race to fight. And as far as your useless comment goes, mirracles are not useless and neither is love. Is existence useless? When you call that energy useless, you are calling everything in existence useless. Am I useless, are you useless? I take responsibility for my own actions, I do not expect some being of higher intelligence to be responsible for my actions. What about you?
Typical "Atheist" crap and still you have presented "NO PROOF" therefore you donot back up your opening title. You claim to be able to prove ther is "NO GOD" yet the fact that you are even discussing the topic proves you do not know what you are talking about for to discuss GOD and His existance or non-existance is like trying to prove a negative that cannot be proven.
Yet another theist who didn't bother to read any more than the deliberate bait in the title.
This proof was not about no god. Go back and read and try again. We aren't even attempting to prove a negative.
By the way: "This is crap" alone is usually not accepted as valid in any analysis of a proof
Is that how we should start all of our posts, too?
"Typical Christian crap..."
PCunix has his argument for the non-existence of gods in general and you have your bible, which is basically another man made argument for the existence of a particular god.
So, how do you prove your god exists from your own man made argument?
Nope. I am not even trying to disprove their creator. I am merely trying to make them understand that it can only be a natural being, just like the rest of us.
In previous iterations, some theists have insisted that the creature still is "god" because it has the power of creation.
I wonder what they will think when we create life? That may not happen in my lifetime, but it might during the lifetime of some reading here. We might also eventually understand physics well enough to spin off other universes and even to tweak their physics. Will we then be gods?
Some will say yes, but not THE god. Droll times await the lucky atheist who get to hear THAT bleating.
Yes, but most peoples definition of god is that he can not be defined or understood. They are safe in their unfalsifiability.
i n t e r e s t i n g presentaton, PC.
However, here is a flaw to note:
You mention the gates of logic, as 2 = 1. In a full logic it would be 1=3.
You cannot combine 0 and 1 without the spacial "logic" between.
The relata (cause/effect) has a middle man.
In Quantum P, it would be a completely different calculation, as particles of physic can appear, disappear "at will" leaving no trace of having been or will be again in any given instance within a binary physic or otherwise.
But that's another discussion entirely.
But the flaw I see is in regard to the mechanics of the logic (physic).
By all human methodology and technology it would be impossible to come to your determination, since no human is able to measure the physic entirely, that is the entire universe and all the elements within. They also cannot measure the frequency of "flips" in size, speed or relevance to the physic. Neither can the logic be deemed pertinent, given no other source of life has provided a counter logic or supportive logic of the claim.
Second, by applying the logic of stored information, you are grossly assuming storage is necessary? Why? How- Without mechanics? Human logic says logic is required and storage of that logic required and maintained. But, a star has no logic, yet is maintained. It is not binary. It is not cyclical. So how does it "know" when and how to expel its energy or depress itself when the energy is reduced and explode itself before the energy is exhausted -allowing the formation of yet more of itself.?
Who is to say information cannot be suspended or better expressed, depressed infinitely without storage??? What if the storage or containment unit was the entire information itself. A self contained and expressed logic?
You might want to look into Quantum non-mechanics and do some research.
The universe is much more infinite than binary sequential order. In truth, by human methods, there is no binary frequency to the universe at all, yet it lives (is) and does wondrous things, man cannot seem to conceive.
At Any Rate, kudos for posting.
A star isn't sentient, is it?
You have completely misunderstood this.
--No, you just avoided the answer.
A star isn't sentient, is it?
--This is what? Dependent on either the meaning of conscious or sensation(feeling).
--It has no binary !
--So, your application of information theory is bogus!
--If you cannot apply the theory to EVERY item in the universe, you cannot apply it at all.
"We need at least the ability to flip state from zero to one to store information".
--so tell me how a star stores information?
--how does "space" store information?
--where is the zero point and one point where the flip can occur?
--Zero point would be the end of the universe and everything between the spacial differential until the One point is reached, where the flip may occur. Now, if you can measure the spacial difference, you might make a claim. But you cannot measure or calculate Zero-to-One. It is infinite, as the universe is continuously expanding, changing.
--As I stated, information does not need to be stored and in all honesty cannot be stored by your parameters.
--But even still, if it is a self contained information, like the universe, it does not need to store information to flip Zero-One as it IS the entire sum and substance defined as information.
--So, it does not prove Creator does not exist, it just proves humans do not understand the universe they live in.
--And, as AKA Winston mentioned to me -which I actually liked- it doesn't make humans bad people, it just makes them gullible (to their own humanism).
I don't think you have any idea what is being argued here.
We don't need to force anything to be binary. The binary state is simply the MINIMUM state to store information.
No non-sentient thing needs either information storage or logic gates. Only sentient creatures have need of these things.
Finally, in logic, there is no "in between". There is true and false, zero or one. You are way, way out in left field!
No non-sentient thing needs either information storage or logic gates
Really?? I am curious what science have you been reading.
Give me an example of a non-sentient (but, natural) object in the universe that does or does not need your logic gates to exist, maintain form, etc.
ps, you are implying it requires binary by the flip (zero-one).
pss, Have you ever studied philosophy? What is Priori? What IS logic?
Question - Think - Solution . The thinking is the "in between".
Again, nothing I said even begins to imply a need for binary. As I said before, binary state is simply the minimum necessary. Multistate systems (our human brains employ these) are perfectly fine.
As to your silly demand that I show you a non-sentient thing that requires neither information storage nor logic gates, take your pick: NO non-sentient thing requires either.
And one again, there is no middle state for these assertions. Tom is alive or Tom is dead. A binary device has the value of zero or one. My statements about the need for a sentient creator to have storage and gates is either true or false.
the Creator would not need storage or logic "gates", as It/He is the logic itself.
Example; The universe = Creator.
However, if one considers visible-invisible; tangible-intangible; light-dark as logic gates than again, I exemplify the universe, which is the Creator.
So, does the Universe need logic gates? No. Does it have logic gates? Maybe.
But either way, the information (logic) is evident -existence well, exists.
Your theory --as I said before, is noble-- but inconclusive.
The application voids the consideration because you are using human logic to compare a universal logic. That is why I asked you to provide a non-human --sentient (or non-sentient) --object to validate the claim. That's all.
If you can do that, then you might have a basis for the theory.
ps, you did imply binary as a need, by this statement: "binary state is simply the minimum necessary". This means it is the bootstrap program that enable the entire operation and processing. Without it (and even with it), the system c/would crash.
I simply have no further ability to respond to you.
We'll have to leave it at that: you have successfully thrust your spear right through the blade of a windmill. The giant has been slain.
Someone else may have the patience to explain reality to you. I do not.
How can I? What on earth do I say to someone so confused?
He is talking about bootstrapping, about non-sentient things needing to store information and make decisions, about things that are half way between binary states.. I mean, honestly, what can be said?
It's like somebody walking up to you and saying "Your head is on backwards". What possible response can you make? Umm, thanks?
This is one of those religious people who think they are not religious. I mean - we already have a perfectly good word for the "Universe," but he thinks we need to use the word "Creator," instead.
Ask him about the 800 year old people and the flood - he has it all down pat. No religion though.
I was hoping you could explain it to him. I have already given up.........
Why don't you, smart guy?
Or is it too challenging for one of my elders to teach a young-in like me?
Keep trying, son, you git der som day, n`wooncha?
Maybe eben lurn sumthin new, b`side yourself.
Maybe eben lurn why you h`re on dis plan`t b fo you is ded n it don matta none den?!
Dear me, no wonder why you and your Isms cause so much hate and social apathy.
Yes, you have thrashed us thoroughly. Your logic and keen understanding has destroyed us completely.
Perhaps we should prepare a plaque attesting to this? I'll sign it; perhaps Mark and Skyfire and a few others might also. You certainly deserve the recognition.
Look, all kidding aside, you just aren't making sense. If you think that binary values have in between states, there really is nothing any of us can say to you. That is utterly ludicrous, but you insist that it isn't.
It's the same with your confusion about "binary bootstrapping". It's meaningless - there just is no intelligent response. The same holds true for your thinking that my proof requires non-sentient things to store information and have logic gates - there is simply no possible response to someone who has managed to come to that conclusion.
I have no desire to insult you. As I have said in many places, I don't have any gripe with any belief structure that isn't used to hurt other people. But it is simply impossible to continue a conversation when you insist that this nonsense is the basis for such.
Stars are sentient? Rocks too?
Will you say "yes" to any foolish thing somebody posts as long as they end it with "I believe in Sky Daddy"?
Anyone involved in making such a potentially inflammatory remark that has links to epistemology should be aware that especially in the 'ethereal region' nothing can be proved, but more importantly it cannot be disproved either. Still, I do notice that you got as lot of replies, and it's always good to keep the channels of communication and inquiry open.
Anybody who answers this with "nothing can be disproved" didn't bother to read the proof.
What proof? Still waiting for the said proof.....
The proof that is post number one of this thread that not ONE of you has ever been able to refute, Penny. THAT proof.
It is really getting surreal here. Cecilia is denying integers and of course binary logic. You are redefining the meaning of sentience and there are so many other incredible assertions that aren't even worth listing.
But the fact remains that in spite of this craziness, none of you have ever touched that proof. All you can do is sidestep it by invoking magic - the ultimate theist retreat.
No I am not redefining anything, you never asked for my definition, only assumed. You have not defined your understanding of God which it seems from your many posts, is that it is a sentient being like you and I are and that it needs the ability to make decisions according to physical laws. So what you have proved is God does not exist by "your definition" of God, and perhaps a few others. Your definition... To that end you have been successful.
You have not however given proof to mine and many others definition of God, which for the most part is undefinable.
Do physical laws apply to space. Do physical laws apply to beyond the big bang? These questions remain unanswered by you who claim to have proof. At least to those who understand God is before the big bang. I haven't seen any proof yet.
You do realize you just cannot go around creating definitions for things as you like?
No I did not realize that. And I have not defined my understanding. Is there a definition that exists that suits 'all' believers? I doubt that.
It appears the accepted version of God is fixed only for those who don't believe.
Science redefines all the time don't they? Science theory is apparently different to our theory.
Oh and just in case you missed this
'You have not however given proof to mine and many others definition of God, which for the most part is undefinable. '
How dose one define the 99% Unknown World and Universe. The more you think you have the answer for or about God the more elusive and evasive God becomes.
I would not claim to know God only that it works for me and whatever works, go for it,
Science doesn't redefine words to make inane arguments, Penny.
Wikipedia might disagree with you
'"While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A distinction is often made in science between theories and hypotheses, which are theories that are not considered to have been satisfactorily tested or proven"
Then, how do believers consistently attempt to speak and think for their gods, defining and describing gods characteristics in great detail? Whose definition of god is correct? Yours?
Okay, what is the accepted version of god?
No, science does not "redefine", that would demonstrate a poor understanding of science on your part.
Rocks are sentient, according to her and James. And if Cecilia loses her wallet, she still has something that "approches" a wallet..
(you weren't kidding when you said you had AS.)
You really have no idea what I'm talking about do you. You have not seen the classic Henri Poncare's Hyperbolic World?
See, if I lost my wallet is not the same conceptual scope as the beginning of time. But I will talk to you on that level.
If I lost my wallet, my wallet still exists, it just moved. So losing my wallet is not ZERO. That's negative wallet. Because the negative wallet is dependent on having wallet. If I didn't have a wallet to count and just a pocket, that is just pocket. So you can say pocket is zero. It's not nothing. It's something else other than wallet and negative wallet. It is the state before the concept of wallet could be measured.
Now if you I have 1/2 wallet, and then I cut it into half repeatedly until you can no longer tell if there is or there is no wallet. then you have achieved the state of Zero wherein, presence or no-presence cannot be determined. The unity of matter and its opposite, wave. Its both and neither.
-1+1 =0 =unity of opposites.
One always means you have begun to measure or observe a unit of presence.
-One means you have observed a unit of absence. There is measurement.
But when you cannot measure, you have zero. Do you understand now?
That is why 0=infinity because both are unmeasurable.
The Mystics say that G-d is not Keter. (will) Not One. So G-d is not Energy. Because Energy is Alef=1 and zero is Ayn-nothing.
It is said that the name of G-d is Ein Sof, which means no-thing or unending, both defining zero and infinity and the numbers in between.
SO if you want to be literal you can say G-d is whatever all MATH stands for. all possibilities. Now how can you disprove that?
That wasn't the question, Cecilia. It's not about the existence of the wallet. It's about how many of that wallet YOU have,
How many elephants do you have in your kitchen sink, Cecilia? Is it zero or something approaching zero?
What is logical zero, Cecilia (as it is logic we are talking about here)?
You, of course, are confusing mechanism with function. The function of a logic gate is to decide true or false. You, confused as usual, are harping on about imperfect states, where the mechanism is not quite at true or false. That's mechanism, Cecilia, and is unimportant, because the gate WILL output either true or false. Or it will malfunction - but as the original post stated, we don't need the decision mechanism to be perfect - we only need it to be functional.
Theists will just get around this by claiming that God always existed in his current state and that maybe the physics that allows him to exist is just a part of his nature. In other words he simply IS. Or they may attempt to claim that God is a spiritual being existing on a whole other level of existence and therefore immune not only to physics but possibly to logic as well. Remember that there are no rules when dealing with the supernatural.
You can't reason with the unreasonable and unfortunately the more devout a religious person the more unreasonable, in my experience anyway. At least you tried though and perhaps this will have an effect on fence sitters or agnostic-theists.
We know all that. The point is to force them to admit that their beliefs are illogical and require magic and contradictions.
To force them...
You really need to meet more real scientists. From your thought leader:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkin … verse.html
translation. physics is magic and illogical and he doesn't understand it.
not convinced on your theory, speculation, theory does not mean proof.
I don't think that god is not exists . I know that i haven't see any of them but believe on them. There are so many things that beyond hymen sense. for example we can only hear some limited frequency and limited sight also . so according to that there are so many things that we don't know... So there might be gods in our world that we couldn't see or hear.
actually, no a creator does not need to think. The ultimate nature of things may be beyond our ability to conceptualize. It may be beyond cause and effect. We are in this island of understanding in this perhaps infinite sea of mystery. A God may be beyond even that, and bound by no logic, no law, no bounds, no paradoxes, nothing. We can look to our rational understanding an eliminate such things as a 10,000 year old earth, but God, which is defined by different people to be different things, cannot be. Einstein saw god as the totality of natural laws, are you saying their are no natural laws? But maybe there's a parallel universe that was created by a god in which the Earth is only 10000 year old. Can you prove that our humanities consciousness has slipped from one universe to another. Until we know all that is knowable and unknowable we can't affirmatively say there is no God. God my be just as accurate a description of the infinite multiverse and beyond, as science. Remember science is the child of religion, an attempt to understand, what will be sciences child?
You didn't read the proof, did you?
Parallel universes don't matter (the proof still works) and magic doesn't refute logic.
I parallel universes that operate on different principles including one the lack of principles and logic. We still don't know what our little bubble universe of logic sits on or within. And are you forgetting a mixture of chaos theory and precognition (or time travel through quantum effects?) Remember it is now theoretically possible for scientist to create a whole universe, that grows and expands just like this one, in a lab, but once created it would never interact with this universe. If we can with our little minds create a whole universe, how do you not know some smarter being didn't create ours in his lab, and could choose between this universe intuitively. Dogs cannot understand our thoughts, well our more advance thoughts. There are beings whose thoughts we couldn't comprehend, and for those beings beings that they cannot comprehend, and so forth. It might be that thought and matter, physical reality, are one at higher levels. A baby takes time to recognize an adults language. Yet, animals speak to each other and adult humans are still struggling to understand their words. We now understand some of the language of prairie dogs, who say things to each other like, "human blue," "human red," but not dolphins. Could very advance intelligences be speaking to us right now. Could a tree be a poem. How do you comprehend the universe when you run it backwards. I'll tell you what I tell people who use science to prove God, go publish your results. Let them be vetted by other scientists. I'm certain proof of God or against God is worth a nobel.
I can prove no gods exist
Doesn't matter. Logic, reason, and objective supporting evidence isn't the driver in the superstition (religion) universe as emotion, namely fear, is the driver.
Interesting thought. I would have to say that if there is a god then he/she/it would be the NAND/NOR gate. It can exist...it just can not function or produce an output unless there is an input. So in theory it could have existed forever in a dormant stage awaiting the series of events that allowed for it to obtain input and in effect cause it to produce an output. But for this to happen...god wasn't the only thing around...there had to be something else as well...which means...god did not create everything...god only produced an output based on inputs received from existing matter. It is impossible to create anything physical from absolutely nothing. You can create an Idea or a thought from nothing (Spiritual/Mental). But to make something from that Idea or Thought you need some form of materials. Just my take on things..
That's pretty much it, Don. Such a creature is no god. It is dependent upon the logic of the physics that allow it to exist.
But you may still be confused. A NAND gate has requirements, and the base requirement is physics. If it just happened to fall togerher, that certainly is no god even if it went on to become incredibly brilliant and able to create our universe. It would be quite an impressive creature, but still only a creature, right?
I agree. A NAND gate has requirements to function. I was simplifing the thought into an object can exist...but for it to become active(create/produce an output) certain requirements must be met...
Correct. Do you agree that it is not a god?
Some theists have argued than anything sufficiently powerful as to have created this universe is a god. Yet some physicist theorize that they could create parallel universes - surely they are not gods?
I would say IMHO only. The only "god" that I know to exist...is something personal to me and me only...it is not a physical thing and it is not something that I can share with anyone else...To try to explain it to anyone is a lost cause because it is not meant for them... It is mine and mine only...Everything we see or know to exist and for me to attempt to fathom as to how it came to be (since I was not here when it happened) can at best only be a theory. My Logic tells me that the claimed "god" of christians is not possible...But my spiritual being tells me there are things that just cannot be expained sometimes...
I do enjoy the thoughts behind these discussions...
In the physical world perhaps but in the world before the physical universe those rules may not necessarily apply. If that were so it is possible we would not be here because even scientists havent found what existed before the big bang. So for something to come out of nothing is not inconceivable.
You cannot decide withoiut a logic gate, Penny. Magic doesn't help you.
Perhaps you are missing the point. Do you think the big bang happened magically?
pcunix, our bodies require input of nutrients and water but this is not life. An orderly arrangement of molecules produces no life. Life to scientist is magical. Where did life come from? Scientist agree that it is not in matter. Did a God give part of His life like lightening an infinitely amount of candles from one big fire...God. All logic, reasoning, and knowledge is not bound to matter and its behavior in our existence. Therefore, we most all accept the spirit and body (material) duel concept.
No real scientist thinks there is anything magical about life. The word "life" is simply a label we apply when chemical processes get complex enough to replicate. So far, the only compound we know that does that is DNA, but we do think other compounds might be able to do the same.
No magic. Just chemicals.
Wrong! Life has never been proven that the arrangement of any matter produces life. It is still more magical than available to scientific method.
Interestingly enough, science does appear as magic to those who don't understand it.
Science has never been seen as magic. But, science has limits; the frontier of science where investigations and observation are being made. What's beyond those realms still can be seen as magic. Please forgive me Beelzedad if you do understand all science unto it's completion.
Can I answer?
I'm a high school dropout. A near total autodidact.
Let's see how many people decide the argument is bogus based on that
your argument is not bogus, it is the theory of information and the (suggested) conclusion that is. Any 1st year QuaMec student can argue that all objects require a "parser" in order for there to exist action-reaction; cause-effect; light-dark; good-bad; correct-incorrect; amp-ohm; input-output.
Again, if you think that all objects require a parser, I have absolutely no response.
It is impossible for me to imagine what you think your sentence means - it is complete nonsense to me.
I am not offended in the least.
But again, I ask you to provide a single object in the universe that does not require a parser.
Please be specific. That's all.
input -- "processor" --output
neuron --"synapse" --neuron
light -- "optic" --dark
It is complete nonsense to everyone. Including James. But - he needs to defdend his religion. Tell us about the flood again - I like that one - U no - where the Kreator Kux everyone for not beleebing.
you know what is interesting,
In Ripon California, there are over 1,500 Olives tress carbon dated as living over a thousand years, producing delicious olives. Elsewhere there is a sea turtle that is over 403 years old on display in China and archeological findings of dinosaurs living upwards of 600+ years; Yet, according to Marcus` logic and his self-dysfunction for his former "oops I practiced religion" (thanks Britney Spears for the music), cannot possibly conceive a human being living 800.
So- becoz trees live to be 1500 years old - this proves humans used to b 800 years old? Like wot ur religious book sez?
Dear me. Did Yachoo sez it into ur head?
As a matter of fact - I own several olive trees that are several hundred years old. They do not start to produce usable olives for at least 100 years. Do this meen I kan b 800 old? LOLOLOL
Dear me. No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
I never mentioned proof. I said possibility.
Dear me, no wonder you still cannot redeem yourself and always call upon a former indulgence to provide you both weapons and comfort.
Always the good school boy, aren't you Marcus.
Tell us about those Templar's (Masons, Knights of Columbus and Illuminati) of your religion again please. Thanks.
Instead, why don't you tell us about these imaginary "parsers" in rocks?
(I can't believe I'm actually ASKING for this!)
Well, first, provide me with what I requested --several times-- regarding non-sentient objects. Then we'll move forward. Because a rock, a dime and a grain of sand are all sentient; all have genetics (DNA) too. Tell me they are not/do not, and I will never engage this conversation again.
I hope you understand that it is impossible to have a serious discussion with someone who thinks a rock is sentient and has DNA.
I can only assume that you are trying to amuse yourself by goading one of us into being insulting.
Don't let yourself be overwhelmed by emotions...
Afterall, you know all about electricity...
hehehe and here, there's a question about "realms"
and animal realm.
We're full inside it.
Let's indulge your fantasy.
At some point, humans had cells that could reproduce more perfectly than they can now. People lived longer.
Evolutionary or environmental pressures changed this.
It's unlikely, but so what anyway? What silly pet idea of yours would this prove?
I forget - how far back can we extract useful DNA? Far back enough, I think. Science could likely disprove you.
You are becoming aggressive, my hairdone friend.
Where have you "read" about DNA ?
What do you mean by "useful" DNA ?
It's almost insulting to DNA...
Your DNA, is it useful ?
I mean DNA that we can analyze and possibly insert into a cell where we could observe the shortening of telemores. A way to prove that humans age no differently now than they did 10,000 years ago. Or prove that they did.
Ok. I understand that.
But you certainly realize that discoveries will never end...
From the two of us the one who looks more like a parrot is...
I don't know that discoveries will never end.
I can easily imagine a theory of physics that is the end of "discovery" and that only application remains.
So. no, I don't realize that at all.
The selfish gene theory might disagree with that.
More tossing out of words that you don't understand?
The selfish gene theory has nothing to do with extracting ancient dna or attempting to clone it to see how its telemores work.
I think you're hiding something from us.
Tell us the secret of the universe.
No but apparently it will by magic eliminate that which is not useful for its survival. This is how species become extinct or how it determines a lifespan.
Not really magic. Intelligence. But then....a gene is non sentient isn't it? Sentience requires a brain. So maybe it is magic. I don't know.
Sentient, in a general way doesn't specifically require a brain.
Just a change of state.
A lot of objects in this world are "sentient".
An oister is sentient to it's own environment. And they can live old.
Molecules are sentient. They make decisions about whatever combinations they'll make. With some determinism though.
Nonetheless it's still magic.
Therein lies the problem of those who claim such realms exist yet are unable to show they exist or provide any explanations other than what they've been told from scriptures.
Well, that's not quite true. Many of them make up things they never read anywhere.
We all agree that we ar far from perfectly knowing the "mechanism" of life. Don't we all?
We all agree that we are far from knowing our own ways of "working".(this is include in the precedent)
If the word "realm" has not been bannished, I'd say that there are so mutch unpenetraded realms as you can count.
And speaking about realms :
Recently, some people in Europe between France and Switzerland have (thanks to an astronomical budget) created some dust of "anti-matter" for a long enough period, so we could learn a lot more about it.
Don't ask me what is "anti-matter". Don't ask me neither what is "matter". I'm not capable of responding.
But what interests so much some of the best conditioned brains of our planet ?
Why do we put so much money in that ?
Because we are seekers. We seek and seek.
Somewhat like flies against the windshield.
This seems to be my leit-motif this evening.
Interestingly enough, your latter questions are a direct result of answering your former questions.
No, we do not agree. We are not very far at all. It may even be solved within the lifetime of people reading this.
But the thread is about proof Gods do not exist. Not the other way around. That hasn't been done either.
Exactly. We are trying to compare Physical and Spiritual...it is not possible...it is like trying to compare apples and oranges...
In fact I believe that something from nothing is the birth of God...
...at some point either there was only nothing, or there has always been something, which means there was never a begining, which is a paradox...
which brings me to the bottom line:
PCunix, Your central claim is that you have proof that God does not exist...
No you don't, you have an opinion. I hope it brings you peace.
Something from nothing, sure. But not a god from nothing. As noted, the god needs information storage and logic. Simpler things preceded it.
If it was the first thing, then "it" was also the only thing. Therefore "it's" starting point was "the" begining.
God didn't have to start out complete, God may have started out as just a "bit"...
...and through "it's" developmental evolution "it" became what we conceptionalize as God today... (including logic and physics which may have came after "the begining")
If it did not start complete, then it is a natural product of the physics that allowed it to assemble.
only if "it" didn't create physics...
If "it" requires physics... then physics is God.
Physics doesn't think. Physics doesn't reason. Physics is just the rules for how stuff happens.
Physics cannot create itself or anything else. It is only a component.
Your missing the point.
Did physics always exist? Do the physical laws of our reality exist everywhere? Is there not anything greater than these physics rules that we have come to understand? Do we know everything there is to know about physics in the entirety of creation?
You assume there is nothing greater than physics, that the laws we have discovered to date are all that there is...
What created physics? Where does physics begin and where does it end?
I am assuming no such thing.
I am stating that physics, storage and logic gates are necessary prerequisites for a sentient being.
You REALLY need to read before you spout off. I know that's a lot to ask..
"I am stating that physics, storage and logic gates are necessary prerequisites for a sentient being."
...and I am stating that it is possible that God did not start out as a sentient being, but evolved into one. In the journey of God's evolution, all that we have/know/understand today was created...by God, as God evolved.
PCunix stated, "You REALLY need to read before you spout off. I know that's a lot to ask.."
Name calling is very unproductive.
That isn't name calling. It's merely frustration with obvious inattention. And here it is again.
If the creature evolved, it is no god. It is only a creator. As previously stated.
Okay, so if god evolved, what other gods was he in competition with as far as natural selection is concerned?
At what point in his evolution did he decide to create the universe?
Is god still evolving?
If not a sentient being, what "sparked" the god into becoming a sentient being and how did he then become all-powerful and all-knowing?
God cannot evolve or change in any way. God, by definition, is mean to be perfect and as such any change would mean to become flawed.
Oops. Houston, we have a problem. Dueling theists at 10 o'clock? Or a wise guy non-theist pointing out what should be obvious to the theist?
Why not in your mind? Are you limiting God? Who said it was about perfection? Change does not necessarily mean anything is flawed. That is the nature of dual thinking.
Penny good to see you again. Might I offer some input here...Perfection requires no changes. Biblically speaking "god" is portrayed as perfect/unflawed. If "god" has to adapt it would mean something in the plan was unaccounted for and therefore perfection is not achieved. However..If "god" is in fact perfection...then there is no adaption or changes... dusting off the required tools for the present job...just opening what is already there to meet the demand placed.
Thank you always nice to see you and hear your views. I do agree with the biblical portrayal that god is perfection insofar as non dual thinking would apply. The adaption is not about imperfection however but more expression. Experiencing itself in different ways or revealing what is already there which seems close to what you are saying? Maybe not.
Yeppers. My view on "god" (I say it this way because I don't know if male or female or if...I am leaning more towards the IF.. can't have Male without Female and Vice Versa) is that it is a very personal thing. Those things that only you can feel and are next to impossible to place into words...That for me is who "god" is. "Heaven" or "Hell" are what we make of them...Most people live in a version of "Heaven" or "Hell" everyday...Me...I choose to find the good in the world and immerse myself with good and allow the things that are "bad" to slide to the wayside of the path I follow.
That should throw a wrench into Mickel's reasoning.
Why? I have already stated that I do not believe what the Christians claim to be true is truth.
We have no proof that God is perfect, or completely evolved, or even that God exists... so arguing about what we believe is just that... arguing about our opinions.
I believe that there must be a best, because there are more than one unequal forms of life...The nature of the being who is the top of the chain or the holder of the highest rung in the ladder of life-forms is unknown however, and the best we can do is make informed guesses using our logic in the best way we know how. Which is what we are all doing.
There is no proof that we can lay our hands on, so it comes down to what we decide to believe, it comes down to faith.
And if it evolved, it is obviously no god, but just another natural creature.. poor thing.
Imagine its shock when it realized that..
"Okay, so if god evolved, what other gods was he in competition with as far as natural selection is concerned?"
If God was the first,
Then God was also the only...therefore nothing to compete with and still God was the supreme being.
"At what point in his evolution did he decide to create the universe?"
We do not know. (for the record I don't believe God is a he.)
"Is god still evolving?"
In my humble OPINION, Yes. But it is also entirely possible that God is infinitely complete, therefore no further evolution is possible, but there is no way for me to know either way, so it comes down to the fact- We don't know, anything else is merely opinion.
"If not a sentient being, what "sparked" the god into becoming a sentient being and how did he then become all-powerful and all-knowing?"
Again, We Do NOT know. All I can offer is my logic as to the possiblity of the existence of God.
IF there are two forms of life and they are not the same,
THEN one must be the lesser.
IF there is a lowest form of life,
THEN there must be a highest form of life.
Humanity has come to call that form of life (the supreme being) God.
Therefore, in following with the principles of evolution, god did not evolve according to natural selection. That does present a problem with your assertions.
Not necessarily, you would have to define how you are using the term "lesser" in this regard. Lesser what?
What does that mean, lesser and higher what exactly?
What form of life, where is this god life form? Can you show it to me? I am part of humanity, too.
Then humanity has made a terrible mistake, for no natural creature deserves such elevation.
If it exists at all, of course, which is very unlikely.
You are assuming God is a sentient being in the physical sense of the word.
The subject of physics or the laws of physics? The latter has always existed.
The observable universe most certainly appears to be quite homogeneous and isotropic. The same principles and laws that apply here on this planet should apply to any planet billions of light years away in any direction.
If physics is an understanding of how our universe works, what more do you want to understand?
Most certainly, a great deal of physics is understood. There aren't that many mysteries left to uncover in this area. If some new piece of evidence emerges from somewhere that radically changes our current knowledge of physics, everyone will have to change their minds.
So far though, all the physics that is currently accepted has come under scrutiny and criticism, but when found it worked in practice to accurate degrees of precision, there was little to doubt of it's validity.
Try to put a man on the moon without using physics.
No physicist would ever say such a thing because they all know only to well a quantum field theory for gravity has not presented itself.
Physics is an understanding of how our universe works. You'll need to reword your question.
I don't understand the question.
I wholeheartedly agree, and let no other gods come before you!
Ah thats what you're not getting. God is the nothing.
God is nothing?
How does "nothing" decide to create, then?
How did nothing bring about the big bang?
Who says it did?
Well, physicists do say so, though it is through a quantum state of zero, which probably not what you mean.
Oh but that is what I wanted to know. So there you have it. The quantum state of 0 flipped into 1 right?
if you divide by zero you can get anything you want and that is what the physics is doing. it has nothing to do with reality. there never was a big bang. how can there be/ they say there was nothing before the bang, not even space. then what is space, if it is not our conceptualization of nothing. so what they say in effect is there was nothing before the bang not even nothing.
then again what banged? nothing cannot bang and be something. so big bang is bull***.so stop putting that nonsense in your argument and try to rationally explain....
Before making more frustrated rants, let's first understand what is big bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Exactly zero. If you read back a bit further you might find that I said God is the nothing. It does not matter whether or not the big bang happened or didn't. So science is BS in your opinion then? Ok. Wasn't me who came up with the big bang theory.
If one uses logic in an effort to prove something, apparently one cannot use what some deem as magic to prove otherwise. Science is based on logic and reason apparently.
However, most contributors to this thread (not all, like yourself) are all assuming Scientists know what they are talking about when discussing. We are assuming physics, a branch of science does too.
the true question.
...to date... We do not know.
And this is known to you only because it was secretly "revealed" to someone else centuries ago.
No because that is where you need to go. Into the nothing to experience something that cannot be described by logic or reason. Just as what existed before the big bang cannot so far be described by logic or reason.
Okay, where exactly is that "nothing" and how do I get there?
Sure it can. There is no reason whatsoever we cannot apply logic and reason to explaining the big bang.
What would be much worse than that is applying a religious belief system that has no supporting evidence to the explanation and discard every other possible alternative.
That indeed would be dishonest and ignoble.
You get there by letting go of all that you hold true. Beliefs thoughts paradigms and perceptions. Your mind therefore needs to be at rest. No thoughts. Try it you might find it.
Explain away through logic and reason what was before the big bang. I am very interested.
We have already gone past that, Penny. Look back a few posts.
Suspend logic and reason? Yes, of course you have to do that, because your god is logically impossible. It cannot exist - so they only way to belive in it is to close your mind to reason.
What a refreshing admission: theism requires suspension of thought!
No we haven't gone there. No one has explained what is before the big bang. This is where the existence of the creator begins or didn't in your view. Nothing existed. The physicists apparently has to suspend logic and reason also when we get to this point in the discussion. Because so far nothing can be explained either by physics only possibilities. So whats the difference pray tell?
Again, Penny, for what I hope is the last time, this has NOTHINg to do with the Big Bang. Nothing. Try to grasp that.
I understand you believe that. I understand too because at the beginning of creation your claim to prove God does not exist is beyond the understanding of physics. So physics cannot prove your claim. I get that.
Perhaps this is why you ignore the big bang, I don't know?
If we assumed we did know what happened before the big bang. According to physics for the big bang to even occur there would need to be the ability to go from 0 to 1 which first needs somewhere to store information, a gate and a decision. Admitting the big bang would need this to occur and so would admitting a creator. If you admit a creator then the only debate would be the definition of God.
So here we are full circle back to where we started. No proof.. God or Creator or Mickey Mouse (whatever you like to call it) does not exist. Only opinion like mine that it exists.
Again, Penny, you keep bouncing back to something that is not relevant. You keep thinking that I am disproving your creator concept. I am not - it is not possible to do so.
What I can do is prove that the creator must be dependent upon underlying physics. Will you ever understand that?
By the way, I remind you again that non sentient creation requires neither storage nor logic gates - only physics.
And, what does that accomplish other than allowing my imagination to run amok? In other words, pretend reality no longer exists, is that what you mean?
That's it? That is how you get to the "nothing" in which the supernatural realm exists, and all the gods and angels and so forth are swirling about? Are you serious?
What's the difference between that and just sitting there doing nothing?
I'm not so sure I could, however we can easily turn to theoretical astrophysics to see what the evidence and explanations they would have to offer.
Well thats just it. Imagination cannot be used either. It is a no mind or mindless state. Sitting and doing nothing does not always equal not doing anything mentally. Mental activity of any kind needs to cease.
That actually makes sense. I would need to become mindless in order to believe in the supernatural. That certainly explains a lot.
In other words, whenever anything regarding religious beliefs is to be attained in understanding, one must cease all mental activity. Again, that makes sense and is quite evident in these forums.
No like I said beliefs should not be present full stop. You are attaining nothing. But then you won't know what I am talking about till you have been there. You wanted to know how to find it. I let you know. No more need to be said.
I agreed with you, be completely brain dead in order to see gods, yes, I get that.
Been where? You haven't really told me anything yet.
Yet, another dead end. Oh well.
very great logic. masterful argument. Strong citation. Bravo! You should publish this in a scientific journal or get yourself peer reviewed by your atheist peers in atheism journal.
The onslaught of the emotional outburst continues.
look at how I'm crying. I'm done here too. silly people need to read more and talk less.
You mean like how you didn't read yet another book, but managed to toss it out there to support your assertions?
Experienced nothing. If you have not done that (thats what I mean by been there) what is the point. Brain dead might actually be a good way to describe it, if that was what is happening. Are you brain dead when you are sleeping? No.
I'm afraid that's all I'm able to glean from your explanation. Perhaps, someone else could chime in with clarity?
You cannot clarify such an experience only point to. Don't take my word for it. Experience is our greatest teacher. Do or do not. Your choice. No harm if you do not.
Real world experiences most certainly help to teach us. Allegedly claimed religious experiences do not.
wow did you not see my quote in the other thread explaining that that is a mere cognitive exercise. You really are funny! It is a human attempt to explain the unexplainable. Beyond the mathematics, there is no theory just speculation.
That's not quite true. We can guess that the Big Bang is a cyclical event or imagine that it was the first event - that every thing was happily in a zero state prior to this. We CAN use logic to imagine possibilities - we just can't prove any of them just now.
But this is all unrelated to this thread because it is you theists who posit a creator. For your benefit, I grant you one, even though it is both unlikely and unnecessary.
The creator cannot be a god, though. THAT is what this thread is about - NOT about the Big Bang at all, because your theistic belief makes any such conjecture unneeded.
Yes we can guess and we can use logic to imagine possibilities. Those possibilities arise from the nothingness I referred to earlier. Why do you think it is unrelated? You are proving the non existence of a creator. Does it not make sense for you to go where the creator began its creations?
No the creator does not have to be God in the theist or 'other' sense of the word because it is just labels logic uses. Labels do not change its function. Kinda like if I a call a cup a pot it won't change the function of the cup.
I am NOT proving the non-existence of a creator.
You see, even this far in, you have no idea what is actually being argued, do you? No idea at all..
I am proving that if you wish to posit a creator, it cannot be a god.
Again I refer you back to my original response to your opening post. Define God. If you had we would not be having these discussions over labels. Only you seem to be worried what the Creator is called...namely God? Call it Mickey Mouse if you like. Does not change its function.
I don't need to define a god. I am simply proving that a creator cannot be anything but a natural product of some physics.
Would you call that a god? Of course you wouldn't.
Try harder to at least understand what is NOT being argued, Penny.
Not of physics of something we cannot describe because it is unknown.
In saying that....
If physics can describe what is in the void before the big bang then yes we can call it a natural product of physics.
But this is not the case is it?
so now he agrees in a creator. well god is a metaphor for a creator. So you are agreeing that there is such a thing as a creator. flawed argument.
you best stick to everything is random because that actually has more weight than "if there is a creator, he is not god". I call this cop out and silly. You lost the debate mister. You cannot disprove metaphor if you don't know what it stands for. Case in point your argument above.
A creator can be a physics student in another dimension or an accidental result of cyclotron experiments.
You need to understand that much, at least.
No, Cecilia, I never agreed that there is a creator. I think a creator is extremely unlikely. However, that leaves "possible". It is that slim possibility that the proof addresses. IF you have a creator, it cannot be a god.
Your failure to understand that this late in the game says a lot.
No, you need information storage and logic. Not God, our Creator...because we exist and all visible in the universe exist.
Actually I was pointing to what you were pointing to. So our opinions are the same or similar if I am understanding your posts correctly.
Actually, he has proven that "god" can not exist as is currently claimed by the masses.
If we have to stoop to alternate dimentions, Space time continuums to explain "god" then we must also submit to the theory of Time Travel, Mystics, Mind readers, Aliens, Parallel universes and a various other "SciFi" theories. Sounds like if we are going to use this arguement to say that PC hasn't proven the "accepted" version of "god" false, then we might consider becoming scientologist... just my opinion of course
If by "accepted version" you mean what the christians call God, then we are not on the same page at all...
I DO NOT believe the christian version of God is what God truly is.
In my humble opinion the Christian's are incorrect.
No, I made no argument concerning a christian god.
Try to get this once and for all: my argument is that a sentient creator cannot be anything other than the natural product of some physics.
I personally don't believe that there is any other physics than our own, but my argument doesn't depend on that. The only thing it depends on is logic. Simple cause and effect.
In physics if you are in space and you jump do you come back down like on earth? Thats assuming we can breath in physical form in space. I know we can't but just assume we can.
pcunix, as Einstein stated I am searching for the after thoughts of an Intelligent Being who created the universe. The created can not know more than the Creator. Once again, you are conceptually putting oranges into grapes.
"SMASH" goes yet another giant gauntlet as it hits the feet of millions. I am humbled.
I have no problem allowing alternate dimensions, parallel universes or even turtles all the way down - except that somewhere the turtles stop, and there we must find no god, but only the natural product of some physics,
You tell me.
Your creator cannot have, because it requires physics, storage media and logic gates to make any decision about creating anything.
pcunix, ...conceptually putting an organe inside of a grape. Putting the cart before the horse. God created the first principal of order (physics from which came logic) not the reverse. You are placing a restriction on your creator. Can a six year old tell the parent that he is not their?
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
not as much verbal wars as you've caused Mark. you got to stop hating your own traits.
Twopenny psychiatrist as well huh? You really must stop being quite so predictable. I would recommend a good history book so you could read about the wars caused by religion, but I suspect you prefer the majik account.
See - talking about it is good therapy for all concerned - including as a species. Eventually we will understand the difference between "real" and "conceptual," - then perhaps the fights will stop? Who knows - worth a try in my book. But getting some resistance from those who derive personal power by claiming esoteric knowledge that others can not grasp. This is irrelevant, because it is an improvement on burning witches at the stake.
Which is what you would have been doing a few hundred years ago.
Twopenny psychiatrist - heal thyself and see the new meme being written. I know - change is hard - but your skills in interpreting and intervening with the spirit world are over-rated and un-necessary. We can grasp the concept of a concept (sic) and do not need to talk in "real" terms any more. You have been superseded by Harry Potter. Religion is waning in the educated world - whether you like it or not. Most religious zealots prefer to move to the third world where poverty and deprivation create a better environment for it. Maybe you should move out to the sticks where juju women are still wanted and value? Because calling yourself a scientist is not working for you.
Confusing concepts with reality is why the fights start. And they always start with some one such as your self speaking for a G-d. Always. They always accuse anyone who challenges them of being the cause of the fights as well. Always.
How do you create the physics you need to create anything?
Magic. The only answer.
Acceptable for you. Not acceptable as a rational refutation.
No, it isn't. You don't know anything about fuzzy logic at all, do you? You heard someone use the phrase or saw it written somewhere and you hope that parroting it back at the right moment will confound an argument.
You might as well have said "bananas". Fuzzy logic can't help your creator create something it needs for an act of creation.
I'm using fuzzy logic right now.
Why would you want all others to be just "ignorant" ?
No, you aren't.
As I said, you are just throwing out words you don't even understand.
What makes you say that ?
That's rather presomptuous of you.
Maybe you're just another dogmatic evangelist afterall.
What a shame for the hairdo...
Besides... who doesn't understand fuzzy logic ?
I think YOU throw out words you don't understand.
You and your 2Volt current...
I didn't say anything about "2 volt current". That's like saying "Three paragraph word". You are confusing terms, which means you know nothing about electricity.
I know some about electricity and I'm gonna prove it!
Electricity is a bunch of small blue balls that run twards a bigger red ball.
I'm really having fun man.
So, what is your definition ?
Funny how you would attribute "nothing" to having somehow created something that is supposed to be an all-powerful and all-knowing entity capable of creating a universe, yet you won't attribute the very same "nothing" to having skipped over the process of creating the all-powerful and all-knowing entity, and just create the universe instead. Puzzling logic.
Then, in order to solve the paradox, we would need to change our notion of a "nothing" to that of a "something" - this presents a problem of evidence, for which can only be drawn from our universe considering whatever the "something" is that created our universe is no longer there.
Hence, we have the introduction of various creation stories based on scriptures written by various men who were claimed to have been inspired by their gods.
We also have the application of the scientific method helping us to understand the world around us in an attempt to see if we can indeed find evidence for that "something" that kick-started our universe.
But, for the time being, we can only refer to it as a "nothing" because for the time being, nothing is all we got.
I'm so glad you've decided to engage PCunix and throw down the gauntlet at his feet. Well done sir!
I await your rebuttal to his "opinion" with delight.
Beelzedad, nothing is all that you have, but us Christian have experienced the Spirit. Life is a spirit, not a piece of matter which gives life when arranged properly. Life is not in physics, rather physics supports the lives created by God.
Thank you for your emotional outburst that did not address my post in the slightest.
just go to nearby bar you will get better spirit there..
or else you explain what is spirit.....
jomine, a spirit can be sensed and felt, but not seen nor phyically touched. Life is a spirit; a potentiality.
Hey pcunix. Good for you to throw this out there. I'm very proud of you.
You stated earlier that you cannot understand the proof. Let me help you: where do you lose the train of logic?
I hate to be contrary, but...
You are assuming that the god exists and began to exist in our universe. But if God created this universe then it existed before that creation in some other place. Call it another dimension or another universe, call it whatever you wish but it is not a part of the space/time continuum we exist in and is undefinable. The rules of both space and time that we exist in are not applicable to the "place" that God inhabits and cannot be inferred from anything we can observe or experience.
As the big bang (caused by God) created both the space and the time that makes up our universe, then God existed before time; by definition that is forever, at least in the "upstream" direction.
Conclusion; God could exist, could have existed forever, or with "correct" "rules" in His universe could have created Himself.
GIGO rules the world of logic and imagination.
No, turtles all the way down doesn't help you.
I already agreed that the creator does not have to be part of our universe or be bound by our physics. Read carefully. I most definitely did not assume any such thing.
But, PC, your argument is based on the fact that physics demands certain things like storage and the action of a NAND gate. It also depends on the use of time as we know it; concepts such as "before" are necessary to your argument.
There is no reason to suppose that time exists or is a part of Gods private universe. All actions are simultaneous, although such a concept cannot exist without time to refer to. Everything that has happened, will happen or is happening is actually happening at all points on Gods "timeline". Not only the ability to switch from 0 to 1 but the steady state of both 0 and 1 are present in each and every NAND gate throughout that same timeline. Not possible in our universe, but entirely possible in the imaginary universe of God.
The physics of information storage could be the same deal. Different laws produce different results. Each bit of information (0 or 1) contains all the information in the entire universe at the same time; both 0 and 1 are present an infinite number of times in each bit.
Does it make sense or is it possible in our universe? Of course not, but it could happen with the right "rules" of a different universe. The rules of Gods universe are whatever it would take to harbor Him; physics, logic, time; nothing needs agree with what we see or experience.
No, actually we do have reason to believe that time is independent.
Your are trying to posit an illogical universe. Physics demands nothing: logic demands physics.
You cannot contain more than one bit of information in one bit. You want to bring magic into thi, fine, but it doesn't help you any.
pc, we must assume that God has always existed, and one of His acts was the creating of our universe and US. First evidence is what we do observe. Pinch yourself; you are the only entity in existence that felt it. PC, you be the proof that God is our Creator. Pcunix, you have just proved GOD!
A thing that requires simpler things has to have come into existence AFTER those things. The storage media could exist forever, the creator cannot.
I would also ask help in determining if this argument has been made before. I believe that it actually, has, although probably stated in far more complex ways that just make ordinary people run away screaming.
It is hard for me to believe that no other atheist has made this point. If you know of an instance, please point me at it.
I know that many atheists have made the mistake of giving up when faced with the impossibility of disproving a creator. I just can't believe that I am the first to step beyond that.
Personally I would suggest sicking to computer technology because that explanation didn't prove anything.
The concern for 1s and 0s binary language has nothing on the human brain who developed the concept for use.
The human though process extends beyond switching on and off. The mind can start with nothing and imaging a automobile, a missle, tacos, whatever.
from where I'm sitting this doesn't even come close to proving God doesn't exist...really.
The zeros and ones merely are the minimum requirement for information storage. I said that above: you are free to imagine any information storage method and decision making apparatus you wish: it and the physics that drive it have to exist before the creator.
Oranges into grapes again, pcunix. God always has existed is more harmoneous to our experiences; so is God created the physics. It works better than assuming that previous conditions existed before God, our Creator. Reasoning and common sense dictate that we follow this belief. After all, we all are in an incumbator, the universe, being conditioned to know our Creator.
We seem to be at the stage where which came first the chicken or the egg. Physics apparently created the creator. We advocate everything including physics was created by the creator.
Through logic alone neither can be proved if we go back to the origins of the Universe.
Reasoning and common sense???
Reasoning and common sense say that your creator is vanishingly unlikely and that if it did exist, it MUST be the product of some physics it self!
Pcunix, do you believe (from your brain not heart) that the imagination of human being about certain things is limited?
Let's take one example: suppose you are in a room. can you imagine there is nothing after the walls of the room? what does your physics say? now suppose, our universe is the room, can you imagine there is nothing after this universe? ok, let's take billions of other universes and imagine as a small room. can you imagine there is nothing after that? Any logic, any physics or any human being can't imagine that, can they? if you say yes, then i will ask you to imagine it infinitive times, and when your physics will get tired of imagination then i will ask you to imagine your imagination as a small room and to think "there is nothing after the walls". If your physics can prove that 'there is nothing' after that the wall then i will go for debate whether god exist r not. why you people just misuse the term GOD? why dont you accept that human being has limitations to think (after a certain point).? Why don't we accept that when we can't think more than a certain point we start to believe or disbelieving on that? It's just how God came. Why do you try to be so intelligent about a controvercial thing? Why dont you use your brain to something productive? And Pcunix, dont you think that you put so much time for nothing? Be productive!!
I am not a physician or never studies physics, so i had to use the easiest way to point out on your unproductive works. If you answer me then please clarify any terms you use frm physics.
pc you are mean too. you could understand i did not mean physician, i had been writing fast and you do understand i meant physicist. you are a real b-shit
And, you could try being more civil with your tongue. Just a thought.
You can't write English well enough for me to understand you. That's not intended to be mean: I simply cannot follow your confused words.
I think you are trying to say that your god is beyond logic. If so, I have no more interest.
That's what I said.
You can't prove it using computer logic. Because it is outside of logic it's a metaphor for your "just a creature" well "just a creature" makes the entire universe a mere aspect of this creature, which makes it not "just" but the holy grail of why you were allowed to evolved into you. So it's not "just". It is what could be what is being symbolized and named as "G-d". Afterall, white people were gods to the Aztec mythology. Their rulers were gods too. They were prophesize to come and make a Mexico out of their culture. What does that mean about the word "god" in that concept? So disproving the symbolism of god using the binary system is once again ignorant and silly. Silly Silly Silly. And if you open another thread, I would call your "proof" silly there too.
Christian theory says that "god" has always been...if that is true...why create everything that was created...are we humans so arrogant to think that "god" created us for the purpose of boosting "gods" ego by our submissive worship. That would imply that "god" needs us more than we need "god" and it would also imply that "god" has low self esteem and requires submissive worship from only the humans (not anything else that was created) to fulfill some void in "gods" existance...and since humans were "created" in "gods" image.. I can only imagine that "god" would have the same "needs" as a human does.
Nice try Pcunix, and I agree with you. However your taking about people that are not logical when it comes to the God thing.
To them God just is. He's magic, defying all logical means and ways that we know.
That's why you can't change their minds, or prove your right. Your prove is simply dismissed as not applying to a God, as a God is beyond human logic and means.
However that is the whole point of believing in a god. They want to be saved, to live forever in a perfect world, a magic world. So your point is moot.
Beyond logic? Impossible. Their god MUST be rational. It can be smarter, faster, stringer and hold more information, but it must have reason.
An irrational god? That's an oxymoron.
An Omniscient God that knows everything and therefore must test Eve to see if she will bite the apple? That's an oxymoron as well (plus a total failure at logic), but it's what we have.
Bill is absolutely right - No god is either logical or rational.
It's more than that. No creator is possible withouut logic and physics.
perhaps your conception of what a creator is can't exist without logic and physics, that does not prove the non existence of a creator that does not have those limitations. You assume without proof that what you classify as the creator IS the creator...
again, got proof?
Sure it is. All it takes is magic, as Bill says. Defined as anything that operates outside the laws of this universe.
That's not a good definition of magic. I can imagine other physics that certainly are not magic.
I want to find that time experiment for you, by the way. Give me a minute or two.
This describes some of it: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s … ts/suarez/
Interesting we can believe in witches,demons, devils but a being better then we are morally, mentally-Oh that can't happen.
Yet when we look around we see that this world all by itself it take cares of itself-how can something that has no intelligence do that????
No matter how someone drops a seed in the ground and cover it up with dirt it grows upward-how does it know where up is at???
I guess we can tell ourselves any.
That's a funny thing to say. How does the world "take care of itself?"
Uh, it grows towards the light/heat from the sun. Have you never seen how plants turn towards the sun as they grow? Is that direction up, or is it a direction upon where the sun is situated?
When we're in the presents of light we know were it is but when we're in a room or cave in complete darkness where is the exit??
I would follow the breeze coming from the exit.
What makes you think breezes travel into every part of a cave and not in a closed room-please.
Okay, so I get lost in a dark cave. What is your point?
The point is you don't have all the answers so you never answered how something a seed functions the way it does.
A seed functions the way it does because of evolution by natural selection. No god need apply.
No one has said how does a seed knows what way is up when it' buried in the ground and generalizations says nothing.
A seed does not "know" anything because it does not have any brain cells to process thought. It responds to stimuli in predictable ways because of how evolution has affected it.
So therefore it has information stored somewhere right? And a gate? Oh and it can make decisions?
Depends what you mean by "information," but technically, yes. It has genetic information.
No, it cannot make decisions, because decisions are made by conscious/ sentient beings.
A gate? I don't know what you mean.
I was stating that in reference to the opening post and a few posts following. And yes we have had this discussion earlier about what requires information, gates and a decision. You might like to read the whole thread or not? At least the first 10 might help.
Well excuuuuse me. You replied to me, not the other way around. I am aware of the initial discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, this forum has taken many twists and turns into other topics and offshoots. PC Unix himself originally indicated that there is a connection to evolution in his argument.
So why you asking what gate, if you read the thread? And if you read the thread you might have noticed that it was established that only sentient beings need the stored information and the gate and the decision to create. Furthermore you might have read that a few of us are advocate God is non sentient.
Well, no. I said that the supposed creature COULD come from evolution. It could also accidentally come together - random accident.
That is a boldfaced lie. I'm so sorry you fell compelled to lie to support your belief system. I'm not interested in discussions with liars. Bye.
This is very similar to/ reminds me of the primary response to the transcendental argument for God:
The claim: Laws of logic, morality and knowledge cannot exist without a designer/ God. God is the necessary, prior condition for the existence of logical, moral and natural laws, as well as the basic objective intelligibility of the universe. Such laws exist, and the universe is intelligible, therefore God exists.
The response: If logic requires a designer, that designer by definition must be logical. In which case, who designed his logic? If, on the other hand, his logic is undesigned, then logic does not always require a designer, and therefore the logic of reality may have been undesigned.
I think we are progressing nicely. We have the expected magical explanations from Wildreness and others and the expected minds still stuck not understanding that a creator does not need to be anything supernatural (and cannot be).
I'm going to take a break soon. I need to go look at puppy pictures.
I regret that I have to leave this for now.
I will be back, tomorrow or Tuesday.
Hey pcunix, again, good for you. I realize it is probably difficult, bouncing around and trying to speak to everyone from where they are coming from. I think you are doing an excellent job so far, keeping up with all the questions.
Hi pcunix. I am a little confused on something. You do understand that your model assumes that we have reached the ultimate level of knowledge we are able to obtain on the universe.
No, it assumes no such thing at all.
It makes sense that you'd try that tack, though. Unfortunately, it's a dead end, because there is no such assumption in the proof.
Geez really? You couldn't wiggle of it in the other thread and now You're trying to peddle it here?
This was already settled in another thread.
G-d is a product of human mythology. It is symbolic of a huge variety of things that pertain to something real. So proving it with computer logic is silly. silly. silly.
Pcunix, I am so sorry. I know I said I would be courteous and attentive and I have been. I think your model is very nicely done, but I think the posts have proven that, perhaps there is a dimension you are not able to take into account. But, it is still a very impressive thread and it was kind of you to share.
I promised not to make fun of him if he would post it. I feel somewhat bad about the whole thing. He was so sure it would put the argument to rest.
Really? Well I didn't make that promise.
You think you have made fun of me?
No, my friend, you have not. You and the other theists have only shown your inability to dispute my proof. None of you have every even attempted it, but you clap each other on the back and pretend you have.
No gods are possible. Period.
What dimension is that? The dimension of make believe because I need a god to be my friend? THAT dimension?
I apologize for asking you to posting this, and I swear to you, had I understood atheism better yesterday I would never have considered this a good idea.
We are not alone. I repeat. We are not alone.
There is actually something out there smarter than man worthy of reflective conversations.
Physics is not the end all knowledge we are capable of attaining.
a mind is a terrible to waste.
Again, thank you for the thread, but I'm afraid the search continues for things beyond your grasp.
Oh, and lighten up. You don't need an imaginary friend. God loves you. We love you, in our own odd way.
Yes, lack of reflection on that topic, too, could explain a lot of the problems between the camps.
I was joking. I don't know if you've read my long post. But we can really just speculate. that's all. make parallels and continue to search. Not be dismissive of anything. Not even the strong points of atheism.
I completely agree. No one knows the truth. I find it difficult to converse with anyone who thinks they do.
People find a truth and they get fixated. There are many perspectives of truth because THE TRUTH is just so big, you can look at aspects and occasionally you'll find neat parallels. But then if you know enough, you know it never really ends. Its infinite, its a single point and its both. There you go another parallel.
Aww - and just a few moments ago you stated with absolute certainly that "There is actually something out there smarter than man worthy of reflective conversations."
So - not only do you think you have the truth - you are so convinced - that you have difficulty conversing with some one who thinks they do.
This is why your religion always causes so many fights. Because what you actually mean is that you have difficulty conversing with some one who thinks differently to you.
Logically - no god can exist. The end. Now put your claims into perspective and what do you have? Delusions, myths and concepts that do not exist in reality.
You are insisting that something in your imagination is real and - I am incapable of perceiving it. Hence the conflict.
Hi Mark. So nice to see you up. Now, all you need to do is wake up, so to speak. You never answered my question, so I'm not sure I'm obligated to answer yours.
I will say, your argument about the war thing is not overly compelling. I find it odd, atheists close the borders of their country and slaughter willy nilly and apparently get to do it without the judgement of their ilk.
I guess out of sight, out of mind' is one of the tenets of the faith.
Do you think Amazon sells an atheist handbook? I'd be better at arguing if I had a firm grasp on where the heck you're coming from.
Resorting to condescension I see. Yes - I can see why you would not be able to understand my viewpoint. You have made it clear all along you know the answers and just cannot understand why anyone would not agree. So - let me get this straight - it is OK that Christians murder peopel because atheists close their borders and slaughter willy nilly?
You obviously think atheism is some sort of belief system. How silly.
What question was this that I did not answer?
You're so funny guy, and I see you are interested in being so ventriloquist. Unfortunately I am not a puppet. You aren't speaking for me with that post. I didn't say that at all. you're just being silly now.
Oh, and I hate swype, but I think you still get my point.
Dear me. You said my argument about religion causing wars was not compelling because atheists close their borders and slaughter willy nilly.
I see you are not such a big fan of the commandments after all.
Again, broad strokes to avoid the issue at hand. It just seems somewhat hypocritical of you to attempt to argue that point. I am trying to be politeand not let you embarrass yourself. I'm exceptionally kind that way. Oh, that sounded immodest. Please forgive me.
No - I expect condescension from you. No surprises really.
The issue at hand? Logically god can not exist.
Logically, I see your argument as flat. Not surprising either.
No - that is not logic, that is merely being condescending again. Little wonder your religion causes so many wars.
And little wonder you would say that. When you put a roadblock up to thought, you will always come up short.
Haha. That's funny.I wondered if you would catch that opening at first. Anyhoo, we disagree. I thought we were becoming so simpatico. I get confused sometimes.(oh look, another opening. I'm trying to help you here)
Ayup. That's typical of this one. He never really says anything, never really provides any argument, but his tone of voice always suggests that he has delivered masterful blows.
I've seen this type before. They are actually quite interesting to watch.
They get some sort of jollies out of causing conflicts - not sure why seeing as they claim that is Satan at work.
Mark, I love you man. Give it up. I'm not the problem in this exchange. Not sure how to respond to the Satan's work comment.I have no idea what you're talking about. Drink some coffee. Shake it off. All you have to do is want it and you can have a nice day.
Of course many of the theists here have forgotten that and move their god into a realm beyond logic. They don't realize that this move actually proves the argument, but of course they never understood that that was their task. Instead, they take it as a challenge to explain their god - and the only way that can be done is through magic.
Repeating "We are not alone" is your refutation?
Well, obviously that does it, doesn't it? Your logic carries the day!
No. but I am at a serious disadvantage here. I promised to be courteous. My word is my bond.
Ahh. So you could refute the argument, but it would require insults?
I assert that, in fact, you don't even begin to comprehend the argument. Like Cecilia and Penny, you either find it beyond your ability to process or or are too lazy to read it through and actually think about it or, because you have already decided that it cannot be valid, you simply haven't bothered.
Which is it? Inability, laziness or just didn't bother? I'm betting on the latter, because I think it fits you best.
I do comprehend your argument. It is very insightful, on one level. I think you have done a splendid job of defending it. Call me crazy.
No, I don't think so. Again, I assert that you do not understand it at all.
Fess up. You are as confused as the others, aren't you?
Prove to me that you are not. Prove to me that you understand it by refuting it. That's the only possible proof -you do understand that, right? In your theistic world, this argument must be false. Therefore you either need to refute it (I bet with magic in your case) or just ignore it and dismiss it (which has been your method so far).
I'm not going to let you get away with "on one level". On what "level" is it false?
Here's my theory: You wanted me to start this thread because you couldn't understand the argument and you hoped that by bringing in more theists, one of them would provide the refutation that you are incapable of producing. When that didn't happen, you went back to your typical responses, dripping with condescension and devoid of real argument.
The spotlight is on you. Strut your stuff and prove that you actually have something to say.
P.S. : None of us will be holding our breath.
I cannot refute your argument on the level you are comprehending. If you limit the conversation, as you have appeared to in previous posts, it's impossible for us to do discuss it.
Again, I say, you did a fine job. I just simply believed that you believed that you had come up with an answer. It is not, in my opinion, an answer. I am sorry we could not find a common ground. It does not negate the fact that you have made a valiant effort to state your point.
Hilarious. I do admit you are one of the more slippery theists and I bet this technique works well in many arguments.
I assure you my comprehension is quite adequate for anything you can dish out.
Saying "It is not, in my opinion, an answer" demonstrates lack of comprehension, I think. I provided no "answer". I provided a logical proof.
Proofs aren't theories or answers. Your job isn't to provide an alternative explanation for observed phenomena - that's what you'd do if I had presented a theory.
But this is a proof. If A, then B. When your task is to challenge a proof, all you need to do is show that any of the "if's" or any of the conclusions drawn from those "if's" are false.
That's all you need to do. Of course that does require at least understanding the argument first. I think that's the roadblock you face.
So, once again: prove the argument false. It should be easy enough. Go for it.
Pcunix, I have read the posts. Many have tried to make you understand the fallacy.it would be arrogant of me to think I could explain something that has already been stated so well.
But, on the upside, I hear 8% of the world is atheist. I'm sure they see this simple point as the end all answer. Having 8% of the world agree with you is not a small feat. You should be proud. I really think you did a good job.
Oh, you ARE funny.
Nobody has refuted this. If you think they have, please provide the link or links to the posts that point out any fallacy of logic.
My bet is that you don't even know what "logical fallacy" means. Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy - that might get you started.
As I suspected, this was the problem. Unable to meet the challenge yourself, you hoped that someone else would. Unfortunately for you, no one did.
I challenge you to provide the link to the post that explains the fallacy.
(It sure is amusing to see a theist assert that arguments of this nature demonstrate logic fallacies. Very Orwellian, actually)
Arghh. You are just not going to let this end on a positive note. You cannot win this argument without looking outside of your box. I cannot argue effectively within the confines of your box.
I realize you see the box as logical. That is fine for you. 92% of the world does not see that as reason.
Right here, right now, you are at the top of your 8%. I do not understand why you perceive this as a bad thing. Don't be so negative.
Ahh, so you could not find any fallacy in the argument. In spite of your insistence that this was demonstrated, you cannot point to where it was done.
I knew that already, of course. Because no logical fallacies exist in that argument. Did you have to go to Wikipedia to understand that? I bet you did
So, what is it for you, then? Magic? That really seems to fit your style of thinking. That's the way I recommend for you - anything else will just make you cross and give you tummy aches.
What box do I confine you in?
There is no box. You are free to provide any disproof that you like - no chains bind you at all.
But you cannot. And we both know that, don't we?
Ok. I'll try. Your argument is good. For now. But to think we understand the universe at this point, on such a scale as to say conclusively that this proves the possibility of God is non existent is the height of arrogance. When man thought the world was flat they scoffed at anyone who thought them wrong.
Your box is your arrogance. Most people realize there is more out there that we don't know than what we do. To clench your fist, stomp your foot and say only you know everything, then you've already lost the fight.
Ahh, you pretend to admit that the argument is good. Of course you have to, because you don't understand it and had hoped that someone else would explain it to you, right?
But, like Jerami, you are refuting an argument that wasn't made. I do NOT assert that your creator can not exist - quite the contrary, I give you that as though it were fact.
Nor is there any arrogance here (a very special theist accusation, I know). There are only assertions of logic. How can an assertion have in arrogance in it? It simply is true or it is not. No "arrogance".
This proof requires no understanding of the Universe, either. That's yet another favorite of theosts - we don't KNOW enough to say! - but it has no traction here because nothing in the proof assumes anything about the make up of the universe or your supposed creator.
Are you EVER going to actually understand the proof? I doubt it.
You're not listening. Your model is perfect. Your logic, on the level of the amount of information we have today is sound. You did a fine job. But it does not disprove a god to anyone. It proves our inability to be able to understand one. No new news to me.
It tells me that there are so many more exciting things we have to learn. It tells you we are at the end of our intellectual journey. We simply see it differently.
Again, the logic does not attempt to disprove your creator. Admittedly, I used a provocative title to help draw in the theists you hoped would help destroy the proof, but if you understood the argument, you'd know that it does not disprove - it is a proof, not a disproof.
I love you man. And I will say, this is the first exchange I have enjoyed with you since I joined this party a couple of weeks ago. Gotta go. You can read whatever you want into that fact.
You did a good job. Maybe one day we'll see eye to eye.
Ayup. I knew he'd run away eventually.
It was obvious from the beginning that his (her?) hope was that some theist with more understanding would come riding in on a white horse and tear my proof to pieces. Of course that can't happen, but when you can't understand the proof to begin with, it is understandable to have that hope.
He's tried every other theistic debating technique and now is beginning to understand that none of them apply, so he runs away.
The question is, was he one of those who would like a rational basis for their beliefs or one who just doesn't care? It's hard to say..
Hey.I just back into an area I could get access. I told you before.I do other thins.I don't run away. You must explore your abandonment issues; speaking of which, where's getitrite? This is very odd he hasn't put in his two cents worth.
I just want you to know I was serious, when I told you on the other thread that you were a black and white guy in a shades of gray cosmos. It is not your fault you miss the subtle nuances of life.
I'm sorry you don't think I get it, it's just a little more complex than you're willing to comprehend.
You really should have a look at the list of logical fallacies and learn to try not using them all the time.
OK... I'll play.
Pcunix you state that "God" (as defined by Christians) is not possible BECAUSE God requires physics in order to exist.
Got proof of this OPINION?
Christians state: "God is omnipotent, which means ALL POWERFUL, therefore God can do anything INCLUDING not being bound by the laws of physics in order to exist."
You must show proof that the Christian belief is false in order to refute it, otherwise you are merely doing what they are doing, offering an opinion, with out any proof to back or support your OPINION. Your statement THAT no God is possible is not a proof it is a theory until you provide concrete evidence, even if you say another hundred times that it isn't.
Thanks for playing.
As I have said over and over, if you don't care about logic and are happy with magic, you can have your god.
Nothing here is specific to Christian beliefs. Christian beliefs are too ludicrous to even bother with. I'm aiming at the basic creator, not any specific fantasy.
It's not a theory. A theory explains observed phenomena. Religion is a theory, evolution is a theory, trickle down economics is a theory. Nor is it an opinion. It is simply a logical proof that you cannot refute.
You can ignore it by pretending magic or using time loops or bringing the god outside of time. Those have logic issues also, but you don't care about logic, so they don't matter.
But you cannot refute it.
That's exactly what those who don't understand physics who are believers, usually say.
Hey, I was leaving, but I had to answer this. You need to open the lid on your box and gets some air. That comeback was a little light headed for you.
More of the "think outside the box" advice from our curious friend.
What box? No box confines this proof. You are free to roam wherever you wish. I've already told you that we understand what "outside the box" means to theists: it means magic. It means a creator who has no need for information storage or logic gates. This amazing creature is beyond all that.
But for some reason you still want to pretend that this is not your only refuge. Why is that?
Science fails to destroy the idea of god because of one thing, "origin". Science can't explain where everything comes from.
You didn't understand the argument either. The argument allows your creator - it simply proves that it cannot be a god.
We don't need to explain everything and this thread doesn't have anything to do with that. In fact, the argument accepts your concept that there must be a creator. It simply proves that the creator must be dependent upon underlying physics and is nothing but a natural creature, just like you.
Are you a god?
Yes that is exactly it. No super natural entity. Natural. We are expressions interdependent on other underlying processes because that is how evolution works. Everything is connected. One whole. Kinda like the body. Cells in the lungs do its thing but is still part of the body. Interdependent but connected.
So you understand that your creator has to be a natural product of some physics?
After the big bang and given other processes not known yet sure. Before that is debatable.
No, it is not. Sadly, I thought we were getting close, but you've snapped right back to the Big Bang again.
That has nothing to do with this proof, Penny. You can't have your creator without the required components.
Oh you are right I thought we were too? So the laws of physics came into being when?
Physics had to exist before the creator, Penny. So did the storage media. Then you need to assemble logic gates, which we will allow you to let occur by accident. Only then can your creator begin to exist.
Only if it was sentient being according to you.
The physics we know today "didnt even exist" like it does now before 10-43 planck.
So reality isnt possible. Gee thanks Pcunix. I was convinced of reality before this.
Logic gates get "all gooey" at 10−42 planck. And so does your argument
I don't know how many times you folks need to be told the same thing.
We're not talking about the Big Bang or the formation of the universe. We're talking about the dear Sky Daddy creator that theists think is needed to CREATE the Universe.
No logic gates are necessary for the Big Bang. No information storage is needed either. It really astonishes me that you can't understand that.
"Science can't explain where everything comes from."
You are assuming that everything came from somewhere. Why?
Good question, It is something I think intrinsic in us. That there has to be some beginning. You will be lying if you state that you didn't ask this question in your life.
Ah! So I discover that up here is where you are really answering my question
Anyway, actually, I only assumed there was a beginning when I was a child, not in my main intellectual life.
Reality works in mysterious ways... rarely are our instincts or intrinsic assumptions correct.
So, where does religion state where everything comes from?
In summary, most of the theists here thought that the argument was against a creator, which isn't the case at all.
I suspect that says less about intelligence and more about haste and laziness: because they KNEW that they could refute THAT argument, they assumed that they knew what it was about - and in spite of being told over and over that it is not, some still cling to that initial error.
Refuting something that was given at the beginning as assumed fact is not refuting an argument
The rest (the few that actually understand what is being said) either accidentally agree without ever realizing that they did (the evolved god) or jump to the ancient "My god is beyond logic" nonsense, which of course is no argument at all and envisions a being that somehow employs logic without using any logic - an obvious contradiction, but of course that never bothers a theist.
Then, laughably, we have the ones who congratulate themselves for winning an argument that they actually made no attempt to refute at all.
All in all, a satisfying demonstration of how desperately theists need to believe. This adds further weight to the theory that theism is strongly based in emotions. Deep, deep needs for security, reward and punishment, justice and love drive these beliefs - it really is no wonder that logic can't touch them!
Fun, as usual.
Amazing how some keep returning to the same place. It makes me think of a rubber ball tied to an elastic string. No matter how many times they are told that the argument is not against a creator, they come right back to it.
So you are saying that the creator is also "created"? Am I right?
(I do like your way of using logic gates as example,universal NAND gates, ^ ^ cool )
I have put no limitations on how this thing comes to be, but created by another god doesn't help.
Created by evolution, fine. Created by accidental assembly, unlikikely but I'll, give it to you if you want it.
I have to go to bed. Don't feel I am ignoring you - I will be back.
If you believe, you believe. If you do not, you do not.
No logic, no common sense here
"I can prove no gods exist"
The burden of truth is not on us. It's on creationists. Either way, let me give you a hand PC.
Everything that exists in the known universe, can be measured to some degree. Accurately or inaccurately, the degree of measurement still exists. Matter can be measured in volume, mass, weight etc. Energy can be measure in temperature, joules, watts, lumens, etc. Stress can be measured with cortisol levels, happiness with endorphins. Time can be measured in seconds, days, years, etc. Even dreams can be measured with MRI's and scans.
If god exists, surely he/she/it can be measured right? I have yet to see a method of measuring the existence of god. Could it be possible that a method have not been developed yet? That's very convenient. To say that god is infinite, all knowing, all seeing, and whatever fairy tales people come up with is not only silly, but lazy. The creationist's answer to everything: GODDIDIT.
Even if you creationists challenge me to measure the size of the sun, I could simply wear sun glasses, close one eye and stick out my thumb and say, "there! It's about the size of my thumb." And at night, I could say, "the moon is the size of my pinky." Childish as it might sound, my measurements are more accurate than any proof you can come up with for the existence of god.
This brings me back to my point. Measurements don't have to be 100% accurate. The only area where 100% accuracy exists is mathematics. Challenge a scientist to date the age of the Earth or a fossil and you can simply move the goalpost. It won't be good(accurate) enough. Hell, my own age is only accurate to a degree. I can say I'm 25 years, 3 months, 24 day, 14 hours, 11 minutes, and 14 seconds old but for a creationist, this will never be good enough. Moving the goalpost is easy.
On the other hand, if you challenge a creationist to give ANY measurements of the existence of god, they'll say, "you just gotta have faith". Faith does not require proof.
Staying true to the subject, I conclude that god does not exist because if god exists, he/she/it can be measured to some degree. Since I(and science) cannot accept [blind]faith as a form of measurement, god does NOT exist.
Actually, they would make the argument that it is possible to measure God by reading the Bible or the Quran, or whatever text, along with learning about specific miracles.
That gives an idea of God's power, what he uses it for, and what he is all about.
Other than the number of time the word "god" was repeated, I don't think creationists can use the bible as proper scale of measurement.
I get your point and it took me a long time to write that post. I hope it speaks clearly for itself.
Well, using a religious text is no less precise than using your thumb to measure the sun, which was your example
Actually, the thumb was a measurement of size. I used it as an example of accuracy or rather lack of. The POINT of using the thumb as form of measurement is to show that i can visually see my thumb and I can align it in between the sun as a CRUDE form of measurement. I am using my thumb to determine a measurement: Size.
Like I said precision(accuracy) doesn't matter. The point is the measurement exists. Are you suggesting that god can be measured with the width of a religious text? Or with words? Or with pages? Please explain.
With words that describe ideas, concepts, values, qualities, stories with lessons, morals, etc, yes.
A yardstick provides a measurement of length, and a story (it could be argued) provides a measure of values and qualities.
A table has length and God has values and qualities.
I know you are playing devil's advocate but I'll humor you.
If you are suggesting that God can be measured by values and qualities, then for one, you have to define the magnitude which these values need to be scalable. Just as I can define the magnitude of LENGTH, they are scalable. For example, inches, meters, light years, etc. I could measure my height with these scalable magnitudes. 5' 9". See? How are you going to measure god's "values" and "qualities" on a scale? Good, better, best? Sad, indifferent, happy? Dumb, average, smart? All of these values can be measured. How do you propose we measure god's feelings, or intelligence? Have him take an IQ test?
If you are suggesting god can be measured with values and qualities, would you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Uniform be put through these measurements too? The words in the bible have no more weight than words in fairy tales. Are you suggesting that we subscribe to believing in the Tooth Fairy too simply because it was written in a storybook?
Surely by playing devil's advocate, I am assuming you are proposing that god exists outside of storybooks. Correct me if I'm wrong.
"How do you propose we measure god's feelings, or intelligence?"
I already told you, by reading the Bible The stories of the Bible have more than enough material to get a grasp on how intelligent or wise God is.
FSM et al--theoretically they can be measured through the writings and texts that have been written about them, in the same way.
"Are you suggesting that we subscribe to believing in the Tooth Fairy too simply because it was written in a storybook?"
You are shifting things here. Your original point was that God cannot be measured--> therefore God does not exist. The premise was that God cannot be measured. I am proposing that if God exists, God can be measured. That does not mean that God exists, of course (God may not--indeed, does not--exist for other reasons). But it does nullify your premise.
All I'm trying to point out here is that your argument from measurements is not very effective. There are plenty of reasonable objections that a theist could make.
I have not shifted anything.
Measurements are nouns. They require mathematics. Quantitative proof. 1, 2, 3, 4, inch, mile, second, year. These are all nouns.
My argument is still effective. My thumb is a noun that I can compare to the size of the sun(another noun).
Let's look at this statement. "God is an intelligent being". "Being" is the noun. "God" is the pronoun. "God" is only implied to exist. There is no proof. The bible is not proof. You are under the assumption that words in the bible proves that god exists. It doesn't. It only implies it.
Even if we use "God" as a noun for example: "God gave me a high five." we still cannot measure he/she/it. It's imagination.
You can only measure pronouns once you've proven they exists because they are only IMPLIED to exist. Example: "He weighs 160lbs". "He" is the pronoun. You would have to define who "He" is. If I say, "He is Bill", then I can use that statement to measure Bill because I've defined who "he" is.
"God" is the pronoun. God cannot be measured. Your argument assumes god exists.
Your argument also assumes God exists. You first assume that God exists, then you say "God cannot be measured, therefore believing in God is not warranted." That was your original argument, anyway. If you want to change things, and discuss the more central issue of God's existence (as opposed to belief in or nonbelief in God) then by all means.
You have misquoted me. I've never stated that.
Belief has nothing to do with my argument. Measurements were. I haven't changed anything.
If I ever implied that god exist, it was either done hypothetically or to humor your argument. I was not serious when I said god would sit down and take an iq test.
The burden of proof was never on me. You brought up the fact that the bible was proof positive, not me. I am merely rebutting your evidence by stating that the bible's words only assume god exists.
I quote your original comment:
"If god exists, surely he/she/it can be measured right?"
In other words,
*assuming god exists, he can be measured*
You hypothetically assumed god exists. I accepted your hypothetical assumption, and ran with it.
Again, we are on the same side. I am just making clear that your argument will be refuted by any well-read theist. I'm trying to help you out, here.
*assuming god exists, he can be measured*
Let's look at that as a logical statement and see if we can understand it.
### the first part assume that if god exists(true), he can be measured
if (god = true)
god = measurable
god != measurable
### the second part states that if god is not measurable, god does not exist
I don't assume god exists. I am stating that since there is no measurement, god does not exist.
Yes I know we are on the same side and this exercise was quite stimulating. I am just standing by my argument and welcome you or anyone to refute it.
We can rewrite this statement another way
if (god = measurable)
god = true
god = false
rewriting the statement yields the same results. Pardon the syntax.
if (god = true)
This means "if God exists." As I said, this was your hypothetical assumption from the top. Just a different way of saying the same thing.
That was an IF ELSE statement written in code. You are neglecting the ELSE part of the statement.
This is like stopping me in mid-sentence. There is more to that statement than "if god exists". Even that cannot be considered a complete statement. If requires an else. A "Then".
After I've spelled it out for you in code, it's clear you are grasping at straws.
You are arguing a position I don't hold. I do not assume god exists.
It's like you dissecting my previous sentence and quoting me saying, "...god exists".
Back to the POINT of my argument. God cannot be measured. It doesn't even matter if I personally ASSUME he exists(humoring you again), god still cannot be measured.
If it exist does not mean that it can be measured. A good example would be all the space in the universe. How much volume does the space in the universe have. The theory that it is infinite would make it it unmeasurable, but let's assume that it is finite. Realistically you couldn't measure every amount a of void that exist so the best way to find out the volume is to fill it with some type of measureable material, let it be a gas or liquid. Being that everything is already contained within the unverse(being finite and all) we would not have enough of anything to fill it. Making it unmeasureable.
I just did this quick one minute exercise on the computer and here is how it went.
.......... these dots are fill ins so I dont paste the whole lot here
The computer (I have anyway) could not handle beyond its capacity to comprehend. This illustrates finite stretching into the infinite that man as a finite being cannot comprehend.
These are numbers that we might measure by but we do have our limits. I do agree it cannot be measured. Space cannot be measured.
Apparently the universe is expanding so if it were finite by the time we could find a way to measure it, it might have expanded exponentially beyond our reach again.
You are attempting a fallacious argument of moving the goalpost.
I will attempt to enlighten you anyways.
Volume is measured in Length X width X height(generally). It has nothing to do with having enough gas or liquid to fill it. While that method is crude, it is not required. Using math is far more economical. Accuracy is not what I am asking. Refer back to my thumb/sun argument.
Just because we can't measure the volume of the universe accurately doesn't mean it is unmeasurable. Is it possible to measure the length of the universe? Yes. I can even use spread my arms and said. "It's THIS big". This is a form of measurement. Yes, it's silly and inaccurate but it's something.
How do you measure god? You can't.
But accuracy is important. You see, if the theory is god exists, and he is in the universe, then to measure GOD you take the universe(which again I will assume is finite), and find it's volume, which you say is possible, and subtract the volume of everything in it, which is possible, and then subtract the volume of space, which you say is possible, then what ever is left over either negative or positive would have to be god.
Now, even with all that. I don't know if you read my first post but I do not believe in GOD, but according to Myth god doesn't really exist on the physical plane anyway which would mean GOD can not physically be measured. Everyone one can argue this forever there is no right or wrong answer when you are talking about a theory. Space(the void part) can not be seen, heard, smelled, or touched. It is absolute nothingness. Yet it does exist. It can be measure. Yet it is nothing.
I know this is all rhetoric but you are arguing the natural vs the supernatural. It can not logically be done.
No. It can be done. Your god can not logically exist. Your claim that you are special, and have a faculty that I do not have which means you are capable of understanding and seeing something that exists outside of reality is just silly. Illogical and impossible as a matter of fact. And I use the term "fact," in its proper fashion. Sorry - your god can not exist.
Who has ever claimed that? Certainly not me. If you cared to read any of my posts in the forum you might know this. If you knew how I understand God you might actually know why I would agree with you ,.....if that is what I claimed....but I haven't. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else? I don't know?
That aside: I am still waiting for someone to explain how infinite can be measured. Does science advocate that too?
Apply condescension twice daily when confused. True to form I suppose. Sorry - I thought you had said there was something "infinite" out there which you called God and then proceeded to argue that you know what to call it. Glad you did not say that.
Except you know there is a god.
I really cannot be bothered to go back through your posts again.
A god cannot logically exist.
What has measuring infinity got to do with anything? Oh - you mean - it cannot be measured therefore there is a god?
Now try dealing with the original proof of why there can not be a god instead of redefining the word and then not using that definition.
Condescending seems to be a recurring opinion from you. If you are receiving what I say that way I cannot help that. And.....
No you said I claimed this;
Your claim that you are special, and have a faculty that I do not have which means you are capable of understanding and seeing something that exists outside of reality is just silly. Illogical and impossible as a matter of fact. And I use the term "fact," in its proper fashion.
If you perceived the above in your mind because I said 'no one can measure infinity' who knows how you arrived at the above?
Might pay for you to read this thread because you might read that I said 'perhaps we you should define God to have a worthwhile discussion' in the very first reply to the original post. .....and further on I said 'you can call it Mickey Mouse if you want'
I have been dealing with the original post. Someone said they had proof. We are not here to prove God. We are here to disprove God. Doesn't matter to me whether you want to read my posts or not but you need to know what it is you are claiming.
Yes, you did, to me, in fact, when you tried to explain about how you get to the "nothing" in order to see gods. You stated quite emphatically that until I am able to experience the same thing you claimed to have experienced, I would never come to that understanding.
Tsk tsk, Penny. Caught red handed.
I did not say I had a special faculty. If I did why did I say to you...don't take my word for it? Then I said try it you might find it. Everyone has the ability to do or not to do. Choice lies with the person.
Really? How do I "choose"?
Do I get down on my knees and say "Sky Daddy, give me a sign" ?
Please, please, tell us how to find this marvelous non-sentient creature you know so much about.
Do I get down on my knees and say "Sky Daddy, give me a sign" ?
No, but you do get down at stare into the sky for a sign...like a fiery chariot (comet) etc...through a machine called a telescope.
Oh, a comet?
That proves god or is the method of communication? It's always hard to tell what your noises means.
Why do you keep deflecting, PC? That is very irrational.
You have not at all proven Creator does not exist, yet I see the spin doctor at work, trying to flip the script again and have the theists or folk like me provide with answers to questions you actually do not have the right to ask, nor care to have answered. You have already "made it up" -meaning your mind- as to what is/is not. Why persist to sit in the barber chair, yet demand you not get a haircut from the barber? Just wondering....
You might like to go read the post that I am referring to.
The universe CAN be measured. Space CAN be measured. Accuracy is not what I am arguing. It's POSSIBILITY. if we can measure the distance from my chair to my computer, we can measure the distance from my chair to your house. If we can measure the distance of the earth to the moon, we can measure the distance from the earth to the sun. If we can measure the distance of the earth to the sun, we can measure the distance from the earth to the end of the galaxy, etc, and so on.
The key word here is CAN. It is possible. If you can walk a block, you can walk a mile.
What I am asking and what many people are misunderstanding is, how CAN we measure god?
You did your little exercise for nothing. Your computer uses numbers(mathematics to calculate measurements). Can you use your computer to measure just 1% of god?
No that was my point, using computers or logic that are finite cannot measure God or space that is not finite. Anything is possible and can be guessed or measured in a way that is inaccurate. The thread however is proof. Not guesses or possibilities isn't it? Proof has no room for inaccurate data or guesses. Beyond the beginning of our universe, no one knows we can only guess.
Yes accuracy is important but not required. That is my point. The possibility of measuring the universe is there. The possibility of measuring god is not.
Thank you. After a long day of typing, you seem to be the only person that might understand what I'm trying to say.
Natural vs supernatural
Reality vs fantasy
I agree that it cannot be logically argued(natural vs supernatural). The point I'm trying to make is theists constantly attempt to bring the supernatural into the natural. That's the issue.
I've gone off a tangent from the original thread. If you want to argue my case, then please make yours.
when I say possibility, I mean ability. If I say that I was 25 years old, that wouldn't be "accurate" enough for you. Ill have to give you my age in the range of milliseconds and that may still not be "accurate" enough for you. This is a logical fallacy called moving the goalpost.
This is why I say accuracy doesn't matter(for my argument). It's possibility. It is possible to measure my age accurately or not. It is not possible to measure god, in any way, shape or form, accurately or not.
infinite is not a unit of measurement. It does not scale in relation to anything.
It's obvious you have no more ammo to argue from. You are attempting to put words in my mouth,
First it was
"If god exists, surely he/she/it can be measured right?"
*assuming god exists, he can be measured*
"if God exists."
Please google "if else statements". I made line breaks to show you in programming code, not in sentence structure. I choose this method as it was the simplest way I could describe it. YOU interpreted it as something else. It almost feels deliberate.
I mean, "if God exists."? Really? That's not even a complete sentence! Why did you put a period inside the quotes? Are you deliberately trying to mislead people. I did not say that. If anything, it should be a comma followed by "he can be measured".
Again, please google the above search term before you reply. I want a good rebuttal. I won't hold you hand anymore. Ohh, and please don't misquote me again. I find it dishonest.
I really don't know why you're getting so upset here. I did not misquote you, I only clarified what you said or said in different words, and ran with it.
"If god exists..." is the same as saying "Assuming god exists..." They mean the same thing.
If my car is blue, then it is not red.
(Hypothetically) assuming my car is blue, then it is not red.
BTW, putting a period inside the quote is proper punctuation. It is incorrect to put it outside the quote. The period ended the sentence, within which you were quoted.
Anyway, I am somewhat familiar with if-then statements, but why not just use normal english to make everyone's life easier?
You originally said--and I am copy-pasting this directly from your original comment, so there is no chance of misquoting--"If god exists, surely he/she/it can be measured right?"
The answer, the theist will provide, is yes--God can be measured by reading and learning about him and his miracles, blah blah. God, he will say, cannot be measured using normal tools because God is unlike anything else.
When you study the opposition as much as I do, you become very familiar with the way they think. Take this as some friendly advice--know your enemy.
the difference between "If god exists." and "If god exists..." is the latter suggest more words follow. You misquoted me by NOT adding the "..." as well and changing words to for your own reasons.
You seem to have a problem with misquoting, and changing words. I was using code syntax so that my words could NOT be misunderstood. Clearly that was in vain.
That answer, as I said earlier, cannot be use to prove that god exists because those "values" and "qualities" describe a pronoun(god) which must be defined.
It does not matter if the bible reader assumes god exists. It doesn't even matter IF(can you understand that?) I assume god exists. it matters that the bible reader defines god without using that circular argument you are suggesting.
"The answer, the theist will provide, is yes--God can be measured by reading and learning about him and his miracles, blah blah. God, he will say, cannot be measured using normal tools because God is unlike anything else."
Notice the accurate quote?-- just some friendly advice. Yes, I have predicted theists will use that "cannot be measured using normal tools" argument. That is where I rest my case.
Thanks for the advice. So far you've taught me that "enemies" will misquote, change wording, strawman, and circular argument to make their case.
For the last time, I do not assume god exists. I don't know how many times I have to write that for you to understand me. Maybe I should write that in code?
Luckily for me, I do not see theists as my "enemies". Maybe I should forward you the words: "Love thy neighbor." Ironic...
"the difference between "If god exists." and "If god exists..." is the latter suggest more words follow. You misquoted me by NOT adding the "..." as well and changing words to for your own reasons."
OMG, are you serious?? Haha, Jesus fuckin Christ, man... LOL... no pun intended
We're supposed to be on the same team. If you want to think of me as your "enemy," well, go ahead. I don't see any God- or religion- or even philosophy-related hubs on your page. If you think you've got what it takes to beat the really smart theists in an argument (not the Jesus freak bobble heads), well, good luck.
Actually, I do agree that God, IF he exists, is immeasurable and unknowable. How can a finite mind understand an infinite one? But that speaks to epistemology/ not accepting God, not ontology/ God's actual existence.
BTW, how is that ironic? I'm not a Christian, and I've never believed in God. I thought that was kind of obvious from my pseudonym...??
I'm not much of a team player. I like single player sports like boxing. I also prefer to stand by my own words and not rely on others. It builds character.
I don't intend to "beat" any theists in argument because that is a futile cause. Beating or winning requires rules. As I attempt to establish rules with my argument, a theist can simply say "god is immeasurable and infinite".
I agree. Personally, IF god exists, it would have to be outside the realms of reality and inside fantasy. Good thing I stop subscribing to the supernatural since I was a boy.
What I use hubpages for is my own business. Emphasis on the "business" part. Lets keep the logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority out of this.
Situational irony. I have never been a follower of Christianity yet I used Christian teachings in this thread.
No appeals to authority here. Just an observation.
I try to be an independent mind myself as much as I can.
BTW, I understand your dilemma with the rules, but next time a theist tries to pull a fast one like that, just remind them of this: we all use logic/ reason. It is how the human brain works. Even the theist when he says "I believe X because of Y" has used his rational faculties on some level. Though they wish to try, they cannot escape reason.
I had just this kind of discussion with a believer on one of my hubs recently. I made clear that even she--in her spiritual "wisdom" supposedly free from the constraints of logic--was, in fact, using logic. Never heard from her again lol That counts as getting "beat" in my book.
Not in your understanding of God, probably not. Perhaps you need to read the whole thread.
God or Creator created the universe. The universe was created by the big bang. God was in the void prior to the big bang. Can scientist measure before the big bang? Did physics exist before the big bang? It doesn't matter if you cannot measure till after the big bang because God existed prior to it. All things came from the big bang and we are a result of it. The process of evolution is the expression of this process existing prior to the big bang.
Did physics or science create God?
Hate to burst your bubble, but the big bang is not established as the beginning of all reality. It represents the beginning of this universe, but not necessarily all reality. That's what the science says, anyway.
So to answer your question, yes, physics existed before the big bang, if the current models are correct.
Yes I understand what the scientists are theorizing. Theories are not proven. The original post claims proof God does not exist through logic and physics. That may be true but has not yet been proven. So far not. If you have proof, cool, I am all ears.
Penny,the original post says no such thing. Go read it again.
Oh, so what is this saying then? Maybe I am not getting it again? From your original post....
The logic gates depend upon physics to work, and the creator cannot have created either the storage, the gates or the physics. These things had to exist before it could exist.
I only assert that it requires preexisting storage and preexisting physics to drive the logic gates that allow it to reason.
"Theories are not proven."
That's right. And the Big Bang is one of those theories.
As for proof that God does not exist, well, you can't prove a negative. But logic tells us that it is extremely unlikely that God exists. That's another topic altogether.
Not unless you believe that 1+1=2 is someone's opinion. Logic and reason remain constant, but opinions can change.
But logic tells us that it is extremely unlikely that God exists
Given the above opinion you had....
So in 1+1=2 kind of logic please do tell how it is extremely unlikely?
Here is one way:
God is uncreated
God is the creator of everything.
God exists, therefore he is part of everything.
Therefore God created himself.
This is a contradiction because God is defined as being uncreated. The conclusion we must draw is either (1) God did not create everything, or (2) God, in fact, was created.
(Also, it is absurd to think that something can create itself.)
Either way, God (the uncreated creator of everything) ceases to exist.
I got a million of 'em
Actually I asked for 1+1 logic. Here is an example...
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Get the picture?
Hmmm... So you will ignore the substantive argument and make a cute zinger. Gotcha.
The words I wrote lead to the given conclusion just as inexorably as 1+1=2. You don't have to use numerals and symbols to use logic. "One increased by one results in two." Get the picture?
What argument? Am I missing something here? My question was..... using 1+1 logic explain how you perceive it is unlikely God exists. What you answered with was logic based on opinion.
Obviously I am not getting your picture? But I will illustrate using your previous post. With my logic added in brackets.
(0) God is uncreated - (Nothing/pure potential/ God)
(1) God is the creator of everything. - (Structure)
(2) God exists, therefore he is part of everything. - (Form)
(this is opinion) Therefore God created himself.
LOL, you can't call it an "opinion" just because you disagree with it.
If God created everything, then he created himself, because God is a part of everything. It's that simple.
You seem to be expecting formal mathematical logic. I did not mean formal math when I referenced 1+1=2, I was referring to logic/ reason in the broader sense of clear and straightforward thought that gives reliable and consistent answers, independent of individual opinion or bias. Formal math logic is a type of this logic/ reason, among others.
I don't know the first thing about formal or theoretical math, maybe you're an expert. That was not my meaning. Let's just focus on the simple logic of the argument. There were 3 premises and one conclusion.
I don't agree or disagree with "God must have created itself' because I don't know.
Does not have to be formal mathematics no.
And no I'm not a mathematician.
Gosh I would have thought it was pretty obvious by now.
Just think about this: what is the natural conclusion from the following 2 statements:
God is a part of everything
God created everything
Since "everything" includes God... God created himself... get it? It's simple logic.
If X is part of Y...
And X created all Y...
Then X created X
Nothing post? I don't follow. You'll have to spell it out for me. Clearly I am an inferior intellect
If X and Y were the same, they would not be named two different things--X and Y. It would just be X.
Logically and by observation, an object cannot create itself.
What's it? Can logic understand what?? What the heck are you talking about? LOL. This is turning into a vaudeville routine...
It is rather funny watching them try to prove - using logic - that their Invisible Super Being exists outside of logic.
The really funny thing is - if they managed to achieve this - it would cease to exist.
It is fun to watch though. Cecilia is particularly entertaining.
It's also fun to watch them circle back around to things that they have already tried once and failed. Is their attention span really THAT short?
I was about to make the exact same point (that using logic to prove that their god has no need of logic) is possibly the most bizarre claim it is possible for a theist to make. It stands alone, far above all the other foolish things. It is so incredible (in the full sense of the word) that it needs to be mounted on a pedestal and a special plaque should be engraved for it.
But that's what happens when you NEED to believe. You'll say anything - even something as amazingly inconsistent as that!
Especially when you are not quoting the right post that you are responding to. Ill bring it here.
Logic disproves it actually. It is probably best to stick with previously-agreed-upon meanings of words. This makes communication far easier.
"Dis-proves," does not mean "cannot understand"
Which previously-agreed-upon meanings of the words are you referring to?
Yes I realize it does not mean that. However how do you disprove something you don't define an understanding of in the first place? One must define what it is one is disproving. Which is why I thought it might be a good idea in the beginning. The original poster didn't think it was necessary so ok and here we are.
No. Here you are using new meanings for words that are not aligned with the previously-agreed-upon version.
Logic disproves your statement. It does not LOL "not understand it" LOL. These are the previously-agreed-upon uses of these words.
I can't reply to any deeper-nested comments. That's why I keep replying to the same one. Maybe it is a quirk of this browser. The deeper-nested ones don't show the option to reply.
Oh brother, you are all about avoiding the main issue and getting into personal and irrelevant stuff, huh?
Never mind, maybe we'll continue this discussion another time.
What is the main issue for you?. Isn't it proof that God does not exist?. What personal stuff are you referring to?
Up to you if you want to continue or not. I'm ok either way.
Ah, this is like a parallel forum universe! Thank you, PC Unix. Learn something new everyday.
Anyway, the forums don't exactly lend themselves to extended discussions on these things. So you are more than welcome to comment on my hubs and we can discuss these topics further, Penny. This will be my last comment on this forum.
My original contention, if I remember correctly, was that logic demonstrates that God probably does not exist--it is highly unlikely. The arguments are all above in black and white. You have not proven otherwise.
See you around!
G-d exists because we are talking about G-d. Does he exist in an observable form? NO.
Cool, Cecilia! So this means all of the other gods exist too. I'll bet my gods can kick your god's butt!
PC, to a two year old, the word "hydrocollider" is gibberish. He needs to get to first grade, then high school, then college, then maybe if he's in MIT majoring in physics, he'll know.
Hmmmm. Southern Baptists could do with a little of such consideration
So because I have written hubs about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, She exists?
Oh yes. the concept exists. Pink exists. the Unicorn exists as a mythical figure, present in medieval and modern art and literature.
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist:
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place;
Poypultu does not exist and is gibberish, unless I define it.
Poypultu is what I call a mind that has a narrow bandwidth and the mental dexterity that reminds of a man who can only bend up to his knees. There now the word exists.
It is not up to me to prove anything. I never made the claim
"can scientists measure before the big bang?"
No, but we can measure after the big bang.
Can you measure god before or after the big bang?
Can you measure god at any point in time?
It absolutely matters if you can measure after the big bang. You are moving the goalpost.
"god existed prior to it."
Can you prove that?
"all things came from the big bang..."
Did god come from the big bang?
If so then god should be measurable. If not, then you should retract your statement and choose your words more carefully.
"did physics or science create god?"
This is not a valid question because you are assuming god exists. Try again.
How about this: God was the "Big Bang"!
God said it, and "Bang" it happened!
Exactly, no, nothing can be measured or proven before the big bang.
No one said you can measure God. This might be a good question, can you measure infinity?
Of course it matters after the big bang, especially to scientists and physicists, that is the nature of what they do. It matters not when proof that God does not exist is claimed because there was something existing prior to the big bang.
I cannot prove God existed prior to the big bang any more than anyone can prove what existed before then. Physics and Science included.
According to a previous post (hence why I suggested reading the whole thread) physics created God. I am not sure how that is possible since God is not human by any stretch of the imagination.
@secularist10 , because even science do agree that everything must come from something.The Big bang theory, says two massive objects colliding but science would not say where those two objects came from.
as this thread suggests, that the creator can be just a result of some evolution, or some natural force. It might mean that we are considering "nature" as god, or as you say "physics" so you are considering physics as god. And still you have your god there.
I actually agree, that before we can disprove "GOD", we must have a clear definition of what truly GOD is.
"because even science do agree that everything must come from something."
Incorrect. Science says that everything in reality comes from something. Science makes no claim as to whether reality itself came from something.
Think of a box full of stuff. All of the stuff is constantly changing from one form into another. That is the stuff that science talks about. Science was created inside the box, so by definition science cannot talk about where the box itself came from.
Believing in an eternal/ uncreated reality does not contradict science. The Big Bang theory explains the origin of this universe, not the origin of all of reality.
okay, so the problem of science is, it cannot tell the origin of reality?
Maybe that is why science can't disprove God?
Uhhh... not exactly, lol. Talk about twisting words, lol.
Again, you are assuming that reality has an origin. I already indicated that there is no reason to believe this.
So you are saying reality is what it is...okay I understand thanks
Where is the origin of nothing? You start with nothing end with nothing so it is nothing. No beginning or end of nothing like the symbol nothing 0 where does it start where does it end. Anywhere you want it to.
Something that evolved is no god.
Are you a god?
Sorry, but that isn't even remotely aligned with the BB theory.
Use your own personal definition as that is all anyone has to offer outside of scriptures. Or, just use scriptures. Simple.
Wow. Good catch. I missed that bit of scientific "knowledge" entirely.
It makes you wonder about our current educational system, doesn't it?
Yes, I thought that might have been a good idea too. Seems it was not useful.
Physics is just the rules. It's that simple, at least for purposes of this argument. You only need more if you want to explain exactly HOW things work.
You don't know the definition of physics? Odd.
See, this is what happens when you cross genres.
A mystical figure in world literature is being disproven.
It's like where is the Garden of Eden exercise or the Philosopher Stone. All sorts of funny arguments come up.
First you have to pore through descriptions of G-d across the border in world mythology, then ASSIGN a scientific counterpart...like in PCUnix case "a unity" or zero =infinity. Then you have to know the theory surrounding that, which is the theory of everything.Then you can disprove it, using human logic. (you see how many assumptions you have to make?)
But then logic breaks down at that level because we do not have as yet the ability to go back that far back in time to observe anything if indeed we can see what transpired beyond time.
But PCunix is already under false premise.
He says G-d is a unity, or zero.
But according to mystical texts both in Hinduism and Judaism, the oldest religions of the world,
G-d is beyond infinity and the ein sof (nothingness/no end) is just a product of G-d. G-d is beyond his Will. Beyond Om. So you are describing something that is beyond mathematics, beyond zero. Without duality, he says, you cannot observe manifestation. Well, according to the Jews, (and the Christian bible) the universe was created using the number 2, which has the conceptual equivalent of a House or a Womb. Like a separation. So, you can observe those things actually if you study them enough if they are indeed true. But the cause of it, it's insane to think that you've cracked what physicist have been trying to crack using megabrains and actual tools like the hubble with just your ingenious mind. Are we Einsteins here, maybe.
We can make a comparison of how the universe began from the two religions and then compare it to mathematics and the theories. But to even go and try to disprove an indefinable cause... shakes head. Good luck.
According to Jewish Mysticism
0 is the Ein Sof
1 is Spirit/Energy
2 is the House/Womb
G-d existed beyond Ein Sof and created Ein Sof by constricting the endless light to a single point. So G-d is actually before the singularity. And upon constricting it, He created a vaccuum, a space.
So First was nothing, then movement (constriction) Energy. Then from there he began emanating the emanations...what are emanations? in some texts it's called Intelligences, In others its radiations that vary in light intensity From white to red (you could say this is wavelength) and they bear human psyche descriptions. And from the very last emanation is the universe where He dwells.
According to Hinduism
Beyond being and no being, "the One breathed. Beyond that nothing that ever was"
Before that, then brahman -willed, let me create the world he said.
From Om the five elements.
the first was space
from space came air
from air came fire
from fire came water
from water came earth.
From the heart of Om came truth and all these worlds in their magestic glory, including time etc.
then only the sun, the heaven and the earth. (actually the hindu version is clearer about the sequence)
And all the creatures, consciousness is the purpose. Consciousness is Brahma.
(hence the motivation for PCunix's gates!, if you follow the mystical logic, you have to choose one, scientific or mystical)
From here creation begins and ends continuously.
What we know (Chaisson MIT, EPIC EVOLUTION)
The arrow of time begins with the • particle epoch, (forces)
then • the galactic epoch (structures of space which is a macrocosm of the particle, galactic bulges and black holes)
then • the stellar epoch, which gives birth to elements, then the elements lead to
• the chemical epoch, such as water (so fire first from stars, then water) then from the chemicals matter that became• planets organized.
The Beginning Now, Nutshell, no-beginning, just cycles
According to Roger Penrose: proposes a theory called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, which requires no beginning to the universe.
"The analysis of Wilkinson Microwave Background Probe's (WMAP) cosmic microwave background 7-year maps does indeed reveal such concentric circles," he says in a report on the Arvix website.
"This is confirmed when the same analysis is applied to BOOMERanG98 data, eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. These observational predictions of CCC would not be easily explained within standard inflationary cosmology."
The circles would have been created by a series of 'shockwaves' representing events before the last Big Bang.
"If you're not accepting inflation, you've got to have something else which does what inflation does. In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future," Penrose told the BBC.
"I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon."
He further said:
“Physically, we may think that again in the very remote future, the universe “forgets” time in the sense that there is no way to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big deal.” So the future boundary, to such an entity, is just like anywhere else. With conformal invariance both in the remote future and at the Big Bang origin, we can try to argue that the two situations are physically identical, so the remote future of one phase of the universe becomes the Big Bang of the next. This suggestion is my “outrageous” conformal cyclic cosmology.”
The paper can be read here :
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/ … ESPA01.PDF
There you go, what this means is, the big bang or Zero is just the a beginning of a process the begins and ends...expands and contracts infinitely.
I'm sorry, but you can't disprove a mystical figure but you can prove a myth to have basis. (I mean was there really Elohim, or Brahma saying Let there be, or Let me Create the World, so that all know who I am? How can you prove that? Or disprove it?) We don't know if these are just coincidences but maybe religion now was the science then and we just forgot. We'll never know until we find a computer buried in Iran beyond 15,000 years before the last ice age....my this could have been a hub.
And I am sorry too, but you still don't have any idea about the actual argument.
I agree that a mystical figure cannot be disproved. That's a given. So is disproving a creator.
As I keep trying to get you and some other stubborn theists to understand, this isn't about that. It is about proving that if a creator exists, it can only be a natural product of the physics it operates in. It cannot escape that any more than you can.
A few more theists have joined in here, mostly using "magic" to escape reality. That satisfies them, so they can remain theists, secure in the knowledge that their god doesn't need logic to exist.
Then we still have those who, like Cecilia, don't even know what is being argued. And of course we still have the ones who don't even bother to argue and simply assert that their god exists ( "We are not alone") and that's all we need to know about that!
We have a few atheists who don't understand what is being argued, also. Like the theists, they have been taught that there can be no disproof of gods and, without reading anything, jump in to assert that this is wrong.
Of course, at this point, most participants aren't really reading anything: we've reached the point of repetition because of that.
Interesting that...our ancients had it like this
Te Kore; energy, potential, the void, nothingness.
Te Po; form, the dark, the night.
Te Ao-marama; emergence, light and reality, dwelling place of humans.
I have read it twice.
It just seems to me that if you see this as proof that God does not exist ... Then .... with this same logic ... the universe does not exist.
If we can not prove what created God, he doesn't exist??
If we can not prove what created the big bang, it did not happen??
Just the way I see it, Sorry
Jerami, as expected, you, like so many of your theist brethren, don't begin to comprehend this thread.
Nothing here even attempts to prove that something doesn't exist. In fact, the proof assumes that your concept of a creator could be accurate.
Your error is in refuting an argument that wasn't made.
If that is true, maybe the title of the thread is inacurate.
I thought that, you thought the thesis proved.
The title was deliberate bait to draw in theists. Our just_curious person needed help and, knowing the way theist minds work, if I had used a less provocative title, they might have ignored the thread entirely.
So is your defense going to be that you only read the title and didn't bother to read the original post? Tsk, tsk.
But it's not too late - you can go read it now, right?
As I said earlier... I read it twice and it ws well written.
But when reading it, I ws looking to find the tie that proved the point that the thread was titled under.
Didn't find that final statement that made deinitive conclusion.
That is all that I was saying.
Sold a paint job yesterday and now have to put all the details together, materials and tool together.
I'll leave Yawl widdit.
Arrogance ? No. With his model, he can disapprove biblical god or any religious god.
Universe > Species (god) > secondary species (humans) model is hard to disapprove. But in this model, god is not omnipotent, powerful and all knowing. He's just creator of secondary species.
You can only catch PCunix in this argument of second model but if you appeal with your emotional arguments, then it's very easy to disapprove god.
Christian churches used to believe in flat earth, and they punished those who used to believe in round planet model.
No, he didn't. But because you never were able to understand what was being proved to begin with, of course you can't understand what Skyfire said here.
No. I didn't miss the point. You're saying that PCUnix appears arrogant in this thread because as per you he didn't explored the universe and hence your claim of god's existence or belief holds true. You're just discarding him on basis of 'gaps' in knowledge and calling him arrogant because his opinion clashes with your religion or personal. When people believe in something and get approval from the tribe then it's natural that any person who makes point against tribe's opinion-appears negative to the people inside tribe. (this is what you're experiencing).
You can't prove that there is no God. And I'm not using this as an argumentum ad ignorantium here, because I'm about 99.9% sure there isn't a God either; and entirely sure that there isn't a God as described in holy scripture.
There's a hell of a lot of evidence to say there isn't a God. But you wont prove it conclusively by default. I refer you to Bertrand Russel's teapot!
I don't contest that. I have not attempted to disprove a creator. I have only proved that such a creator cannot be anything but a product of the physics it must logically depend on.
You've made the same mistake as the theists by jumping in with the assumption that you already know what the proof is.
Why must a creator obey the same laws that it has created itself? I just don't buy your argument (and I'm an atheist!).
Perhaps I don't understand fully your point, but it seems to have a very narrow field.
Also, regardless of whether I fully understand your point or not, I have also never heard this being used as a proof of the none existence of God. Ever. Hawking, Dirac, Ginsberg, Dawkins, Feynman, Sagan and Krauss missed this one did they?
Yes, apparently they did miss it. We talked about that earlier -many atheists give up when they realize that a creator cannot be disproved. Perhaps they also realize that "magic" is the theists get out of jail free card, so they didn't want to bother with this.
Small reminder: argument from authority is not a valid method.
Nobody says a creator has to obey OUR physics. This proof merely says it is dependent upon SOME physics.
I think there's a fair chance a theist would dispute that last statement.
Like I said earlier, there's no argumentum ad ignorantium here. My default position on anyhting is to wait for evidence.
You're right, argument from authority is not a valid method. However, given that I've said that I don't know enough to buy your initial argument one way or the other (though my gut instinct is that it's flawed by it's narrow field), I'd obviously err on the side of caution.
I find it hard to believe that someone like Alan Turing with his knowledge base, genius and feelings towards religion would have failed to spot this one! I await the international newspaper headlines in anticipation....
Amazing. More argument from authority.
You don't know enough? About what? About information storage? Any person of normal intelligence should be able to understand that you need a minimum of two states to store information. Surely that is not where your understanding falters?
Is it the concept of a logic gate? Again, just simple thought should tell you that information storage alone is insufficient. What good is a zero or a one if you can't change the state of something else based on the state of one or more bits? Is it that you cannot understand?
If not these, there is nothing else. So what is it? An excuse not to think?
Well at least I care about logic then now, ipse dixit!
I understand the concept of information storage, I also understand the concept of a logic gate. That said, I fail to understad your argument. I understand logic gates as components of building circuits or models; not as a mechanism of physics in it's purest sense. You wouldn't use the tern "logic gate" for a physical process unless it was in electronics in any case. I mean, quantum tells us about probability functions for certain occurances, but that isn't the same as a logic gate as I understand it.
I understand physics is counterintuitive at the best of times but this is a circular argument and proves nothing. It's a straw man tactic; you immediately state that "this storage requires logic gates" and then tear it down.
My feeling is that you've got your underlying physics wrong on this one anyway - though as I say, I am not from this field.
Excuse my ignorance but I don't get it. You need to set it out again, I think.
This argument does not depend upon any understanding of physics or computer circuitry.
It only points out that you need information storage first. Do you deny that?
After that, you need some mechanism to read storage and affect the state of that or other storage based on what you reads. Do you deny that?
The mechanism obviously must be dependent upon some physics that makes it at least somewhat reliable. It doesn't have to be perfect, of course, but it does need to be more than random. Can you deny that?
That's all you need to understand. Given those very simple ideas, these things must exist before we an have any sentient being.
This is the science that Turing and Feynman pretty much theorised. I don't actually understand the ins and outs of information theory and quantum. Feynman famously said that if anyone tells you they understand quantum, then they're lying.
I'm (and I see the irony in the use of this phrase) playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't a theist just argue that god has been here forever and therefore doesn't need to obey physics.
I mean, I agree with you that how can a creator exist without itself being created. But theists gave up a logical standpoint in agreeing with god initially; they tend to be pretty happy with that stance. You don't need to invoke information theory for that, because I'm not sure it's necessary, (and it is incredibly difficult to understand).
Incidentally, have you heard of the holographic principle? It fries the brain. All of this is actually fairly illogical from a human stand point, to return to our initial chat. No natural logic may be applied from our point of view, but we must just go where the science takes us.
Nothing to do with quantum theory. You can throw that right out the window if you like and this proof doesn't change at all. It works just as well in a Newtonian universe as it does with quantum physics. The specifics of the physics is irrelievant.
Yes, I have heard of the holographic principle and the quantum horizon theory. It doesn't fry my brain and it has nothing to do with this.
Yes, a theist CAN argue that, but then he needs magic to explain the information storage and logic gates.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Apparently you are an atheist who doesn't care about logic?
How can something that doesn't exist create the elements that it needs to exist?
That's magical thinking and is the only path for theists to get away from this problem.
What's going on here is a game. The title was bait, but the argument has an entirely different purpose. First, it forces some of the theists to admit that they don't care a bit about logic. That's their escape route. I don't really care about them - they can be happy and good for them.
It's the ones who cling to rationality that I find interesting. You can read through their posts here and watch them squirm, but sooner or later they have to either invoke magic or run away. I find watching the process interesting.
No, I care a great deal about logic, but I know very little about computational logic and only slightly more about logic as a function in physics. It's a case of semantics. But i think you knew that.
I agree that there's something deeply illogical about a belief in any sort of creator or particularly in a personal God. But a theist would say that a God works outside of these bounds.
I enjoy the game too, but I need to keep you on your toes a bit! Keeps the debate healthy.
Off point slightly, but given what you've written you may enjoy (or have already read) Nick Bostrom's book on simulated reality. His arguments are pretty convincing, though obviously fudamentally nigh on impossible to prove...
This has nothing to do with computational logic. That has been a common error of the responding theist.
I don't read fiction, but someone else may find that interesting.
Saying that the thing works outside of the bounds of logic is simply appealing to magic. It's the theists get out of jail card: the thing cannot logically exist, thefore we nullify the argument by making it illogical.
How does an illogical thing make decisions? That's not.. logical
I think it has to be to do with computational logic or else your hypothesis is flawed. I think.
It's hardly a fiction book! Prof Nick bostrom, Professor of Philosophy and future technologies at Oxford, it doesn't make for a beach read! I found it genuinely interesting and a good popular science book.
Yes I'm not arguing with you on the fundamental point that a god is illogical; just pointing out the counter argument a theist would use...
You think incorrectly. This has nothing to do with computational logic.
Yes, we know theists seek refuge in the illogical world of magic. That's not the point. The point is to tease them and watch them slowly get there or just walk away with their minds shut. This is not about convincing theists; it is about watching their reactions.
I do find it fascinating that even at this late date, the theists still don't realize that their only way out of this is magic. They need a god that doesn't need information storage and doesn't need logic.
That's enough for some, but what interests me is those that try to avoid that. It's as though one part of their brain really understands that things MUST make logical sense, but another emotional part requires this ludicrous belief. So, they desperately try to find the logical fallacy that simply isn't there.
The psychology of this kind of theism is very interesting. Your garden variety theist simply shuts off their rational brain and doesn't let it bother them at all. But these folks are bothered by that and want the rational circuits to justify what they need to believe emotionally.
I find it very, very interesting. It is one of the reasons I like to bring up this kind of thing now and then.
What I find fascinating is you have not bothered to get a definition of God that we all can agree on. You believe that God that all theists understand is a 'sentient being' that sits on a cloud waving a magic wand that needs logic and emotion like we do. This is not true for many.
Sound more like you need a God to have these qualities. These are our limitations not Gods.