Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    In the real world, causality usually rules. But in the quantum world, or in the real world viewed through certain transformations (such as the transform from "sequency" to frequency [time domain to spectral domain]) causality does not necessarily have any meaning. For example, in the perceptual distinction between green and red, it is not necessary to introduce time or causality. And the point you made about quantum decoherence as "cause" of the wavefunction collapse is a kind of circular logic - in the sense that the first intervention (observation) still looms large as the "paradoxical cause" for things we more often call "spontaneous". That leaves the question of whether the Big Bang happens "spontaneously" or whether it's even absurd to tie causality to something that can't be properly said to have a beginning (since time [spacetime] is created in the expansion).

    The philosophical problem brought to bear by the Creationists, then, is that human experience is not sufficient to cast the Big Bang as an event which has a beginning of its own. It is a condition, true, and it does imply a timeline, once the expansion begins and spacetime is created; but it doesn't necessarily "have to have" a beginning of its own in order for the rest to follow. The presumed fallacy of creatio ex nihilo is an ancient concept, but still is rooted in modern religious ideation. But no one who complains of the presumed fallacy in these threads seems to be aware of this. I suppose it's OK to say "just about everything" is causal once the Big Bang happens, but the recasting of ancient superstition and myth as something that "has to be true" is, on closer inspection, just another fallacy.

    That being said (and OK it gets to be quite a mouthful) none of this really relates directly to the existence of a God. In fact, the proof that God can not possibly exist is far more straightforward: (a) there exist no definitions of God which are not created out of human imagination, (b) therefore all definitions of God are purely imaginary, (c) therefore any and all Gods so created can not possibly exist outside of fabrication, therefore (d) God can not possibly exist.

    By the same token, whether the wavefunction collapses spontaneously, or under some paradox tied to observation, or as a matter of quantum decoherence, or any other idea that connects to the idea of "cause", it still never helps the Creationist extricate herself from the quagmire, as reasoned above, that God cannot possibly exist. And by the same argument, the superstitious belief that her God created the universe can have no bearing on any implications of physical reality outside of her own imagination, and therefore, the existence of the universe can never be properly reasoned as the justification for a claim that God exists, and must be set aside as yet another fallacy.

    Indeed, religion is so deeply ingrained in the human imagination that it requires fallacy upon fallacy to keep it alive.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    This is really good stuff right here. I'll have to chew on this for a while. Thank you.

    This argument is invalid because (d) doesn't follow from (c). There is a hidden premise here, which makes the argument circular. The hidden premise is that God doesn't exist outside of human imagination. Moreover, (a) is certainly disputable. For example, just because we haven't encountered any such definitions, doesn't mean, de facto, that they don't exist. And anyway, (b) is true of any definition, strictly speaking. You might get away with (c) if it didn't beg the question of whether there are any (G)od(s) that aren't so created.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    This is mostly true. The problem sits in the last paragraph. If this is true, that time must have always been present and there cannot have ever been a beginning to everything (whether the BB is the starting point or not), then this means by default that there has existed prior to the present an infinite passage of time. The reason that's a problem is because, in a real world movement from one point in the sequence to the next, infinity can never really be reached. This implies that the present could never actually occur, which is absurd.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,951
    No one claims a timeless existence. IMO, there can be a timeless "condition" (abstract existence)

    If the BB was a single mega-quantum event (a single instant), then there needs not be a duration before the event.
    Time is a tool for measurement of chronology and duration of physical (measurable) events. In the meta-physical world of mathematics, time (duration) of physical change is not measurable by any standard.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2015
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,951
    But when we speak of "quantum level" we already assign physical properties, which is after the fact of creation. In the meta-physical world anything may be possible (Bohm's Implicate)
    But your scenario assumes an ordered deterministic function in the physical world.
    But what if the meta-physical world is in total chaos? Is spontaneiity still not possible?
     
  9. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    Alright, I think I've chewed on this long enough.

    If all we're talking about are perceptions, then causation doesn't have to be important. But the quantum world is still a measure of the physical world. It's just the smallest possible, most fundamental measure. But it's still a physical measure.

    I do wonder what you mean by "real" world here.

    That's really been one of the more difficult things for me to give credence to: the idea that observation has a causal link to physical effects, to which there is no link beyond the observation. But, if we're suggesting that's a possible cause for so-called spontaneous effects, then I would tentatively posit that if the BB was such a spontaneous effect, who/what was the observer?

    Of course, that kind of reasoning seems absurd. But as I sit here typing this, I wonder if there is speculation as to how observation could be causally linked to such "spontaneous" effects. But I digest. I still hold, as it makes sense on my side of the universe, that there is a hidden cause we simply haven't uncovered yet.

    The question of causality is generally tied to sequence, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. For example, one might ask the question of why the banana that is on the desk beside me hasn't been pulled to the floor yet by gravity. The answer is that the desk beneath it is causing it to maintain its current height. Likewise, gravity is causing it to remain on the desk. Sequence isn't a question here, so much as relationship. There is a causal relationship with respect to its location that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sequence (beyond the fact that it was placed there some point in the past).

    So, the cause of the universe doesn't necessarily have to be understood in terms of sequence (something before it caused it to proceed). I'm not sure what that causal relationship might look like, beyond this fact (that it doesn't necessarily have to be sequential). Maybe just something to think about.
     
  10. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    This begs the question of whether order may even proceed from chaos. Moreover, it sounds like you're suggesting that implicate order can exist in total chaos, which on the face of it appears contradictory to me. Perhaps you could clarify.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Well, no, there is perhaps a piece I left out, which asks that the people who remain open to the existence of God to get together and compile a complete list of every definition of God ever known to exist, also denoting who created the definition. In every case it will be a person (people). That is to say, God did not create the concept "God", but rather, it is/was/ever shall be a creation of the human imagination.

    Don't let the subtlety in this dissuade you from exercising good logic. After all God is myth. (Therefore God does not exist.) That's a little more direct, but some people need to be walked through this a bit to grasp the exact meaning.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    15,043
    Hmm....

    There is proof of god or a being that has a brain and therefore mind. The Universe. SO WHAT THOUGH? Really So What?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,953
    Really?
    What makes you think that the existence of the universe is "proof" of "god or being that has a brain"?
    Why do you (apparently) conflate "god" and "being with a brain"?
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    15,043
    Because plants think and adapt to their enviroment.
     
  15. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    Except that this can't even be tested. The origin of human belief in god(s) predates recorded human history. Thus, we have no way to determine, really, the origin of this idea. You simply couldn't compile the kind of list you're asking for. Besides, and I've already made this point, definitions per se always reside in the imagination. The argument simply does not follow that just because definitions always reside in human imagination, that there, therefore, cannot exist a thing, really, which matches that imagined definition. The argument actually is circular, because your starting point is that God doesn't exist, really, just in human imagination, therefore God doesn't exist.
     
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    There's no real way to know for certain whether any Gods exist or not. But since the Universe appears to be fully self-reliant, there's no need to assume that any Gods do exist.
     
  17. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    This is dubious. You may have good reason for proposing this, but I don't think you could substantiate this claim as certain. Maybe I'm wrong about, though.

    I would say that the universe is self-sustaining, certainly. Whether or not it is self-reliant in a complete sense is questionable. I suppose this harks back to the old necessary-contingent argument. For example, is it self-reliant when it comes to its origins? I think that's up for grabs at the moment.

    And anyway, people have imagined many needs (real or otherwise) that lead to assuming the existence of God, beyond the question of the universe's self-reliance.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,951
    Read David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order., which explains the hierarchy from the infinitely subtle to gross expression in reality.
     
  19. IfIonlyhadabrain Registered Member

    Messages:
    84
    I'll try to track it down. Thank you for the suggestion!
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    15,043
    The self-relience thinking ; been there done that. Many years ago.

    Just not deep enough thinking.

    Life ; the existence of and the evolution of all forms of life brings a whole , a holistic dynamic to the Universe.

    The bare bones of the Universe; the galaxies, suns, planets, moons, etc. Are necessary for life to manifest. A place for life to place its feet so speak.

    Yet life ; the potential of life is inherent in all forms.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,951
    All we need is look at the universe to find proof of order emerging from chaos. Galaxies (collection of stars) did not just appear. The were ordered from a random collaction of stars. Moreover, the Fibonacci Sequence is apparent in spiral galaxies, such as our own as well as in flowers, such as the daisy. This means this mathematical constant shows up in many unexpected places.
    IMO, a dynamic chaotic condition will eventually order itself through a mathematical funcion
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    15,043
    Galaxies are made from a collection of stars ? BB thinking no doubt.

    Hmmm... Well continue. If I disagree .......well because I do.

    Anyway
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,951
    These reviews may help in understanding Bohm's thought process.
    and from Bohm's own words
    http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

    and
    http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm
     

Share This Page