Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

I did not say or imply humans cannot change the climate. The climate has not been stable for very long periods of time. It cycles. Climate cycling is probably part of the reason for current warming tho humans probably have contributed much to it & we certainly are not trying much to help the situation. Even in the short time humans have been here climate changes have been such that it is a wonder many humans survived. <>

Note that I said "relatively" stable. This was in a global context.

But the dinosaurs ruled for several hundred million years and did not go extinct from a natural gradual climate change, but from a sudden climate change caused by a minor collision (relatively speaking) with a piece of space debris.

Ironically, this global disaster might well have allowed for the emergence and success of mammalian species, after the climate re-stabilized.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Just for the 'F' of it -- Can God predict the future?

 

[Write4U]

Just for the 'F' of it -- Can God predict the future?

If what we call God is a mathematical function, then yes, to a certain extend. Is that not the fundamental tenet of Determinism. The more mathematical functions are involved in an event such as the incredible mathematical functions of weather patterns, the shorter the prediction time would have to be for practical purposes, but in the end there is no randomness, just an incalculable number of potentials, which change determinism into probabilism to our limited knowledge and computing power. To compute all the mathematical functions happening in the universe, the computer itself would have to be as big as the universe, so that ALL information is contained within the computer. Of course this is impossible, but we can use some of our knowledge of the universal mathematical functions to recognize trends (patterns) toward a specific outcome and predict a quantifiable possible outcome. i.e. will a star go nova or become a white dwarf or a red giant. These probabilities can be calculated from our current knowledge of minimum requirements for a physical state to become expressed in reality. If something shows a recurrent pattern, then that can be named a law (at least tentatively).

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If what we call God is a mathematical function, then yes, to a certain extend. Is that not the fundamental tenet of Determinism. The more mathematical functions are involved in an event such as the incredible mathematical functions of weather patterns, the shorter the prediction time would have to be for practical purposes, but in the end there is no randomness, just an incalculable number of potentials, which change determinism into probabilism to our limited knowledge and computing power. To compute all the mathematical functions happening in the universe, the comuter itself would have to be as big as the universe, so that ALL information is contained within the computer. Of course this is impossible, but we can use our knowledge of the universal mathematical functions to recognize trends toward a specific outcome and predict a quantifiable possible outcome

So if our actions are deterministic we don't have free will and the bible is bad in the instance of saying 'blah blah'.

Why would God create a deterministic universe?

 

[Write4U]

So if our actions are deterministic we don't have free will and the bible is bad in the instance of saying 'blah blah'.

Why would God create a deterministic universe?

That of course is the argument against proof there is a motivated god. The mathematics are too complex for any sentience to understand or care for that matter. This is why I favor the perspective that an implacable psuedo intelligent mathematical condition or dimension is causal to the way things happen.

With "pseudo intelligent" I compare the universal functions in the same manner a computer would use its pseudo intelligent matrix to process available information into an expression in reality.
No intent, no emotional investment, just purely mathematical functions.

Just think how that reduces the mystery of an assumed creative god to an early attempt to explain the inherent universal mathematical functions.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

That of course is the argument against proof there is a motivated god.

If God needs motive that says that God can't predict the future of his own actions - doesn't seem that all powerful to me then.

 

[Write4U]

If God needs motive that says that God can't predict the future of his own actions - doesn't seem that all powerful to me then.

I agree. The scientific argument for a god (as commonly understood) has no scientific merit.

I see the concept of God as an early attempt to make sense of the observable natural phenomena.
Somewhat similar to Alchemy, which tried to make gold, without the knowledge that this requires a specific chemistry of the star and that this process requires a supernova (enormous heat and pressures) to produce heavy metals such as gold. We can make it now in labs in minute quantities, because of the enormous energy it requires.

IMO, eventually the concept of a sentient God will follow the history of Alchemy and fade into obscurity.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I agree. The scientific argument for a god (as commonly understood) has no scientific merit.

I see the concept of God as an early attempt to make sense of the observable natural phenomena.
Somewhat similar to Alchemy, which tried to make gold, without the knowledge of the chemistry of the star and that this process requires a supernova (enormous heat and pressures) to produce heavy metals such as gold

I'm kinda' wondering that if God can predict the future of his own actions, he and the universe are totally deterministic, but if God has free will he is not all powerful, ergo, not God, not omnipotent.

Strange.

 

[Write4U]

I'm kinda' wondering that if God can predict the future of his own actions, he and the universe are totally deterministic, but if God has free will he is not all powerful, ergo, not God, not omnipotent.
Strange.

It's a logical argument, IMO. Simple in concept and suggested by the known properties, functions, and patterns which can actually be observed and translated into the language of mathematics..

 

[Beer w/Straw]

It's a logical argument, IMO.

I must really really suck at trolling.

Can't someone disagree with me even if it's out of pity?

 

[Write4U]

I must really really suck at trolling.
Can't someone disagree with me even if it's out of pity?

Now you're trolling.

Would you rather be wrong than right?
I always try to see things from the other's perspective.
That is not from pity, but from empathy.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Now you're trolling.

Would you rather be wrong than right?
I always try to see things from the other's perspective.
That is not from pity, but from empathy.

I was wondering about circular logic: God exists because it is written the bible. The bible is correct because it is God's word.

 

[Write4U]

I was wondering about circular logic: God exists because it is written the bible. The bible is correct because it is God's word.

Right, not only is it circular, it's lazy thinking. Taking the easy way out.

Don't worry how the universe works, God has it firmly under control. Science just stands by and watches how god does its work. But God works in mysterious ways, so you'll never understand, unless you become of the Faith. Then all will become clear.

If your prayers are not answered? Well, God's Will be done anyway. After all, God loves you.

See how easy it is to create a narrative about a completely ludicrous concept, such as when there was no-thing, but there was God, he's eternal.

I can understand a science of the mind, such as psychology, which deals with abstract concepts such as imaginary things in dreams, etc.

But when religions start meddling in science and by Holy scripture purports to reveal universal truths (which are demonstrably false), if only you believe. Well, ain't that peachy?

So much for religion.

OTOH, there must be some inherent abstract abstract mathematical function which responds to any physical action in a specific mathematical way, to produce a result. Nice and short, and you don't need to pray. All you need is to figure out how the mathematics function and while science has made some assumptive errors, it always open for a more precise definition of a mathematical function, if it is later discovered. Science knows that it does not know everything yet and that only closer , more precise measurements will show the original error, which the can be corrected.

 

[DaveC426913]

Right, not only is it circular, it's lazy thinking. Taking the easy way out.

I think you'll find that there are precious few people who espouse a God that is literally omnipotent.

"Can god make a bolder so heavy that even he can't lift it?" and such.

The error that you're committing is that of constructing a strawman. You're setting up a non-theist's archaic idea of God, and then showing it's illogical.
Of course it is! But since no one actually holds that view, so what?

 

[sideshowbob]

You're setting up a non-theist's archaic idea of God, and then showing it's illogical.

The problem is that many theists have such a slippery idea of God that it's impossible to pin down. Any attempt to nail jello to a wall is necessarily a strawman.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think you'll find that there are precious few people who espouse a God that is literally omnipotent.

"Can god make a bolder so heavy that even he can't lift it?" and such.

The error that you're committing is that of constructing a strawman. You're setting up a non-theist's archaic idea of God, and then showing it's illogical.
Of course it is! But since no one actually holds that view, so what?

There are people that hold the Noah's Ark story to be factual and other religious' who do not. I would defend myself by saying it was out of mostly curiosity to see if anyone would respond to a Catch-22 with free will.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that many theists have such a slippery idea of God that it's impossible to pin down. Any attempt to nail jello to a wall is necessarily a strawman.

Perhaps. But all the more reason why they need to be here to make their case. Otherwise, this ends up just being a circle-jerk.

Imagine if it were the other way around. Some theists thinking they're puttin' a beat-down on atheism because "...many atheists think we evolved from apes. Hah!"

I like to think that atheists hold the high-ground when it comes to being rational.

 

[Write4U]

I was wondering about circular logic: God exists because it is written the bible. The bible is correct because it is God's word.

Yes, but that argument can be countered with the fact that we know the bible is wrong on many counts, which would imply that God is also wrong in these specific areas.
Especially in the areas of physics and cosmology (Creation). Ain't that a hoot?

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps. But all the more reason why they need to be here to make their case. Otherwise, this ends up just being a circle-jerk.

Imagine if it were the other way around. Some theists thinking they're puttin' a beat-down on atheism because "...many atheists think we evolved from apes. Hah!"

But that would not be circular thinking. The Origin of Species (Darwin'sbible) does not propose that apes evolved from humans.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I think you'll find that there are precious few people who espouse a God that is literally omnipotent.

"Can god make a bolder so heavy that even he can't lift it?" and such.

The error that you're committing is that of constructing a strawman. You're setting up a non-theist's archaic idea of God, and then showing it's illogical.
Of course it is! But since no one actually holds that view, so what?

I find many people who claim God is omnipotent. The vast majority do not include logic impossibilities. Omnipotent means all powerful, having the power to do anything possible.

The nonliftable rock is silly. May as well say God is not omnipotent because it cannot exist & not exist at the same time. Or because it cannot make X happen yet not happen. Or because it cannot make 2 +2 = 77. Or because it cannot make a square triangle.

<>