Proof there is a God

[Aqueous Id]

That was actually only a side-point for me. I didn't respond to your argument because I accept the validity of it. My main concern is the assertion that anything (quantum or otherwise) can arise causelessly. We observe this on the quantum level, but every other real phenomenon we know of doesn't act this way, so I find it problematic that we would jump to this conclusion. Hence my reference to decoherence, which lends support to the idea that wave function collapse is an epiphenomenon rather than a fundamental phenomenon (which I find problematic because the implication then is that the universe is basically stochastic). I understand the measurement problem still exists, but decoherence lends to the possibility that there's another explanation than spontaneity.

Essentially, my argument could be reduced to: asserting spontaneity is as rational as just saying "God did it." We have an observation we can't explain. In every other instance of scientific study, we would say that there's an underlying variable that we're just not aware of yet that is causing this unexplained phenomenon. But not here. Eh, maybe I just don't get it. I'd readily admit to that.

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.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

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).

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

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.

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.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

The very CONCEPT of existence necessarily involves the property of time. To state that there could be a meta-physical realm that is/was timeless is equivalent to stating that it does not exist. The status of existence requires a degree of continuity, even an infinitesimal small degree requires time to pass. Timelessness infers zero continuity and hence "Timeless Existence" is an oxymoron. Time becomes a fundamental requirement for something to be said to exist, whether physical or meta-physical.

A causation of anything necessarily involves the passage of time - the transition of a before state to an after state. Since we exist then there can never have been a point where time did not exist - if there was, then nothing could have begun and we couldn't be here discussing it. It follows that since time must have always been present then there cannot have ever been a beginning to everything. The BB cannot be the start point.

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.

 

[Write4U]

The very CONCEPT of existence necessarily involves the property of time. To state that there could be a meta-physical realm that is/was timeless is equivalent to stating that it does not exist. The status of existence requires a degree of continuity, even an infinitesimal small degree requires time to pass. Timelessness infers zero continuity and hence "Timeless Existence" is an oxymoron. Time becomes a fundamental requirement for something to be said to exist, whether physical or meta-physical.

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

A causation of anything necessarily involves the passage of time - the transition of a before state to an after state. Since we exist then there can never have been a point where time did not exist - if there was, then nothing could have begun and we couldn't be here discussing it. It follows that since time must have always been present then there cannot have ever been a beginning to everything. The BB cannot be the start point.

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.

 

[Write4U]

Sarkus has it right, that is what I'm saying.

My position is that there's no such thing as purely spontaneous phenomena. We have no reason to posit this because except on the quantum level, we've never observed this. Moreover, I would suggest that the law of causation is a primal axiom.

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)

Thus stated, if we're going to say that our only two options are random spontaneity versus intended causation, I'd bet on intended causation 100% of the time, because I have no reason to believe random spontaneity is even possible.

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?

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

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

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.

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.

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'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.

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 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.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

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?

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.

 

[Aqueous Id]

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.

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.

 

[river]

Hmm....

There is proof of god or a being that has a brain and therefore mind. The Universe. SO WHAT THOUGH? Really So What?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hmm....
There is proof of god or a being that has a brain and therefore mind. The Universe.

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"?

 

[river]

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"?

Because plants think and adapt to their enviroment.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

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.

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.

 

[Daecon]

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.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

There's no real way to know for certain whether any Gods exist or not.

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.

But since the Universe appears to be fully self-reliant, there's no need to assume that any Gods do exist.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Read David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order., which explains the hierarchy from the infinitely subtle to gross expression in reality.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Read David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order., which explains the hierarchy from the infinitely subtle to gross expression in reality.

I'll try to track it down. Thank you for the suggestion!

 

[river]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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

 

[river]

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

Galaxies are made from a collection of stars ? BB thinking no doubt.

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

Anyway

 

[Write4U]

I'll try to track it down. Thank you for the suggestion!

These reviews may help in understanding Bohm's thought process.

In 1952, the year after his discussions with Einstein, Bohm published two papers sketching what later came to be called the causal interpretation of quantum theory which, he said, "opens the door for the creative operation of underlying, and yet subtler, levels of reality." (David Bohm and F. David Peat, Science, Order & Creativity, Bantam Books, New York, 1987, p. 88.) He continued to elaborate and refine his ideas until the end of his life. In his view, subatomic particles such as electrons are not simple, structureless particles, but highly complex, dynamic entities. He rejects the view that their motion is fundamentally uncertain or ambiguous; they follow a precise path, but one which is determined not only by conventional physical forces but also by a more subtle force which he calls the quantum potential. The quantum potential guides the motion of particles by providing "active information" about the whole environment. Bohm gives the analogy of a ship being guided by radar signals: the radar carries information from all around and guides the ship by giving form to the movement produced by the much greater but unformed power of its engines

and from Bohm's own words

On this stream, one may see an ever-changing pattern of vortices, ripples, waves, splashes, etc., which evidently have no independent existence as such. Rather, they are abstracted from the flowing movement, arising and vanishing in the total process of the flow. Such transitory subsistence as may be possessed by these abstracted forms implies only a relative independence or autonomy of behaviour, rather than absolutely independent existence as ultimate substances.

(David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston, 1980, p. 48.)
We must learn to view everything as part of "Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement." (Ibid., p. 11.)​

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-boh.htm

and

Fullness Of Empty Space
Bohm's understanding of physical reality turns the commonplace notion of "empty space" completely on its head. For Bohm, space is not some giant vacuum through which matter moves; space is every bit as real as the matter that moves through it. Space and matter are intimately interconnected. Indeed, calculations of the quantity known as the zero-point energy suggest that a single cubic centimetre of empty space contains more energy than all of the matter in the known universe! From this result, Bohm (1980, 191) concludes that "space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty." For Bohm, this enormous energy inherent in "empty" space can be viewed as theoretical evidence for the existence of a vast, yet hidden realm such as the implicate order.

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