Why you cannot prove there is/isn't God

[Mowgli1647545497]

The Israeli War thread got me thinking, and I can't sleep. To its time to ramble.

 

Here’s why we cannot prove there is not a god.

 

But before I say why I want to take a moment to explain that there are two ways of looking at the universe and that it applies to both views. If you don’t want to bother with the physics skip to the end where I’ll try to sum up the point.

 

But first the digression. There are two ways to look at the universe: cause and effect and teleologically. The first everybody knows. But the second takes some explaining to most folks because outside of the scientific community its not widely known. Hell in the community its not widely known even though its been around for centuries. The easiest way to start off is with a picture.

 

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-2/944597/one.JPG

 

you probably know this from highschool physics. Okay, heres the path a ray of light takes when crossing from air to water. The light ray travels in a straight line until it hits the water; the water has a different index of refraction, so the light changes direction.

 

Now here's an interesting property about the path the light takes. The path is the fastest possible route between these two points. Imagine, just for grins, that the ray of light traveled along this path:

 

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-2/944597/two.JPG

 

This hypothetical path is shorter than the path the light actually takes. But light travels more slowly in water than it does in air, and a greater percentage of this path is underwater. So it would take longer for hte light to travel along this path than it does along the real path.

 

Now imagine if light were to travel along this other path:

 

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-2/944597/three.JPG

 

This path reduces the percentage thats underwater, but the total length is larger. It would also take longer for light to travel this path than along the actual one.

 

Any hypothetical path would require more time to traverse than the one actually taken. In other words, the route the light takes is always the fastest possible one. That's Fermat's Principle of Least Time.

 

Fermat's principle is curious; even though its easy to explain, you need calculus to desribe it mathematically. And not ordinary calculus, you need the calculus of variations.

 

And you can build from Fermat's Principle to other areas of physics. There are lots of physical principles just like Fermats. Well, the word 'least' is misleading. You see, Fermat's Principle of Least Timeis incomplete; in certain circumstances light follows a path that takes more time than any of the other possibilities. It's more accurate to say that light always follows an extreme path, one that minimizes the time taken or maximizes it. A minimum and a maximum share certain mathematical properties, so both situations can be explained with one equation. So to be precise, Fermat's Principle isn't a minimal principle; instead its what's known as a 'variational' principle.

 

And there are more of these variational principles. In all branches of physics. Almost every physical law can be restated as a variational principle. The only difference is in the which attribute is being minimized or maximized. in optics, where Fermat's Principle applies, time is the attribute that has to be an extreme. In mechanics, it's a different attribute. In electromagnetism, it's something else again. But all these principles are similar mathematically.

 

So now you're probably saying "hang on, something about that feels odd to you, but you can't put your finger on it. It just doesn't sound like a law of physics."

 

I know exactly what you mean! I was hung up on it for weeks. See, you're used to thinking of refraction in terms of cause and effect: reaching the water's surface is the cause, and the change of direction is the effect. But Fermat's Principle sounds wierd because it describes light's behavior in goal-oriented terms. It sounds like a commandment to a light beam: 'Thou shalt minimize or maximize the time taken to reach thy destination'.

 

Don't wig out. It's an old question in the philosophy of physics. People have been talking about it since Fermat first formulated it in the 1600s; Planck wrote volumes about it. The thing is, while the common formulation of physical laws is causal, a variational principle like Fermat's is purposive, almost teleological.

 

Think about that for a minute. Okay, so lets say the goal of a ray of light is to take the fastest path. How does the light go about doing that? Well, to speak anthropomorphic-projectionally, the light has to examine all the possible paths and compute how long each one would take. And to do that, the light has to know just where its destination is. If the destination were somewhere else, the fastest path would be different. The notion of a "fastest path" is meaningless unless theres a destination specified. And computing how long a given path would take also requires information about what lies along that path, like where the water's surface is.

 

And the light has to know all of that ahead of time, before it starts moving. The light can't start moving in any old direction and make course corrections later on, because the path resulting from such behavior wouldn't be the fastest possible one. The light has to do all its computations at the very beginning.

 

The ray of light has to know where it will ultimately end up before it can choose the direction to begin moving in. Thats what's bugging you.

 

The reason is that though almost every physical law can be restated as a variational principle, when people think about physicals laws, they prefer to work with them in their causal formulation. You can understand that: the physical attributes that people find intuitive, like kinetic energy or acceleration, are all properties of an object at a given point in time. And these are conducive to a chronological, causal interpretation of events: one moment growing out of another, causes and effects create a chain reaction from past to future.

 

In contrast, the physical attributes one thinking teleologically would find intuitive, like "action" or those things defined by integrals, are meaningful only over a period of time. These are conducive to a teleological interpretation of events: by viewing events over a period of time, one recognizes that there is a requirement that has to be satisfied, a goal of minimizing or maximizing, say. And one has to know the initial and final states to meet that goal; one would need knowledge of the effects before the causes could be initiated.

 

And here's where people would always get irate over teleological interpretating.

 

Is it possible to know the future? Not simply to guess at it; is it possible to know what is going to happen, with absolute certainty and in specific detail? Remember, the causal worded laws of physics are time-symetric, that there was no physical difference between past and future. Given that, some might say, "yes, theoretically." But speaking more concretely, most would answer "no", because of free will.

 

Think of the objection as the following fanciful story: imagine a person standing before the Book of Ages, the chronicle that records every event, past and future. The bookis huge. He flips thru the pages until he locates the story of his life. He finds the passage that describes him flipping thru the Book of Ages, and he skips to the next column, where it details what he'll be doing later in the day: acting on info from the book, he'll bet one hundred dollars on a racehorse and win ten times that much.

The though of doing just that had crossed his mind, but being the contrary sort, he now resolves to refrain from betting on the ponies altogether.

 

There's the rub. The Book of Ages cannot be wrong; this scenario is based on the premise that a person is given knowledge of the actual future, not of some possible future. If this were Greek myth, circumstances would conspire to mae him enact his fate despite his best efforts, but prophecies in myth are notoriously vague; the Book of Ages is quite specific, and there's no way he can be forced to bet on a horserace in the manner specified. The result is a contradiction: the Book of Ages must be right, by definition; yet not matter what the Book says he'll do, he can choose to do otherwise. How can these two facts be reconciled?

 

They can't be, is the common answer. A volume like the Book of Ages is a logical impossibility, for the precise reason that its existence would result in the above contradiction. Or, to be generous, some might say the Book of Ages could exist, as long as it wasn't accessible to readers; that volume is housed in a special collection, and no one has viewing privileges.

 

The existence of free will means we cannot know the future. And we know free will exists because we have direct experience of it. Volition is an intrinsic part of consciousness.

 

 

Change gears here. Consider the sentence "The rabbit is ready to eat." It could have two very different meanings. One meaning could be that dinner is served. The other meaning is that its probably time to open a bag of Purina Bunny Chow for Mister Floppy. Two very different meanings. In fact in the same household they're probably mutually exclusive. Only through context can you tell which interpretation is right. Get some context and you can tell.

 

Now consider the phenonenon of light hitting water at one angle, and traveling through it at different angle. Explain it by saying that a difference in the index of refraction caused the light to change direction, and one sees the universe as we people do, Explain it by saying that light minimized the time needed to travel to its destination, and one sees it in a different way completeliy. In a teleological way. Two very different interpretations.

 

The physical universe is a language with a perfectly ambiguous grammar. Every phsyical events is an utterance that can be parsed in two entirely different ways, one causal and the other teleological, both valid, neither one disqualified no matter how much context is available.

 

 

And now I'm finally coming to my point, thanks for reading. Almost there.

 

I've just given you, through a very long tangent, a second way of looking at the universe, the world around us. A second way of existing and experiencing existance and life itself. One thats utterly unaccessible by us humans but we know to be valid. And here's the thing: I'm in the universe with you.

 

Now consider this:

 

You're in a thermos of coffee with the lid on. Warm coffee, pleasant. You're in the thermos, you've always been in the thermos and you always will be in the thermos. Every interaction you've ever had, are having or will have is with the coffee in the thermos or the inner walls of the thermos itself. and thats it.

 

Now describe for me the kitchen the thermos is sitting in.

 

There's a basic tenant of the Scientific Method that states one cannot fully describe a system if one is embedded in said system. Its been proven time and again (think of a principle with Heisenberg and Uncertainty in its name). And yet, people would use scientific method, and point to events in this system we're all embedded in to "prove" the non-existence of god. These are very poor scientists. They break a very basic tenant of science. Indeed they're not even trying to just decipher which interpretation of the universe we know to be possible to use. No, they purport to be able to draw conclusions on matters outside the very system they're embedded in.

 

Just because all one can do is look around the inside of a closed thermos and see nothing but coffee does not mean there is no chef out in the kitchen.

 

True scientists know we cannot state conclusively from here in our thermos of coffee the existence or non-existence of a god. It, rightly so, becomes a matter then of choice.

 

For me, I choose to beleive in a god. And I'm in good company (Einstein, Newton, Galileo, and many more). I make this choice because I can look at the fact that I cannot know the future and seem to have free will to sway me to that opinion. Because I can see with math there exists a possible second way of seeing the universe. I see option. And I don't begrudge or besmirch those who choose not to beleive in a god and know it to be a choice.

 

But the ones who presume to have proven a lack of a god from the splendid views of the inside of our lovely coffee thermos, yeah I do belittle them. I have a name for them: idiots.

 

I can probably sell them the London bridge, though....

[Balian]

You know. That is a lot of reading and I really only gotten to half of it before I skipped to the bottom.

 

I think this might be contraversial here, but I think both science and religion can prove themselves with the help of each other. Basically what I am saying is that you cannot have one without the other.

[TheHaze]

Using a thermos of coffee is a great way of explaning; I've always tried to explain it before but that will make it much easier. It seems we think alike, only you speak better. lol, thanks. Basically what I'm getting from your post is that how can we as humans understand higher powers if we've only just begun to crack the shell of our world? Of course some will choose not to believe in anything if they havn't seen it, but it's still possible for it to be there. If that's what you're saying then you've read my mind.

[D.Wiggs]

What you have said here is much better than most, and frankly much better than I expected when I read the title of the thread. Like I said in the other thread, however, is that we are not looking for proof. We are looking for good reason. (e.g., no one can PROVE that gravity exists, we only have good reason for thinking it does) Good reason for thinking things is what gets us through our day. What we can INDUCE is that there is no good reason for thinking there is a God; however, as you stated, we cannot prove whether or not there is.

 

Without becoming too long winded (Philosophy of Religion is my specialty) and explaining why there is no good reason etc., I will simply state that your premiss is pretty good, although flawed, but at least you claim to have a "good reason" for thinking there is a God, and for that, I give you credit!

[D.Wiggs]

Using a thermos of coffee is a great way of explaning; I've always tried to explain it before but that will make it much easier. It seems we think alike, only you speak better. lol, thanks. Basically what I'm getting from your post is that how can we as humans understand higher powers if we've only just begun to crack the shell of our world? Of course some will choose not to believe in anything if they havn't seen it, but it's still possible for it to be there. If that's what you're saying then you've read my mind.

 

One thing to remember is that we have no reason for thinking that there is anything like a "higher power" whether or not there actually is.

[Balian]

One thing that makes me wonder is how do we know if the Bible was not just some fictional piece of work written by the Steven King of that time. This is just one proof that we people have faith in something that they cannot prove.

[TheHaze]

One thing to remember is that we have no reason for thinking that there is anything like a "higher power" whether or not there actually is.

I havn't stated whether or not I believe in anything. I'm agnostic. I don't hold anything to be true but I don't deny anything. I do believe there's a higher energy form then a human but I'm not sure as to its relationship with mankind. Using science, there are higher energy forms of matter then our own earth. With that, how can it be disproved that there isn't a higher living being somewhere out there?

[D.Wiggs]

What pisses me off the most is the fact that so many people jump on the "faith bandwagon" and try to say that one cannot use reasoning when it comes to religion. Well here is how you show them they are full of shit!

 

What is faith? Faith is belief. Why do they believe in Christianity? Presumably, because one thinks he/she has good reason for doing so? Why? Well, do you think that you have an intangible, invisible, and alltogether undetectable troll sitting on your shoulder that tells you what to do 24/7? No, you would say that's crazy! Why? Because you think you have good reason for thinking that it is not there EVEN THOUGH it COULD be the case that it is.

 

Same goes for God and religion. People wouldn't believe it and follow it so devout;y if they did not think it were true. That right there means that you can discuss God's existence (or lack thereof) and religion using normal logic and rational thought and thus go on to more discussion.

 

Nothing makes me angrier than the moronic and ignorant imbeciles who just go spouting off at the mouth who know nothing about what they are even talking about.

[TheHaze]

One thing that makes me wonder is how do we know if the Bible was not just some fictional piece of work written by the Steven King of that time. This is just one proof that we people have faith in something that they cannot prove.

Have you read the Bible? It was indeed written by man, but with interpretations and experiences related to God.

[D.Wiggs]

I havn't stated whether or not I believe in anything. I'm agnostic. I don't hold anything to be true but I don't deny anything. I do believe there's a higher energy form then a human but I'm not sure as to its relationship with mankind. Using science, there are higher energy forms of matter then our own earth. With that, how can it be disproved that there isn't a higher living being somewhere out there?

 

 

You are confusing possibility with certainty. I simply said, why should we hold the belief that there even is a higher power. IT COULD be true; it COULD NOT be true. That is not the point I was making. I was just saying, why should we even think that there is! I am NOT saying we can prove anything.

[D.Wiggs]

Have you read the Bible? It was indeed written by man, but with interpretations and experiences related to God.

 

But who is to say that "God" as the Bible describes is not just some fictional character? I think that was his point.

[TheHaze]

Nothing makes me angrier than the moronic and ignorant imbeciles who just go spouting off at the mouth who know nothing about what they are even talking about.

And nothing pisses me off more then people who think their way of thinking is the only way. I'm gonna take a guess and assume you always vote democrat as well. It's not at all conceivable in your mind that something not on the same level of understanding that we as humans have come to learn, exists? Why is God(s) dated back so many years with no historical proof of where the idea began. Everything else in the history of mankind is accountable for where it began and where its idea came about, except for one thing: God.

[Balian]

Have you read the Bible? It was indeed written by man, but with interpretations and experiences related to God.

 

Yes, as a matter of fact I have read the Bible. Many times in fact.

 

What gets to me is that there are so many different interpratations of it that it is hard to grasp it, depending on which version you read.

 

But the thing is, so many people can write about anything and say it is from GOD and who would challenge them.

 

Yea, I know this makes no sense as I cannot find a way to get my thoughts outta my head right now. lol

[Balian]

But who is to say that "God" as the Bible describes is not just some fictional character? I think that was his point.

 

Yea, that was kinda my point. lol

[TheHaze]

Yes, as a matter of fact I have read the Bible. Many times in fact.

 

What gets to me is that there are so many different interpratations of it that it is hard to grasp it, depending on which version you read.

 

But the thing is, so many people can write about anything and say it is from GOD and who would challenge them.

 

Yea, I know this makes no sense as I cannot find a way to get my thoughts outta my head right now. lol

 

I do agree that there are many interpretations. What I don't understand is how anyone can make assumptions about faith or not. We as humans are morons. We are oblivious to everything outside of our shell. I thik I misunderstood D Wiggs too, but that's cuz I'm an asshole.

[D.Wiggs]

And nothing pisses me off more then people who think their way of thinking is the only way. I'm gonna take a guess and assume you always vote democrat as well. It's not at all conceivable in your mind that something not on the same level of understanding that we as humans have come to learn, exists? Why is God(s) dated back so many years with no historical proof of where the idea began. Everything else in the history of mankind is accountable for where it began and where its idea came about, except for one thing: God.

 

 

Actually, I can give you one account of a very reasonable explanation as to how God came about. One word: DEATH. What is the one thing we will NEVER know about until it happens. DEATH. It's called FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. SO what do we do? We make up what we want to be true. Everyone does it (myself included) in many situations throughout life. If we were all immortal, you can be damn sure there would be no organized religion. Why? Because without the threat of "eternal damnation", why would we be so concerned with what happens after we die. A very simple people talked about "God(s)" for the fact we had a Sun, a Moon, Water, Tides, Lightning, Hurricanes. Did you know it was thought by the Greeks and Romans that Homosexuals caused Earthquakes? SO what happened when one occurred? Round up all the homosexuals and kill them.

 

We certainly do not hold these beliefs to be true today. Why? Because people have good reason for thinking otherwise.

 

And by the way. What in the HELL does voting Democrat have to do with being knowledgable about the subject you are discussing? Are you making the generalization that all people who prepare well for a discussion topic must vote Democrat? If so, I guess you are putting down all Republicans.

[Balian]

I do agree that there are many interpretations. What I don't understand is how anyone can make assumptions about faith or not. We as humans are morons. We are oblivious to everything outside of our shell. I thik I misunderstood D Wiggs too, but that's cuz I'm an asshole.

 

I am beginning to think that assumptions and faith go hand in hand on this topic. People have no logical proof of what is going on and therefore make the assumption of faith and that they must choose to follow it or choose to not follow it.

 

I agree. We as humans are morons. Hell, we cannot even learn to drive without crashing as a whole.

[D.Wiggs]

I am beginning to think that assumptions and faith go hand in hand on this topic. People have no logical proof of what is going on and therefore make the assumption of faith and that they must choose to follow it or choose to not follow it.

 

I agree. We as humans are morons. Hell, we cannot even learn to drive without crashing as a whole.

 

Think about it. Outside of mathematics we can prove VERY little. Faith is simply believing so an "assumption of faith" is tantamount to saying assumption of belief, which is just a longwinded way of saying I believe (and hope) that X is true. That is all we do in our everyday lives so God and religion is nothing different except that religion has been beaten into so many of us from the time we are young and blinded many as to what is really going on.

[TheHaze]

Actually, I can give you one account of a very reasonable explanation as to how God came about. One word: DEATH. What is the one thing we will NEVER know about until it happens. DEATH. It's called FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN. SO what do we do? We make up what we want to be true. Everyone does it (myself included) in many situations throughout life. If we were all immortal, you can be damn sure there would be no organized religion. Why? Because without the threat of "eternal damnation", why would we be so concerned with what happens after we die. A very simple people talked about "God(s)" for the fact we had a Sun, a Moon, Water, Tides, Lightning, Hurricanes. Did you know it was thought by the Greeks and Romans that Homosexuals caused Earthquakes? SO what happened when one occurred? Round up all the homosexuals and kill them.

 

We certainly do not hold these beliefs to be true today. Why? Because people have good reason for thinking otherwise.

 

And by the way. What in the HELL does voting Democrat have to do with being knowledgable about the subject you are discussing? Are you making the generalization that all people who prepare well for a discussion topic must vote Democrat? If so, I guess you are putting down all Republicans.

 

But I don't see how death would bring so many as a culture to come to the conlusion that there's something after death. In fact, that would mean we made the fear after death up as well: hell. If we made God up to make ourselves feel better about afterlife, it's because we scared ourselves by making hell's planes up as well. I just don't think that makes sense. It's possible though.

 

As to the democrat joke, I was being an asshole and thought I'd toss a generaliztion joke in for fun.

 

All in all, if there is a heaven, it's not a place, it's reincarnation. I tink the Native Americans hit the jackpot with their thinking.

[Balian]

Think about it. Outside of mathematics we can prove VERY little. Faith is simply believing so an "assumption of faith" is tantamount to saying assumption of belief, which is just a longwinded way of saying I believe (and hope) that X is true. That is all we do in our everyday lives so God and religion is nothing different except that religion has been beaten into so many of us from the time we are young and blinded many as to what is really going on.

 

Exactly.

 

One last point that I make is from what really turned me off of religion all together. I watched a family jump from two to three different types of religion. Christian, Baptist, etc....With so many diverse "types" of religion who is to say which is the right one? Watching this family shift from religion to religion only proved to me that as they are assuming that one religion is better, they really have no clue what is going one.

 

Has anyone ever studied budism? Hell, in his teachings he tell his followers to NOT follow him in his ways. wtf?

[Balian]

But I don't see how death would bring so many as a culture to come to the conlusion that there's something after death. In fact, that would mean we made the fear after death up as well: hell. If we made God up to make ourselves feel better about afterlife, it's because we scared ourselves by making hell's planes up as well. I just don't think that makes sense. It's possible though.

 

As to the democrat joke, I was being an asshole and thought I'd toss a generaliztion joke in for fun.

 

All in all, if there is a heaven, it's not a place, it's reincarnation. I tink the Native Americans hit the jackpot with their thinking.

 

I think this stems up from the issue....

 

He was risen from the grave....

 

That right there makes people assume there is life after death. Just how it goes on and about is left up to the idividual.

[TheHaze]

I think this stems up from the issue....

 

He was risen from the grave....

 

That right there makes people assume there is life after death. Just how it goes on and about is left up to the idividual.

Exactly, meaning we made up the the thing we fear for no point. Why scare ourselves?

[D.Wiggs]

But I don't see how death would bring so many as a culture to come to the conlusion that there's something after death. In fact, that would mean we made the fear after death up as well: hell. If we made God up to make ourselves feel better about afterlife, it's because we scared ourselves by making hell's planes up as well. I just don't think that makes sense. It's possible though.

 

As to the democrat joke, I was being an asshole and thought I'd toss a generaliztion joke in for fun.

 

All in all, if there is a heaven, it's not a place, it's reincarnation. I tink the Native Americans hit the jackpot with their thinking.

 

 

What I was saying about the "afterlife" is that the fear of the unknown is a HUMAN trait that I would generalize to say virtually ALL people have. Because of that, we create answers to our questions no matter how unbelievable. Religion was created as a way for the powerful, wealthy, and educated to control the ignorant masses through fear. It was the easiest and absolute best way to keep people under your control and it worked BEAUTIFULLY.

 

Like I said, this is my field of expertise and I could go on and on and on refuting point for point everyone's observation and attempted argument, but it really isn't worth it because as soon as you attack someone's religious beliefs, they get VERY offended because they are taught to be. I will leave you with these two thoughts though.

 

(1) AT MOST only 1 sect of 1 religion is right, and ALL OTHERS are wrong. This is due to the fact that if any two religions did not have a difference then they would be the same religion. SO at MOST, only one group of one denomination has it right (e.g., some sect of baptists or something).

 

(2) The "3-O" God (i.e., Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnibenevolent) must know what you are about to do 5 minutes from now. However, 5 minutes from now, if you do anything other than what God knew you were going to do 5 minutes prior, then you caused God to have a false belief which an Omnicient being CANNOT have by definition. The problem is that in order to have moral responsibility, one must believe in TOTAL free will, otherwise no one is morally accountable (i.e., if you could not do anything other than kill someone, then you cannot be held responsible for the action). To have free will means that at any moment in time, you can do as you please but COULD have done something else. If you are always doing as God "foresaw" then he is the one in cotrol and you do not have free will and thus have no control over any of your actions and therefore are not responsible for them.

 

 

Those are just 2 of the most basic reasons why I do not believe in any typical "3-O" God.

[D.Wiggs]

Exactly, meaning we made up the the thing we fear for no point. Why scare ourselves?

 

Because fear is the ULTIMATE motivator.

[Balian]

David. If you don't mind me asking, how is this your field of expertiese? Degree? Diploma?