Why you cannot prove there is/isn't God

[Mowgli1647545497]

http://forumimages.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-eng101.gifTenet.

I can't spell. Especially late at night.

You have not defined "God" in your post. Scientifically you cannot prove or disprove anything without a definition of what "it" is. There are many differing opinions on "God", so you need to tell us what that is exactly.

I did't have to. I used what in weaselly lawyer-ease is known as the "reasonable man's" definition of god. But my definition of god is not the biblically described one, and I'll leave it at that.

You have also stated that light knows it's own destination, where in reality the light travels in all directions with no destination. The fact that it eventually hits something is arbitrary. It travels in a straight line, which we all know is the fastest way to get somewhere. That the line appears to move when it hits water is not a flaw with the ilght, but how it is viewed.

I didn't state light knows its destination. I was projecting anthropomorphically. Light itself knows nothing (does it? now there's a thought I'll need to ponder at lunch, hmm. But it doesn't impact what I was saying anyway). There is no flaw in the observer or the light. I'm not sure where you're getting "flaw" from. There's no trick here. But the light that goes from point A to point B does take the fastest possible path. Thats the property of that light I was describing. And while yes light goes in many directions no other light goes from A to B except the light that does. No other light arrives at B. (Oh and btw light does not go in all directions at once. It (seems to) move in discrete quantities and directions.)

 

 

Folks, please don't forget that constructs such as logic, language, proof, proving, words, insight, thought, history, observation, speech, communication, stimuli, emotion, gestalt, reasoning, etc. are too a part of the system we are in. They are components of it as much as direction, time, force, matter and energy are. They do not transcend the universe for they are a product of the universe. You hear that alot: "Math and logic transcend the universe." As soon as some guy says something to that effect you've got your free pass to start daydreaming about boobs, just be sure to nod attentively like you're still listening.

 

Some of you are still grappling with the concept that you can have both a teleological existence and a causal one at the same "time" in our universe. I know its tough to accept right away. Please consider what I mean when I say the universe is perfectly ambiguous. No amount of context will disprove either interpretation; causality (with freewill) and teleological (knowing the past/present/future all at once and without freewill). They are both valid. But you cannot do both at the same "time", pardon the pun. Well, we can't. A "god", by definition, is outside such constraints of logic.

 

Many ersatz thinkers base as a cornerstone of their worldview that such things like math and logic are immutable. Unchanging. But they too have boundaries. Take some high level math courses and you'll see where math "runs out".

 

By that I mean this; we're used to operating in areas where math is solid and immutable, that 1+1=2. Always and everywhere. You can express 1+1=2 as X+Y=Z and we know such an equation has a solution everywhere you go in the realm of real and imaginary numbers. But there are areas of math where there are only partial solutions. High math well above algebra, calculus, differential equaitions, linear algebra, and calculus of variations. Calculus on steriods. You start to find equations that have solutions only some of the time. Or where we know solutions but can't find the equation to match it. Please understand I'm not talking about equations where the solution is "false" such as X+Y=X. This is never true except where Y is zero. But "Not True" or "False" is also a solution. What I'm talking about are equations that should have solutions, but those solutions are unexistent, partially existant, or unknowable in our universe. Math aboslutely does have a fringe. An edge. And its not a steady edge either. It moves and shifts.

Now thats an astounding statement to someone who's never heard it before, and almost sounds farcical. But it is as true as time dilation near lightspeed. And as proven. Take a visit down to OSU and buy a high-end math prof (not one of the T.A.s) a cup a coffee and ask him.

Math has an edge. So too logic. I challenge anyone to learn this math, walk up to that fringe and stare beyond, and come away still confident the universe is a self-describing, self-creating and perpetuating construct.

 

And now I get to quote Einstein: "Those that have looked over the edge see the workings of God." Now that was Albert being abit indulgent, as he well knew the construct of math itself, indeed its border and fringe edge, are too both parts, components, in and of the system we're in.

 

Not every beleives in God. Stephen Hawking doesn't beleive in god. His choice is not to. But he understands it to be a choice and will tell you why he beleives so. And I don't blame him, his world is one stricken with MD and the lack of an interactive god is maybe a large factor in his view. But then there's interaction and there's interaction. I see there is freewill and I see the possibility for an existence, teleological, not bound by time but without freewill. For me, a god that doesn't interact daily in the trivial lives of me and you isn't a big deal. For me, god is interacting enough if he's not pouring the coffee down the drain, thanks very much.

 

Again, I'm not trying to push the existence of God on anyone. I'm just trying to get across the point that to beleive in such or to not is a choice and can be no more than that. And no one is stupid for beleiving one way or the other. They are being stupid when they purport to "prove" it.

[Science Abuse]

Summary of what Mowgli is saying:

You dont know. You cant prove it. You exsist, enjoy it.

[Alex1647545498]

< insert smurf's song here >

[Hwilli1647545487]

A 2d being could see 3d objects, it would just have no way of comprehending them. All would apear as 2D.

 

Not only water, but gravity als distorts light, as does air and other gasses.

 

Mowgli, you left out some one in you band of god fearing cohorts, Darwin.

 

 

I read you post, and those following it. Those following it contained a great many written words, but in the end realy said very little.

 

Faith is alot simpler then people try to make it out to be. On a theological level, its between you and your deity, that's it. Religion groups people, separates them, and often pits them against each other based on stupid little differences, and people often forget to point of faith.

 

It's also a fact that Faith is a neccesary staple in a humans mental and emotional diet. You need it. You dont need to have faith in a god, but you do need to have faith in something, otherwise you'll go mad, or even worse, you'll go Emo. Even in science, you are required to have faith. There is alot that is simply impossible to prove. String Theory, the new up and commer, is still more a philosophy then it is physics. No experiment exists to prove it, yet no experiment exists to disprove it. It, like God, is safe.

 

One might argue that the Strings are, in fact, god himself, or the means in which he works. "God is in the details", and you dont get more detailed then the building blocks of matter and existence squiring around in 11 dimensions.

 

 

Advice: Relax. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", espcialy when dealing with an all powerfull god. I'd also advise not going to church/temple/etc before you take the time to find out what, exactly god means to you. Without understanding yourself there's realy no way for you to feel the real benifits of faith.

And for the love of pete, live and let live. Shalom, habib, peace out and goodnight.

 

 

I enjoyed this post.

[Casper]

I think I may have actually gotten smarter by reading this thread. Damn. Nothing educational has ever come from CR. This is amazing. Props to Mowgli.

[speedline]

Summary of what Mowgli is saying:

You dont know. You cant prove it. You exsist, enjoy it.

yep thats what i was saying too!!!!

one time is all you get.

[McGraw]

As I'm too impatient to sit and read all the, I'm sure, good points. I'll just throw in a theory that helped me to understand a lot of things.

 

The Divine Command Theory.

 

check it out if you're into it.

[Science Abuse]

so ehhh, you remove pressure of deciding right and wrong from yourself, and tout a 1400 year old magical book of stories as law?

[TheHaze]

Faith is alot simpler then people try to make it out to be. On a theological level, its between you and your deity, that's it. Religion groups people, separates them, and often pits them against each other based on stupid little differences, and people often forget to point of faith.

 

It's also a fact that Faith is a neccesary staple in a humans mental and emotional diet. You need it. You dont need to have faith in a god, but you do need to have faith in something, otherwise you'll go mad, or even worse, you'll go Emo. Even in science, you are required to have faith. There is alot that is simply impossible to prove. String Theory, the new up and commer, is still more a philosophy then it is physics. No experiment exists to prove it, yet no experiment exists to disprove it. It, like God, is safe.

 

 

Advice: Relax. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", espcialy when dealing with an all powerfull god. I'd also advise not going to church/temple/etc before you take the time to find out what, exactly god means to you. Without understanding yourself there's realy no way for you to feel the real benifits of faith.

And for the love of pete, live and let live. Shalom, habib, peace out and goodnight.

 

That right there was my train of though last night while posting, only you put it so wonderfully.

[Balian]

lol

[nurkvinny]

Read 'The Universe Next Door' by Marcus Chown if you would like to add a dozen different ways of looking at the universe to your daily life. It should be read for 50% entertainment value and 50% research.

[morabu]

@ Mowgli - intelligent, thoughtful, entertaining, and informative read

i think i might have just expanded my brain fibre for the better over this thread

THANK YOU FOR THE READ!

 

@ D.Wiggs & MikeHaze - I am Agnostic, i would like to have that "faith" crutch that 80-90% of the world has, i just cannot bring myself to "believe" with what i have learned....so far. For myself i look for a higher being not because the fear of "hell", i fear death for emptyness, darkness, NON-Existance on some level similar to humanity!

hell to me is an INDIVIDUAL's fear, my hell is explained above, most people's hell is what someone wrote into a book claiming to be from a higher being

 

 

 

I just want to have some sort of "being" after my body shuts down and decays so i can continue to experience Love, Family and Happiness!

 

J.R.

[Slimpsy1647545505]

...long and interesting read...

 

no real thoughts come to mind though when reading through it, to each their own

[D.Wiggs]

A "god", by definition, is outside such constraints of logic.

 

 

Please do not take this as an "attack" but yet as a chance to further educate yourself on the matter since you seem to be interested in doing so. You made many common mistakes with your argument on time, freewill, "timelessness" etc., but the most important one is the one I have quoted. God is very much constrained by logic.

 

For example:

 

God cannot make square circles.

God cannot sin (thereby making him NOT Omnibenevolent)

God cannot learn (thereby making him NOT Omnicient)

The list goes on and on and on.

 

God, also cannot avoid Math.

 

For example:

If God got rid of EVERYTHING in the Universe he still could not get rid of numbers. Why? Because what would you have in a Universe with nothing in it? Zero (a number).

 

 

Another thing to remember is this. Just because you can IMAGINE a higher being that does wonderful things and is very powerful etc. etc. does not give you good reason for thinking it exists. We, as humans, can imagine all sorts of things (e.g., monsters under our bed) but we certainly don't think we have good reason for thinking they actually ARE there.

 

That is where the religious groups have corrupted so many minds into making God somehow "rational-thought-exempt". Here is a perfect parallel example often used to demonstrate the principle.

 

Say I kill your (whoever is reading this) family and at my murder trial I state, "Well, it is possible that what I did was God's bidding and that a greater good has been served by me murdering his family. I do not KNOW if the greater good has been served or if God wanted me to do it, but since it is possible, you should believe me and let me off the hook."

That is tantamount to saying that since God COULD exist, we should believe that he DOES exist and live accordingly. The Church in particular has framed many people's mind to reject this notion because of "FAITH".

 

Well, as I said before, Faith is nothing more than Belief. It's not a special kind of belief; it's not reserved only for God; and it is not above being examined rationally either. "Faith" is used as a way to try and get people to not think critically about their religious beliefs by dismissing any naysayer.

 

I could go on about the whole problem of God not being temporal versus being temporal and all of the problems you run into there. And then the logical contradictions with the 3-O God and free will (as I did above).

 

This is very complicated stuff and there is nothing that has not been proposed and defeated from a Theists point of view as I stated earlier. The ONLY thing a Theist can say is, "I believe in God and/or religion even though I know it is irrational to do so and that I have absolutely no good reason for doing so." The only problem with this is that it is the same thing as saying, "I believe a little alien is on my head and telling me what to do at all times even though I have no rational or good reason for thinking it is the case." and we all know where we would put someone who thought like that ! LOL

[Science Abuse]

...... no

[TheHaze]

Please do not take this as an "attack" but yet as a chance to further educate yourself on the matter since you seem to be interested in doing so. You made many common mistakes with your argument on time, freewill, "timelessness" etc., but the most important one is the one I have quoted. God is very much constrained by logic.

 

For example:

 

God cannot make square circles.

God cannot sin (thereby making him NOT Omnibenevolent)

God cannot learn (thereby making him NOT Omnicient)

The list goes on and on and on.

 

God, also cannot avoid Math.

 

For example:

If God got rid of EVERYTHING in the Universe he still could not get rid of numbers. Why? Because what would you have in a Universe with nothing in it? Zero (a number).

 

 

Another thing to remember is this. Just because you can IMAGINE a higher being that does wonderful things and is very powerful etc. etc. does not give you good reason for thinking it exists. We, as humans, can imagine all sorts of things (e.g., monsters under our bed) but we certainly don't think we have good reason for thinking they actually ARE there.

 

That is where the religious groups have corrupted so many minds into making God somehow "rational-thought-exempt". Here is a perfect parallel example often used to demonstrate the principle.

 

Say I kill your (whoever is reading this) family and at my murder trial I state, "Well, it is possible that what I did was God's bidding and that a greater good has been served by me murdering his family. I do not KNOW if the greater good has been served or if God wanted me to do it, but since it is possible, you should believe me and let me off the hook."

That is tantamount to saying that since God COULD exist, we should believe that he DOES exist and live accordingly. The Church in particular has framed many people's mind to reject this notion because of "FAITH".

 

Well, as I said before, Faith is nothing more than Belief. It's not a special kind of belief; it's not reserved only for God; and it is not above being examined rationally either. "Faith" is used as a way to try and get people to not think critically about their religious beliefs by dismissing any naysayer.

 

I could go on about the whole problem of God not being temporal versus being temporal and all of the problems you run into there. And then the logical contradictions with the 3-O God and free will (as I did above).

 

This is very complicated stuff and there is nothing that has not been proposed and defeated from a Theists point of view as I stated earlier. The ONLY thing a Theist can say is, "I believe in God and/or religion even though I know it is irrational to do so and that I have absolutely no good reason for doing so." The only problem with this is that it is the same thing as saying, "I believe a little alien is on my head and telling me what to do at all times even though I have no rational or good reason for thinking it is the case." and we all know where we would put someone who thought like that ! LOL

 

You can't percieve a square circle because you've never seen one. Hell, long ago we didn't know anything existed outside of our earth.

 

I don't like the idea of college-born courses teaching religious ideas because that's where the diehards come from: the ones who refuse to accept anything other then what they've learned. This goes for organized religion. I don't like how so many depend on others and rituals instead of being more spiritual or reflecting with their God themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, rather I'm attempting to make an understanding myself on other's point of views and to offer mine to show that it's possible that nobody is correct.

[D.Wiggs]

You can't percieve a square circle because you've never seen one. Hell, long ago we didn't know anything existed outside of our earth.

 

I don't like the idea of college-born courses teaching religious ideas because that's where the diehards come from: the ones who refuse to accept anything other then what they've learned. This goes for organized religion. I don't like how so many depend on others and rituals instead of being more spiritual or reflecting with their God themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, rather I'm attempting to make an understanding myself on other's point of views and to offer mine to show that it's possible that nobody is correct.

 

 

It's not that I cannot perceive a square circle, it's that there CANNOT BE ONE. PERIOD. It's a logical contradiction. You would have to break the very definition of a square and a circle in order to even attempt this, but then you are not making something that is both a square and a circle. This is not about what is beyond human power, it simply CANNOT BE DONE. Not by us, not by God, not by anyone. Just like God cannot make something that is both tall and short, or all black and all white. Please trust me on this.

[Mowgli1647545497]

I see now Mensan you were right: for the purposes of this discussion an unstated "reasonable man" definition of "god" does not suffice. Because now we have gods being flung around in posts that are bound by the universe/math/logic. "Bound by" means, by definition, inside. In. Not outside. Several pages of off-the-point replies were wasted I see now. My bad.

 

Wiggs, you may either have a deep attachment to logic or feel a need to win an arguement, but I am not making an arguement. There are no flaws in what I wrote.

 

Math is elegant. It is beautiful. Just as Newtonian physics are elegant and beautiful. In the realm where its meant to work it will continue to work, consistently and without fail, forever. And sure, in the everyday philosophizing and mathematics of workaday life it is internally consistent and immutable. But just as Newtonian physics break down as you near the speed of light and you need relativity to accurately describe the rules and behavior, so too the immutability of math/logic breaks down near its edges.

 

I can break math, and I am no god: I can, with a little bit of time in my 20 year old college books, construct for you a Partial Differential Equation (feel free to google that) that has a solution. Then I can prove it has a solution. Then I can show that the solution is currently unknown. I can then show not only that it is unknown, but that it is unknowable. I can then even show the boundary (more like a transition region) at which it goes from having a known solution, to having an unknown solution, to having an unknowable solution.

 

There. Math, broken. Well, if not broken, at the very least with a little effort I'm standing on the fuzzy edge of it where it stops. It is no tool to be used to describe things beyond the system in which it is a part.

[Mensan]

I see now Mensan you were right: for the purposes of this discussion an unstated "reasonable man" definition of "god" does not suffice. Because now we have gods being flung around in posts that are bound by the universe/math/logic. "Bound by" means, by definition, inside. In. Not outside. Several pages of off-the-point replies were wasted I see now. My bad.

 

It would be difficult to come up with a definition everyone could come to terms with.

 

I appreciate the acknowledgement.

[D.Wiggs]

I see now Mensan you were right: for the purposes of this discussion an unstated "reasonable man" definition of "god" does not suffice. Because now we have gods being flung around in posts that are bound by the universe/math/logic. "Bound by" means, by definition, inside. In. Not outside. Several pages of off-the-point replies were wasted I see now. My bad.

 

Wiggs, you may either have a deep attachment to logic or feel a need to win an arguement, but I am not making an arguement. There are no flaws in what I wrote.

 

Math is elegant. It is beautiful. Just as Newtonian physics are elegant and beautiful. In the realm where its meant to work it will continue to work, consistently and without fail, forever. And sure, in the everyday philosophizing and mathematics of workaday life it is internally consistent and immutable. But just as Newtonian physics break down as you near the speed of light and you need relativity to accurately describe the rules and behavior, so too the immutability of math/logic breaks down near its edges.

 

I can break math, and I am no god: I can, with a little bit of time in my 20 year old college books, construct for you a Partial Differential Equation (feel free to google that) that has a solution. Then I can prove it has a solution. Then I can show that the solution is currently unknown. I can then show not only that it is unknown, but that it is unknowable. I can then even show the boundary (more like a transition region) at which it goes from having a known solution, to having an unknown solution, to having an unknowable solution.

 

There. Math, broken. Well, if not broken, at the very least with a little effort I'm standing on the fuzzy edge of it where it stops. It is no tool to be used to describe things beyond the system in which it is a part.

 

 

I am VERY deeply attached to logic for it is all we have to get through this world of ours and make good decisions. I agree Math is not perfect, but I did not say it was. I simply said you it is something you cannot get rid of; that was all.

[Mensan]

I am VERY deeply attached to logic for it is all we have to get through this world of ours and make good decisions. I agree Math is not perfect, but I did not say it was. I simply said you it is something you cannot get rid of; that was all.

 

But your argument is somewhat circular; a number (or any symbol critical to the definition of math) is an arbitrary symbol of a thought, or a description of something that you can comprehend. Arbitrary and logic don't get along.

 

God, like numbers, either exists or does not. Period. No amount of arguing or "proofs" will change that. It doesn't matter how intelligent we are, or how much sense the argument makes. God is either a one or a zero.

[Guest bigb]

God cannot make square circles.

God cannot sin (thereby making him NOT Omnibenevolent)

God cannot learn (thereby making him NOT Omnicient)

The list goes on and on and on.

 

 

God CHOSE to put those limitations on himself. He is onmiscient, omnipotent, loving, full of mercy, and grace...oh and without sin. How do I know this??? Because I have a relationship with him. It's not about religion guys. It's all about relationship. And by the way...I don't fear death (I know exactly where I am going)...or anything else in this world for that matter. That is what real peace is. I am choosing not to argue/discuss my RELATIONSHIP with you b/c you won't understand until u experience it for yourself. But I will be praying for you all. Luv ya!!!

[speedline]

how do people talk to god (thin air) do they get a response? if so that means you have voices in your head and you might need to be treated.

[D.Wiggs]

God CHOSE to put those limitations on himself. He is onmiscient, omnipotent, loving, full of mercy, and grace...oh and without sin. How do I know this??? Because I have a relationship with him. It's not about religion guys. It's all about relationship. And by the way...I don't fear death (I know exactly where I am going)...or anything else in this world for that matter. That is what real peace is. I am choosing not to argue/discuss my RELATIONSHIP with you b/c you won't understand until u experience it for yourself. But I will be praying for you all. Luv ya!!!

 

 

You just created a paradox. It's a very old one. Here it is:

 

God can either create a stone so heavy he cannot lift, in which case he is limited, or he cannot create a stone so heavy as he cannot lift it. Either way, God, by definition, is no longer omnipotent.

 

Like I said, this whole debate has been going on for centuries and none of this is new.

 

The bottom line is that there is NO good reason for believing that God exists; some people do, however, and that is fine. But they should never begin to claim that they have a rational or good reason for thinking so. Just like we do not have good or rational reason for thinking we can fly, or breathe underwater. It really is THAT simple when you actually break it down.

[Total Sign]

Wiggs, I agree a lot with what you posted on the first two pages. Religion seems to really have been "invented" to control the masses. If you believe that a higher power does not want you to kill someone, you are less likely to do so.

 

And have really been thinking about the reason people cannot break away. The best reason I can come up with is the fear of the unknown/death, like you said.

 

The rest of this thread is getting too deep for me to really get into right now, I may get back here later and read more, who knows.