Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#166    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:32 PM

View Postwimfloppp, on 03 April 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

was god born before the universe or after. bit like the chicken and egg.

God was not born.


#167    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:50 PM

View Postjake1967, on 04 April 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

In a way the responses to the orginal post amuse me...as every person who posts a response tries to reason something that they can't comprehend..or comprehend something that is not reasonable to them. I doubt you will ever find, ever, on this forum anything but opinions..and the expression of self. So the greater question..is who created 'self'? Did you? Do you have complete control over your own existance..and if so, you can also know the day of your death, and all that happens in between? What is the purpose of your life? ...there will always be more questions than answers..and answers are, for the most part, dictated by a belief or an education...an idea that one subscribes to as being the 'only' Truth..also becomes a 'belief'..and, consequently, an opinion. Or an 'expressed' opinion. Religion is based on FAITH..Science is based on FACT. These opposing views will always create arguments..between believers of Faith..and believers of Science.  The belief in Science..and that what it tells us..that it's words are without fault, proven and stable, the defining of an event. But is Science really that? How many times in the past, or present for that matter, has Science had to change it's postion based on it's (or a persons view of something..that is preached as the ONLY truth)..current knowledge? How many times in history?
To say that Science is absolute..is to relegate yourself to a life that is defined by the understandings of the 'interpretations' of life, or it's creation, bases wholly on the understanding of Man. ...of course..if you look around you..I'm sure you will see just how MANKIND has treated one another..and has 'Understood' science and then spend billions of dollars devising ways to deystroy..'mankind'...bit hypocrytical don't you think? Or maybe that's just my opinion.

Good post but I just would like to say that Science is not based on facts but on theories and theories are not facts. BTW, theories are more akin to faith than facts.
First was the theory that the universe was eternal and for that matter, God could not exist. In 1922 that theory died and was born the one that the universe did have a beginning with the BB. . And with this theory came in the logic that nothing could not cause something into existence. God was back in the agenda. It could exist after all as the Primal Cause.

Ben


#168    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:57 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 04 April 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Are you daft? The Big bang doesn't address other universes, so tell me this theory that forbids the existence of other universes.

Well I could, but I think you should seriously read some books, even those by Stephen Hawking will do you good. Then you wouldn't go around calling other people ignorant and daft.

Quote

Face it, you haven't posted a scientific paper and I don't see it changing. You're blowing hot air.

Face it you don't know what a scientifc paper is...

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#169    Ben Masada

Ben Masada

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,980 posts
  • Joined:06 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:58 PM

View PostEinsteinium, on 04 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

There is a reason why it is called "a belief in God" and there is a reason why such a belief requires '"faith". It is specifically because there is no proof of God, if there was then it would not be called belief but fact, it would not require faith but logic. There is no way to disprove God just as there is no way to prove God's existence. If the universe is cyclical- going bang then bust over and over, then therefore there would be an infinite variety of universes that exist throughout eternity. This one has the perfect conditions that it has because it could be no other way. You or I could not exist to observe it and wonder why it is the way it is if it was not the way that it is. Furthermore if the multiverse theory is true, then the same logic follows. The conditions would have to be perfect for us to exist in this universe otherwise we would not exist to make that observation. The existence of the universe itself does not require God.

The existence of God is your opinion only. You cannot prove it, you cannot make me believe it, I cannot disprove it to you. So you go on believing what you believe, and I will go on believing what I believe. Neither is better than the other, and what really matters is what you or I do to help make this world a better place with less suffering.

And the rest is commentary. In fact, to make of this world a better place for all to live with less suffering is the Jewish goal on earth.


#170    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 04 April 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

The list of "coincidences" that make our existence possible is well taken.  I've seen calculations that make the perfection of our universe for our existence unbelievably unlikely if taken as a chance event.

A similar argument was once made about the earth and the conditions seemingly designed for us to be able to live here.  You don't hear that argment much any more because we now know the universe is teeming with planets and many of them are indeed earth-like.

The same approach can be taken to the conditions of the universe at large.  If nature is constantly throwing off cosmoses (it is better here to change the vocabulary and keep "universe" as meaning "all there is" and adopt "cosmos" for the particular "universe" we observe), each cosmos with different, somewhat randomly set physical characteristics, then here and there, no matter how unlikely, one will happen that can sustain us.

Another possibility is that the characteristics of the cosmos are not really as random as we tend to assume, but are fixed by only a few random variables, the others being determined therefrom by connections we don't yet understand.  That sort of thing would greatly improve the odds from what seems so wildly unlikely to merely a few coin tosses.

The third possibility is some sort of actual design -- by superbeings in another cosmos who delierately set in motion cosmoses that will sustain life.  I dare say we would do as much, and the technology to set off a "big bang" may not be all that outrageous -- just a certain tweaking of noral random quantum fluctuations (of course the new big bang would be in a new set of dimensions, so it would not harm those doing it).

Finally, it may be said that the tremendous odds against our existence are evidence that we live in a simulation.

That last comment makes me think that that is what you actually believe to be the case. The question would then be, who is the simulator?

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#171    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:04 PM

View Posteight bits, on 04 April 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

I'd just like to emphasize a point in Liquid Gardens' presentation, before it gets lost in the shuffle.



What pi's fine-tunedness illustrates is that some fine-tunedness is necessary, and not in the least "probabilistic." Pi cannot be any other value than what it is, exactly what it is, not even "a little bit" different from what it is exactly.

"Having circles" is not an optional feature of universes. Maybe in some universes, there would be nobody around to think about circles, or maybe there are thinkers, but circles don't interest them enough to think about them. No matter, pi is woven into the fabric of existence whether it is recognized or not, and whether circles are realized or not.

Einstein, who was a deist, believed in what appeared to him to be a mind or spirit distinct from the material universe itself. He recognized the issue of not knowing how much and what kinds of orderliness are necessary, to be a difficulty for his deist beliefs.

Thank you 8B, that is exactly what the video I posted stated as well. There are some constants that cannot be fooled with, Pi is one example. Fine tuning pretty much states the same, that any change to these constants would alter the fundamental nature of the universe, if it could even exist at all in those circumstances,

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#172    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,166 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:54 AM

View PostJor-el, on 06 April 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Well I could, but I think you should seriously read some books, even those by Stephen Hawking will do you good. Then you wouldn't go around calling other people ignorant and daft.

Face it you don't know what a scientifc paper is...
Who are you fooling? When asked to provide a scientific paper, all you've accomplished is running around in circles while pretending you've done it already. None of your articles come from peer review journals, none of them show God's existence.
Jor-el is going to do the exact same thing when asked for a theory that forbids other universes.

I'm done with your asinine rambling.


#173    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 10:49 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 07 April 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

Who are you fooling? When asked to provide a scientific paper, all you've accomplished is running around in circles while pretending you've done it already. None of your articles come from peer review journals, none of them show God's existence.
Jor-el is going to do the exact same thing when asked for a theory that forbids other universes.

Your error is assuming that a scientifc paper can only be something that is part of a peer review journal, this demonstrates that you don't even bother to read my posts, just skim through them to pick what you want to disagree with.

Quote

I'm done with your asinine rambling.

That is a choice that assists you. Good luck with that.

Edited by Jor-el, 07 April 2013 - 10:51 AM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#174    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:20 AM

View PostBen Masada, on 06 April 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Oh! I got it. The problem is with the word God. If we replace it with...let's say, "Design"  it will be okay? So Design has caused the universe into existence.

Ben
No you haven't got it at all.  Think about it a little without your dogma.


#175    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:23 AM

View PostJor-el, on 06 April 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

That last comment makes me think that that is what you actually believe to be the case. The question would then be, who is the simulator?
No I don't know enough to say I "believe" anything, except that the God hypothesis is pretty much out.  The simulation could be by ourselves, providing ourseleves education or entertainment.  More likely, all existence is definable as simulation -- as manipulation of information, in which case we are not far from being able to produce our own universes to our own design.


#176    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:41 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 April 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

No I don't know enough to say I "believe" anything, except that the God hypothesis is pretty much out.  The simulation could be by ourselves, providing ourseleves education or entertainment.  More likely, all existence is definable as simulation -- as manipulation of information, in which case we are not far from being able to produce our own universes to our own design.

Could you explain why the God hypothesis is pretty much out?

We already create universes to our own design, just play a game within a virtual environment. I would reject though that we are doing it ourselves, we would know if that were the case, and we could leave if we wanted to, which is evidently not the case.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#177    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:03 PM

The theological infinite God is a logical impossibility.  The various creator gods that people have invented are myths that don't stand up to any sort or rational or ethical scrutiny.

The virtual environments we create are heading in that direction, and, what makes me suspect it, is its obviousness (if it is possible the odds that we are in one are overwhelming, and it sure seems possible) combined of course with the improbability of the universe as we see it.

The other possibility, and the one worth pursuing (since if we are in a virtual environment we can presume it is such that we cannot prove it), is that there is either some natural selection of cosmoses going in that tends to select in favor of universes that can have life in them (a number of theories of this sort are out there) or there are beings in another cosmos popping off big bangs, perhaps for no reason than to allow others the chance to exist.  (Doing this would not be all that unimaginable -- just manipulate some virtual particles in the right way and it is self-sustaining -- the only thing is once you have popped one off it goes on its own without any way for you to influence it -- a sort-of deist universe.

Of course we could also be just a chance bit of good luck.  Given enough tries at it (and one presumes the universe has an infinite number of these), we are bound to happen now and then.


#178    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,359 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:05 PM

I can see us living in some boring utopia somewhere hooking into various virtual universes in order to get some excitement into our lives, or perhaps as a punishment for some offense, or perhaps to get a degree in Twenty-fist Century history.  Then when we die we disconnect and go back to the utopia.


#179    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,260 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:55 PM

Jor-el

Quote

Thank you 8B, that is exactly what the video I posted stated as well. There are some constants that cannot be fooled with, Pi is one example.

OK, I think we're all in agreement, then, that the class of "constants that cannot be fooled with" is non-empty. So, the next question would be whether any "physical" constants belong to that set, and if so, which ones? I put physical in quotes, because it's not so clear how to identify constants that are candidates for "can(not) be fooled with."

Historically, some ancient high civilizations, writing before Greeks got interested in demonstrative geometry, realized based on observation that the widest angle in any 3-4-5 triangle was always, in their experience, a right angle. So, that was an empirical "physical" and constant relationship, a very fine tuning and useful for civilized life.

At that point in human understanding, anybody might have imagined "what the world would be like" if some other widest angle could be found in such a triangle. You could dream up all kinds of "realistic" seeming consequences, mostly catastrpohic for civilized life: land surveys would be haphazardly mesed up, carefully measured buildings would collapse, flood control gates wouldn't work, ...

Such a person would be forgiven for thinking that the Universe was designed for civilized life. Such a person might also be numbered among the proto-scientists of their time. As such, their speculations might be given some weight in scholarly discussion, without losing sight that their opinions on this subject were purely speculative, as opposed to their better-founded work.

Today, ordinary schoolchildren know better about 3-4-5 triangles than the most learned of these ancients. 3-4-5's are the physical realizations of an abstract arrangement of elements that cannot be except that the arrangement encloses a right angle and two acute angles. What was first identified in a way that suggested a possibility of "fooling with" turns out to be a member of the set of things that cannot be fooled with, just as pi cannot be fooled with.

So, it would appear that that's where we are with the very first steps of the "fine tuning" argument. We just don't know whether the various phyical constants we empirically observe belong to the "cannot be fooled with" set or not. If not, how many degrees of freedom are there for the "fooling with?" Just because we observe 50 "different" constants, doesn't mean that this reflects 50 different choices - and that's assuming there is any choice at all.

What we seem to have, then, is not a proof that God exists in all of this, but a reason why anybody might consider God a serious possibility. It is simply a fallacy of quantitative reasoning to argue from a serious possibility to a near-certain probability, excepting only the case where "the probability" in question is plainly understood as one way to restate the speaker's personal opinion about the subject, not to be confused with any kind of objective quantitative statement.

Edited by eight bits, 07 April 2013 - 01:57 PM.

Posted Image

#180    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,785 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:50 PM

View Posteight bits, on 07 April 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Jor-el



OK, I think we're all in agreement, then, that the class of "constants that cannot be fooled with" is non-empty. So, the next question would be whether any "physical" constants belong to that set, and if so, which ones? I put physical in quotes, because it's not so clear how to identify constants that are candidates for "can(not) be fooled with."

Historically, some ancient high civilizations, writing before Greeks got interested in demonstrative geometry, realized based on observation that the widest angle in any 3-4-5 triangle was always, in their experience, a right angle. So, that was an empirical "physical" and constant relationship, a very fine tuning and useful for civilized life.

At that point in human understanding, anybody might have imagined "what the world would be like" if some other widest angle could be found in such a triangle. You could dream up all kinds of "realistic" seeming consequences, mostly catastrpohic for civilized life: land surveys would be haphazardly mesed up, carefully measured buildings would collapse, flood control gates wouldn't work, ...

Such a person would be forgiven for thinking that the Universe was designed for civilized life. Such a person might also be numbered among the proto-scientists of their time. As such, their speculations might be given some weight in scholarly discussion, without losing sight that their opinions on this subject were purely speculative, as opposed to their better-founded work.

Today, ordinary schoolchildren know better about 3-4-5 triangles than the most learned of these ancients. 3-4-5's are the physical realizations of an abstract arrangement of elements that cannot be except that the arrangement encloses a right angle and two acute angles. What was first identified in a way that suggested a possibility of "fooling with" turns out to be a member of the set of things that cannot be fooled with, just as pi cannot be fooled with.

So, it would appear that that's where we are with the very first steps of the "fine tuning" argument. We just don't know whether the various phyical constants we empirically observe belong to the "cannot be fooled with" set or not. If not, how many degrees of freedom are there for the "fooling with?" Just because we observe 50 "different" constants, doesn't mean that this reflects 50 different choices - and that's assuming there is any choice at all.

What we seem to have, then, is not a proof that God exists in all of this, but a reason why anybody might consider God a serious possibility. It is simply a fallacy of quantitative reasoning to argue from a serious possibility to a near-certain probability, excepting only the case where "the probability" in question is plainly understood as one way to restate the speaker's personal opinion about the subject, not to be confused with any kind of objective quantitative statement.

Ok, then why might I ask do most of the scientists who should technically know about this more than any of us, state that these constants can be different in other universes?

In basic chemistry we know that a chemical reaction occurs in a specific sequence due to the nature of the elements used, for example the burning of Hydrogen and Oxygen in a rocket engine. 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O + heat (2 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom results in heat and 2 water molecules)
The result is water vapour.

It can go no other way, you will aways get heat (combustion) and water vapour as a result. So it stands to reason that if all these different constants are somehow linked that the only possible result is a universe like ours, none other is permitted. But that is exactly what scientists are not saying.

We can find references of these statements by nearly if not all scientists who theorize the existence of multiple universes. Every single one of these scientists have stated that these constants can be different and produce different types of universes in the multiverse. Hawking says it, Vilenkin says it as well as multiple others which I can quote, they are all saying the same thing, that these constants can be different elswhere. Without variation of these constants, the whole of the Multiverse theory collapses.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users