Anti-Existence Proof

[Hammbone]

I thought it would require non by self evidence. But okay.

Everything is set in motion by another. A change in design or physical things requires a physical action. The orgin of the physical action lead back to the beginning.

Let us say, that God cures a cancer suffer. The way in which she is cured is completely messuable and observable. For any means that God would have choicen (removing the cancer, making it disappear, changing the DNA of the cells, changing the immune system, ext.) is totally within the means of science to meassure. To effect the physical world, there must be a physical mark left.

And as suggested above, there is a grand hidden design to it all and she gets cured because it was destined to be, why couldn't the event happened that way anyway? The events all set in motion did exactly as predicted, where is the God in that. Why is a God necessary, the only reason it is in the story is because you choose it be.

The way I see it, God enters the scene and leaves a mark. Or God designed it all and let it play out, in which case a huge portion of the bible is false and there one could claim that he is unnecssary addition. If you see another way, let me know. I would love to discuss it.

Originally Posted by Mestemia

prove it.
Or present enough evidence to show it is, at the very least, a probability.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

prove it.
Or present enough evidence to show it is, at the very least, a probability.

The Observer Effect shows that nothing can interact with the universe without affecting it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

I believe the idea of that happening is complete nonsense. But if one believes in a God than that statement MUST be true.

Again, utter nonsense.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

Everything is set in motion by another.

another what?

Seems we cannot go any further until the how of the first "set into motion" is explained.
Until it is, everything else is merely assumption based on guess work.

Or is it guess work based on assumption...damn, i forget which.

Besides which, how does this prove that God:
Touches anything
That God HAS to 'touch' anything
?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

The proof starts with discussing what God is made of. God must have some physical intendance on the universe.

I looked up intendance, and it doesn't make any sense in this context. Sorry to harp on one word, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase, please? Are you arguing that God must be a physical being?

For example the creation of man, the carrying of christ to heaven, the existence of a place to go after death, ext. There must be a way that God physically touches the universe, and that is within meassurement of science.
If God is or ever was effecting the universe as we precieve it then we should be able to messure in some way that influence. We should be able to meassure some for of communication coming from or going to people who are praying.

It seems to me that if God is supernatural, all bets are off.

Well if God does not exist in a sense of which we can understand than by what defination is God real? How can something be real if it doesn't exist in anyway that we can physically effect or comprehend? What is the difference between a God that you can not see, hear, touch or meassure and no God at all?

There are subtler senses. God can still be perceived, but we are not yet sufficiently advanced to quantify such perceptions.

1) What is a spirit? Has any form needed to be explained by the conception of a spirit? There is no evidence at all that such a thing even exists. Some people mean it in the form an idea. Well if God is an idea that doesn't physically effect anything, what in the world does it explain?

To play devil's advocate for a moment...

If God is a creature of pure spirit (whatever that means), then He could probably influence the hearts and minds of other spiritual creatures, like us. If He can do that, He can therefore influence our actions, which have physical affects on the world.

2) That's great that God is beyond understanding but his effects on us can not lie outside of our physical existence. Even if you are inspired by a thought, your brain cells have to fire differently. And that should be messurable, right?

Yes!

Are you at all familiar with neurotheology?

3) God exists someplace else and pops in when he needed to and then goes away. Well fine, but if God is coming into our existence and changing anything we can still messure it.

How can we measure the supernatural?

How can this be explained? I'll reply to any takers.

We don't know each other, so let me take a moment to say that I don't believe in the supernatural, and I'm arguing hypotheticals here.

That said, the concept of "supernatural" renders such a being unassailable from my perspective. If the laws of nature are not binding to such an entity, then all your arguments are moot. We cannot logically predict any affect of supernatural influence, no matter how reasonable it may seem.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by camanintx

The Observer Effect shows that nothing can interact with the universe without affecting it.

Wrong. The observer effect is limited to natural phenomena.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

Let us say, that God cures a cancer suffer. The way in which she is cured is completely messuable and observable. For any means that God would have choicen (removing the cancer, making it disappear, changing the DNA of the cells, changing the immune system, ext.) is totally within the means of science to meassure. To effect the physical world, there must be a physical mark left.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. The question then becomes, if God did this, would we be able to tell that it was God at all? Would the divine cure look any different from the mundane? I don't see any reason why it would, do you?

Why is a God necessary, the only reason it is in the story is because you choose it be.

I don't believe the question of necessity has any bearing on the question of existence.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Cacafire

Halcyon, in hambone's defense, a video game character does not have a will independent of the programmer. But in the sense that a video game character could have an independent will, discovering the programmer's presence would be a simple thing. He or she would simply need to trace the data of the dog back to the input streams that are connected to the hardware, and from there could discover all the laws of our universe.

Your mistake was to assume that the dog would materialize out of thin air, such as you see in the movies. But the movies are not the proper way to argue from. Data exists in hard form, semi-hard form, and active form. When the data of the character is in active form(e.g. "in the processor"), he would not see the dog materialize out of thin air, but access the dog's data through the input stream that leads to the RAM. From here, it is simple electrophysics to interact with the real world.

Please think before you open your mouth.

I can't tell if you're kidding or not, I think you might be, but working on the assumption that you're not. A simulated being in a virtual world would have no concept that they are a simulation, they would just be a person. So, they wouldn't have the ability to access the hardware functions of the machine generating their existence any more than you have the ability to access hyperspactial membranes.

Have you ever played the PC games Morrowind or Oblivion? Tools come with that so that you can exit the game, rendering the game world outside of the passage of time, alter the game to add say, a statue, and then restart the game. From the in-game character's perspective the statue wasn't there one second and was the next -they couldn't possibly know how the stature appeared because they're in the game and subject to its laws.

Originally Posted by Hammbone

Here is the problem with the Matrix arguement. No matter what, you still have something coming from nowhere. And that is still measurable. There is no way of getting something for free like that, but if a Dog did materialize, then that is certainly within the range of science. I'll agree that the cause may be out of reach, but the effect is not. It is the effect that made us believe it in the first place. Why can't we meassure the effect? Couldn't we meassure the healing power of prayer?

No, because the power that generated the dog exists beyond the science that operates within the virtual world. Just as if God existed beyond our universe, and said God was omnipotent, He would be able to alter things without an observable effect via our science.

Originally Posted by Hammbone

Also the programmer has the same problem of the infinite regress. You can keep stacking layers of complexity on everything, but it does not make it probable or possible. What