Anti-Existence Proof

[Hammbone]

That is fine that you think so. But I would rather you gave a justified reason other than just brushing it off. I would love for you to prove it wrong. Please do so.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Again, utter nonsense.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Nothing within the universe. But since God presumably would have the controls of the universe at His fingertips, He could alter whatever he liked without influencing the surrounding matter.

But whatever God altered, it would still be affecting the universe, and that affect could be measured and studied.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by camanintx

But whatever God altered, it would still be affecting the universe, and that affect could be measured and studied.

Well, yes, but since God in this scenario exists outside of spacetime, the trail would start and end with the phenomena - the entire scientific conclusion would be "something happened".

[Hammbone]

Yes I agree that the infinite regress of the first motion is mysterious. But that is exactly my point. It regresses to the first move, or a move is created from nowhere.

If a move is created from nowhere than we can measure it.
If it follows back the very first move, we still do have the problem of what started that. Some would say God. Then how did God come to be? Well if you say that it created itself or was always there, why couldn't the first move have created itself or always been there? God is not necessary for that process at all.

It's from the Observer effect. Either things were happening as they were with or without a God, or as bible tends to have it, God intervenes and leaves a trail. That trail I call touch because of they way the word is used for bibical reference. But the touch means anyform of physical manifestion that is required for the action to happen.

If God is intervening there has to be some kind of change. That is just part of the God hypothesis, and I find it to be a straightforward assumption.

If you want explain anyway a change could happen without physical interaction.

Originally Posted by Mestemia

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
?

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

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

Assuming God does exist, I guess the entity could cheat the rules that it created. So let us go with the assumption that this is the case. We often hear, 'God is a spirit' or God is beyond understanding or God doesn't exist in this plane.

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?

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?

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?

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.

There is no way to get around it. If anything happens whatsoever, by "God's Hand" than that effect should be able to be traced back in some way to God. But simple logic and the conservation of energy every movement has a prior mover. Even if God somehow created it's own Energy, THEN than new energy should be messurable as well.

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

Exaclty, LDS scripture covers this very well.
D&C 131:

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

God is made of matter, there is no such thing as immaterial matter.

If he was not matter he could not exist.

I have stated in a separate thread about how all things are done to denote there is a God.

And i will add another argument there in a few moments

All things are done to Denote there is a God.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

IEither things were happening as they were with or without a God, or as bible tends to have it, God intervenes and leaves a trail. That trail I call touch because of they way the word is used for bibical reference. But the touch means anyform of physical manifestion that is required for the action to happen.

If God is intervening there has to be some kind of change. That is just part of the God hypothesis, and I find it to be a straightforward assumption.

But the trail would end in a blank, so you 'd have no way of proving that the phenomena was caused spontaneously or via a cause external to the universe. Thus you would also have no way of disproving a cause either.

[Hammbone]

How does that make any sense? If it happens in the natural world, then you can clearly see the effects of it. The change itself is confirmation.

Btw, what exactly is an unnatural phenomena? And if you have any proof of any of it, then it settles the whole debate.

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Wrong. The observer effect is limited to natural phenomena.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Hammbone

How does that make any sense? If it happens in the natural world, then you can clearly see the effects of it. The change itself is confirmation.

Btw, what exactly is an unnatural phenomena? And if you have any proof of any of it, then it settles the whole debate.

as far as nature goes there are flaws that create adverse effects on the enviroment or the object which contains the flaw.

but my assertion is there is no such thing as an "unnatural phenomena" all things can be explained rationaly, even God.

i agree that alot of God concepts are irrational and disregard scientific fact. But not for LDS. i have shown this in my thread
All things are done to Denote there is a God.

[Hammbone]

God, if it exists, may very well be supernatural and completely beyond any laws that we here understand. Such a claim is necessary for the postulation.

However, the effect of such a being can still be observed with the way it has been defined in every religion I have ever seen. Creation, the ascention of Chirst, ext. So God must use effect normal things, that means there are normal consquences. These are meassurable.

Now, I would argue that nothing is supernatural. If anything God is the top of all natural things, and we are just simplistic. But I understand the term in which you use it.

Originally Posted by Storm

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?


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


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


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.


Yes!

Are you at all familiar with neurotheology?


How can we measure the supernatural?


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.

[Hammbone]

Any method of removing or changing the cancer would definately be measurable. A sudden change in the Genetic code would be a highly complex and physical process.

I know it doesn't disprove the existence, you can never disprove anything. But it does put God in the impotience category. Along with the Easter Bunny.

Originally Posted by Storm

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?


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

</