Mathematical Proof of God?

[KWED]

Without imagination, nothing would exist for us at all, for it is only in our imagination, that we conceive a model of the world which allows us to navigate it and to try to understand it.

“The fact that religions throughout the ages have spoken in images, parables and paradoxes, simply means that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality.”
- Niels Bohr

Are you and Niels are claiming that god is as real as the chair I am sitting on, simply because we can imagine him?

 

[ChristineM]

Without imagination, nothing would exist for us at all,

The universe along with earth existed in reality long before humans evolved to imagine it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Causality is time dependend. To ask for the "cause of time" is nonsensical.
It's like asking about "north of the north pole". It makes no sense.
It requires a "before time" to exist.

Why? Just because you say so? Or do you have some evidence in support of that claim ?

Causes happen before effects.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sounds more like an excuse I challenge you to quote a single relevant claim that I didn’t addresses

Apparently, you do not the recall the post to you last month in which I listed about eight questions that you had ignored in the previous post, in which I told you that I wasn't waiting for your replies any longer and just answered them all myself. I think that after that, you gave your answer to one of them. I also mentioned to you that in the future, I would be examining posts before sending them to you with no question marks in them at all, because you don't answer them.

Or, you could just go to the post you just answered and find what was in it that you disregarded in your reply. There are about six paragraphs of content, the last five of which got only your comment above as a reply. No mention of the previous discussion, no mention of whether you even looked at the link and argument already presented, and of course, still no interest in what the other guy wants or discussion of the topic. I told you that I lost interest in such discussions.

Do you recall my mentioning the emails that my wife and her decades long girlfriend Lindy in the States (we're in Mexico) send to one another daily? She likes to read the two to me each evening before sending hers because she likes a second opinion on her writing. I explained the format. When my wife is responding, she's got Lindy's email in front of her to make sure to address everything written. It's kind of like a verbal touch to indicate that what was written was read and understood, and that whatever it was matters to them both. So, Lindy will mention a luncheon with a former mutual girlfriend, and my wife will comment on remembering her and how good the lunch sounded. Then Lindy makes a reference to some car problems involving an electric car's battery, and again, a verbal touch back: "That's got to be frustrating. I hope that gets taken care of" and so on. You didn't care to discuss that then, so I guess I wrote it for nothing.

I really don't know how to be clearer about why I'm done, and also, my regret. Imagine how much more enjoyable it would have been for BOTH of us had every issue been acknowledged and addressed rather than almost none as has happened here again. I don't know how to reach you, and I've told you that as well with zero feedback.

But hey! You've got somebody else to have the discussion with now, which should be adequate for your needs.

So if you ever discuss the KCA with someone else at least make an effort , open your mind, and accept the simple and uncontroversial stuff….. otherwise you will end up with long circular and endless conversations where eventually the other guy will lose interest (which apparently causes a big discomfort in you)

You think that my complaint was that the other guy lost interest in me. No, it wasn't.

For those that are puzzled by the concept of infinity, here is a way to think of it that may help. Imagine an RF thread on the existence of God. It goes on for ever, or at least seems to. It never gets anywhere.

That's funny, but it's also correct, and need not be. As you can see, presently, I'm involved in a discussion about why that happens and what is necessary to prevent it and instead, to make forward progress. It ought to be possible to come to some kind of resolution even if not agreement in every case, but only if there is dialectic. Points made need to be agreed with or if not, one's counterargument needs to be presented. All non-rhetorical questions asked need to be answered. How else is progress possible? The discussion I was just referring to above was a classic example. My experience was that another poster would make a comment, which I would rebut, which would be ignored, eventually leading back to the same place in the discussion where the same claim is made again.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The universe along with earth existed in reality long before humans evolved to imagine it.

Whether or not this is true - and logically it does seem axiomatic* - the consensus among quantum physicists is that there is no way of separating the observer from the system being observed. In that context, your confident assertion is essentially meaningless; material phenomena, as we observe them, have qualities only in relation to other phenomena with which they are observed to interact.

"Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something. A correlation between two objects is a property of the two objects - like all properties, it exists only in relation to a further, third object [the observer]".
- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland

Take away the observer, and you break the chain of correlation by which the qualities of the objects are manifested. This isn't what you would call 'woo', nor is it a philosophical abstraction based purely on speculation. This is an extrapolation from a paradox at the heart of particle physics, the 'measurement problem'in QM which implies that the act of observation affects the behavior of the particle being observed.

* as regards logical axioms, such a thing is clearly a mind dependent concept. No human mind, no logical axiom.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you and Niels are claiming that god is as real as the chair I am sitting on, simply because we can imagine him?

I cannot know for sure how real the chair is, which you claim to be sitting on. But I am as sure of God's existence as I am of yours, and for similar reasons; because to me atheism is as intuitively absurd, and as psychologically intolerable, as is solipsism.

 

[ChristineM]

Whether or not this is true - and logically it does seem axiomatic* - the consensus among quantum physicists is that there is no way of separating the observer from the system being observed. In that context, your confident assertion is essentially meaningless; material phenomena, as we observe them, have qualities only in relation to other phenomena with which they are observed to interact.

"Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something. A correlation between two objects is a property of the two objects - like all properties, it exists only in relation to a further, third object [the observer]".
- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland

Take away the observer, and you break the chain of correlation by which the qualities of the objects are manifested. This isn't what you would call 'woo', nor is it a philosophical abstraction based purely on speculation. This is an extrapolation from a paradox at the heart of particle physics, the 'measurement problem'in QM which implies that the act of observation affects the behavior of the particle being observed.

* as regards logical axioms, such a thing is clearly a mind dependent concept. No human mind, no logical axiom.

Eh???

The earth is was formed over 4.5 billion years ago. This is measured by radiometric dating techniques using various different samples.

Humans first walked earth approximately 300,000 years ago this is measured by fossils and archeological evidence.

We are not talking quantum, which is admittedly a strange place to be and without it nothing would exist. We are talking physical existence, rocks, evidence etc. Somewhat larger than the particles they are made of.

Try telling Carlo Rovelli the rock he just tripped over is a figment of his imagination

 

[RestlessSoul]

Eh???

The earth is was formed over 4.5 billion years ago. This is measured by radiometric dating techniques using various different samples.

Humans first walked earth approximately 300,000 years ago this is measured by fossils and archeological evidence.

We are not talking quantum, which is admittedly a strange place to be and without it nothing would exist. We are talking physical existence, rocks, evidence etc. Somewhat larger than the particles they are made of.

Try telling Carlo Rovelli the rock he just tripped over is a figment of his imagination

Rovelli would say that the rock should not be thought of as an object, so much as an evolving process in a state of temporary equilibrium .

Okay, it is self evident that in the macroscopic world, soft human tissue coming into traumatic contact with aggregated minerals formed over millennia, is going to result in some discomfort being conveyed in the form of sense data, to the brain of the human who perceives himself as having tripped over the rock. However, as an illustration of the fundamental reality of the event thus described, this narrative is inadequate, if not illusory. The rock and the foot are part of a fundamental whole - and there are no distinct entities or realities within fundamental wholes. The rock and the foot are one, and could not exist without each other.

 

[leroy]

Causes happen before effects.

No but causes can happen simultaneously with their effects. Any disagreement?

this means that the cause of the universe and the universe beggining to excist are simultaneous events that took place at T=0

 

[ChristineM]

Rovelli would say that the rock should not be thought of as an object, so much as an evolving process in a state of temporary equilibrium .

Okay, it is self evident that in the macroscopic world, soft human tissue coming into traumatic contact with aggregated minerals formed over millennia, is going to result in some discomfort being conveyed in the form of sense data, to the brain of the human who perceives himself as having tripped over the rock. However, as an illustration of the fundamental reality of the event thus described, this narrative is inadequate, if not illusory. The rock and the foot are part of a fundamental whole - and there are no distinct entities or realities within fundamental wholes. The rock and the foot are one, and could not exist without each other.

Rovelli is welcome to think whatever he likes, the bar steward who bumped my car in the car park last week was real enough to leave a dent.

The rock, in all probability existed for millions of years before the foot developed. It could of course be that the foot contains molecules, atoms or quantum particles shed from the rock in history but that's another story.

 

[setarcos]

Wrong, the universe is comprised of energy/mass.


The laws of thermodynamics coalesced soon after the universe began its expansion

I wish you wouldn't start the discussion with the Phrase "Wrong." It seems so dismissive. You’d think that by now humans would have learned just how precarious their “irrefutable” assumptions can be.

Whatever coalesced in whatever time frame after the expansion remains theory…again, It is my understanding, based upon our observation not on proof. Contrary to what most people seem to believe, there is no standard “proofs” of the Laws of thermodynamics. We’ve derived what we call Laws through observational analysis of many experiments. The Laws are a statistical derivation of those observations.

I did not make a god omnipotent. I am arguing against omnipotence

What I meant was that your argument uses a version of reduction ad absurdum. You’ve taken a premise – If there was an omnipotent God – then the conclusions would be absurd – there would be no energy/mass left if that God used it all. It is my understanding that that is what your using to prove an omnipotent being impossible.

You have evidence of this?

Evidence of the existence of the Christian God? No. Evidence of how that God has been defined? Yes. Its given definition, e.g. …as derived by early Christians and used by latter Christians.

And why should i, i have not written the bible or any other god book. However to exist in a universe one mist be subject to that universe, to say otherwise is simply special pleading without evidence for support

I’m merely saying you’ve proposed a reason as to why an omnipotent God is impossible without first defining that Gods nature. It should be valid if I can show that if you apply a certain definition of God then your argument has flaws in it. That is not a commentary on whether or not a particular God exists but rather a commentary on your arguments logical coherence. You’re presuming the existence of something to disprove – The concept of an omnipotent being. I’m doing the same with the concept of your disproof of that concept.


I cannot have made the fallacy of special pleading simply because you have not demonstrated why the immaterial is subject to the material. You have not even demonstrated what you mean be subjected to the universe…in what way, and a proof of the necessity of that subjection.

If you could clarify perhaps I may or may not be able to come up with a counter example.

Are you saying omnipotence is

finite?

No, I’m saying that is the fallacy you’re making. You seem to be taking the perspective and limitations of a finite being and equating them to that of an infinite being without cause while also stating that an infinite being cannot exist at the same time a finite being exists.

What i am doing is providing the logical conclusion of Einsteins mass/energy equation in relation to a bronze age story based on ignorance of physics.

I think your giving our ancestors less credit than they are due. I’m ignorant in a lot of physics for the simple fact that I’m not in the field as a career. However I try to keep abreast of the field by reading the works of those who are. I may be wrong here but I think you may have interpreted Einstein’s equation a little too broadly. First off science to my knowledge has not determined every single way in which the capacity to do work can be accomplished. It may have shown every single way it has discovered that work can be accomplished though. And yet we have the question of what dark energy is, dark matter etc. Second Einstein’s equation is a commentary on the relationship between matter and energy. Not a commentary on how much of either exists or can exist simultaneously. Third as we understand nature to this point there are singularities/infinities that exist at the same time as finite entities each with their respective energetic potentials. Fourth when you define God as a being comprising infinite energy as defined in physics you’re making a fundamental mistake in how Gods omnipotence is defined since God is immaterial.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Rovelli is welcome to think whatever he likes, the bar steward who bumped my car in the car park last week was real enough to leave a dent.

The rock, in all probability existed for millions of years before the foot developed. It could of course be that the foot contains molecules, atoms or quantum particles shed from the rock in history but that's another story.

Okay, well, sorry about your car. Hope the insurance covers it; even if the complex web of causality linking the car, the incident, the damage and the cost, may not be as straightforward as it seems.

 

[KWED]

Whether or not this is true - and logically it does seem axiomatic* - the consensus among quantum physicists is that there is no way of separating the observer from the system being observed. In that context, your confident assertion is essentially meaningless; material phenomena, as we observe them, have qualities only in relation to other phenomena with which they are observed to interact.

"Everything that manifests itself does so in relation to something. A correlation between two objects is a property of the two objects - like all properties, it exists only in relation to a further, third object [the observer]".
- Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland

Take away the observer, and you break the chain of correlation by which the qualities of the objects are manifested. This isn't what you would call 'woo', nor is it a philosophical abstraction based purely on speculation. This is an extrapolation from a paradox at the heart of particle physics, the 'measurement problem'in QM which implies that the act of observation affects the behavior of the particle being observed.

* as regards logical axioms, such a thing is clearly a mind dependent concept. No human mind, no logical axiom.

I don't think quantum physicists are claiming that the universe only exists because there are people to observe it.
The universe existed before it was being observed by anyone.
Also, QP isn't saying that a tree behaves differently or a rock erodes faster if there is someone observing it.

 

[KWED]

I cannot know for sure how real the chair is, which you claim to be sitting on.

What about the chair you are sitting on? Do you doubt its existence?

But I am as sure of God's existence as I am of yours,

So you have had repeated conversations, via a physical medium with god? How do you know it wasn't just another user pretending to be god?

because to me atheism is as intuitively absurd, and as psychologically intolerable, as is solipsism.

How d'you figure that?

 

[KWED]

Rovelli would say that the rock should not be thought of as an object, so much as an evolving process in a state of temporary equilibrium .

Okay, it is self evident that in the macroscopic world, soft human tissue coming into traumatic contact with aggregated minerals formed over millennia, is going to result in some discomfort being conveyed in the form of sense data, to the brain of the human who perceives himself as having tripped over the rock. However, as an illustration of the fundamental reality of the event thus described, this narrative is inadequate, if not illusory. The rock and the foot are part of a fundamental whole - and there are no distinct entities or realities within fundamental wholes. The rock and the foot are one, and could not exist without each other.

You forgot to say "maaan" at the end there.

 

[KWED]

No but causes can happen simultaneously with their effects. Any disagreement?

this means that the cause of the universe and the universe beggining to excist are simultaneous events that took place at T=0

So god came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang? Interesting...

 

[KWED]

Rovelli is welcome to think whatever he likes, the bar steward who bumped my car in the car park last week was real enough to leave a dent.

The rock, in all probability existed for millions of years before the foot developed. It could of course be that the foot contains molecules, atoms or quantum particles shed from the rock in history but that's another story.

Dude! I am your foot, you are the rock, and Restless is the pain. It's beautiful if you really think about it, maaan.

 

[KWED]

I wish you wouldn't start the discussion with the Phrase "Wrong."

Wrong. You mean you wish they wouldn't start the discussion with the word "Wrong."

 

[ChristineM]

I wish you wouldn't start the discussion with the Phrase "Wrong." It seems so dismissive. You’d think that by now humans would have learned just how precarious their “irrefutable” assumptions can be.

So refute it then. Not with religious woo because that cannot be done but with evidence.

Whatever coalesced in whatever time frame after the expansion remains theory…

I think you have no idea of what constitutes a scientific theory, if falls a long way from religious guess... Here, let me help.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.​

It is my understanding, based upon our observation not on proof

Science does not deal in proof but in observation, measurement, and evaluation.

What I meant was that your argument uses a version of reduction ad absurdum. You’ve taken a premise – If there was an omnipotent God – then the conclusions would be absurd – there would be no energy/mass left if that God used it all. It is my understanding that that is what your using to prove an omnipotent being impossible.

I did not write the Bible, the claim of omnipotent god was made a long time ago.

Yes, that is precisely what i am saying and is the logical conclusion of omnipotence.

Evidence of the existence of the Christian God? No. Evidence of how that God has been defined? Yes

Without evidence of existence you have nothing. As for definition, a rough estimate is that every single god believer has their own definition of their god.

then your argument has flaws in it.

The mass/energy equivalence formula has been tested repeatedly over many years and found to have no flaws in it

You’re presuming the existence of something to disprove –

I am not presuming anything, i am attempting to explain the logical conclusion of all energy being used for one purpose

I cannot have made the fallacy of special pleading simply because you have not demonstrated why the immaterial is subject to the material

Immaterial is itself special pleading.

No, I’m saying that is the fallacy you’re making.

And i am saying it's not

I may be wrong here but I think you may have interpreted Einstein’s equation a little too broadly

The equation is pretty specific. I think you are interpreting it to narrowly for which i can see only one reason. The result goes against your belief. And remember, god is belief, not a proven concept

 

[shunyadragon]

Same old same old, including a fair amount of copy and paste from your previous post <yawn> and no references but lots of opinion, and condescending ignorance. Seems typical.

I am not the one claiming to know what happened before the BB. When you provide references for that bold claim i will consider accommodating you for what it's worth, chances are you will probably ignore any reference i provide because it doesn't fit in your bubble.

Same old same old with no references to support your assertions. References were provided and you did not respond.

Science nor I 'know' nothing.