Mathematical Proof of God?

[Sheldon]

Obviously, I owe my existence to something outside of myself.

Indeed, just send your mother a card, and try to spend less time on the internet.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
All irrelevant.
You said "the pretending of the Church is not at tax payers expense".
The taxpayer loses vast sums due to the church not paying any tax on its vast wealth.
You were wrong.

Nonsense.

Churches aren't for-profit organizations,

 

[Sheldon]

Now, if you will pay for Christianity taught in schools, I will pay for evolution to be taught in schools. But we both know that ain't happening.

Both are taught in schools in the UK? Though of course the superstitious one (Christianity) is a subjective religious belief, and the other a scientific fact.

 

[Sheldon]

Dogs may have evolved from the wolf, but they are still clearly the same kind of animal.

Oh dear, dogs are all the same species, they differ through human selective breeding.

I often forget how ignorant creationism is, it's pretty scary, even with the Atlantic between us.

 

[Sheldon]

When you discover a fossil, you don't know if that fossil had any children,

Oh brother... When creationists try to parrot their paranoid's club worst propaganda, it is both hilarious and tragic.

and you certain don't know if it had different kinds of children.

 

[Sheldon]

I will continue dialogue with you once you learn how to respond to a single post at one time.

Until then, see you in traffic.

This is a debate forum, sulk if it makes you happy, but you don't get to dictate to others how or what they post.

FYI, I could care less if you have run out of vapid rhetoric to offer, in the pretence of response.

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree that the origins of the universe, life, species, and consciousness all owe their origins to natural law and phenomenon.

I'm struggling to care, especially since we know that the universe, life, species and consciousness all exist as objective facts, as do natural laws and phenomena.

 

[Sheldon]

I give praise and glory to God...while you give praise and glory to science.

COUGH! "BS" COUGH!

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

No anger or frustration, only science

No anger or frustration on my part either....just a little humor, sprinkled with a LOT of God.

You may be correct that actual infinities do not exist, but potential infinities are real possibilities according to Aristotle and current math.

Ya know, for what its worth...you have my respect for admitting this.

Mad props to you. I would give this post a like, but I can't give it because I only like the quote, not the post.

This world can be a cruel place.

Heheehe.

Again what is your qualification in science, other than a religious agenda, to draw the conclusions you make?

You have not acknowledged the erroneous description of Quantum Mechanics and time,

I stand by what I said.

I understand that you QM fans view Quantum Mechanics as God...you guys give it supernatural powers and have it defying logical reasoning...and even rely on "QM of the Gaps".

When science becomes to hard or you can't explain it in a classical scientific sense...all of a sudden "Heyyy, Quantum Mechanics is here to save the day", as if QM is like Superman or something.

Hahaha.

It is a crying shame, but that is ok, though.

Judgement is coming, and all of these lies being passed off as facts, along with those people who are gullible enough to believe it...will all..

 

[Kharisym]

I understand that you QM fans view Quantum Mechanics as God...you guys give it supernatural powers and have it defying logical reasoning...and even rely on "QM of the Gaps".

Why do you dislike quantum mechanics so much? QM is real and we keep proving its predictions. Granted, we don't have any evidence that QM isn't a product of our universe, but we have nothing to the contrary either. In my opinion, QM is as valid for talking about what's outside our universe as anything else.

In a matter of fact, Vilenkin and Guth of BGV fame both explicitly state that a quantum-based multiverse are very likely: Do Multiple Universes Surely Exist? | Closer to Truth

So the physicists who came up with the theorem that you (and WL Craig) rely upon to state the universe must have a beginning are both quite comfortable (Guth says 70% confident) that there is a quantum based multiverse.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

But that takes all the fun out of it. Science is driven forward by blindly reaching into the universe and hoping you grab a good theory. Its driven by human creativity in an attempt to explain the unexplained.

That is all fine and dandy, as the universe is discoverable.

The problem is, when science is substituted for God. That is when the lake gets thick and foggy and the waters get murky.

To that end, scientists find it *fun* to think about crazy possibilities. A scientist may publish a hairbrained idea not because they believe it, but because it might spur others to think of something more in line with reality.

Again, that is fine..finding out how cool God's creation is.

In other words, sometimes science is dropping a mentos (Your crazy idea) into a bottle of coke (The scientific community) to see what pops out (Genius!).

Also remember that *nothing* in science is beyond questioning. The strength of a theory is based on its predictive power, so if another theory has better predictive power then it will supplant the prior one. To this end, yeah the BGV puts limitations on universe origins, but that doesn't mean its all holy, it can be replaced by better theories with more predictive power.

Well, inform me when a better theory becomes available.

This strikes me as a god of the gaps argument in the form, "We don't know how consciousness arises in the brain, therefore God is the cause of consciousness."

That is nonsense...considering the fact that an actual argument was developed to demonstrate that mind/body dualism is true, and the argument is not based on what we don't know, but rather, what we do know.

So instead of focusing on the actual argument and offering refutation, you'd rather just throw out one of the most famous accusation of all times from the atheist..that is..

"God of the Gaps".

No one is saying "We do not know where consciousness came from, therefore, God did it".

No.

What we are saying is, "Based on the nature of the mind, the best explanation for the existence of the mind is a supermind".

Obviously, it is more to it than just that, but that puts a wayyy better/accurate spin on it than your erroneous "God of the Gaps" accusation.

Plus, I already provided a few highlights of the argument from consciousness on this very thread, and got very little in return in terms of refutation coming from you guys.

Matter of fact, since you have a knack for research...do your research on...

1. Argument from Consciousness.

2. Argument from Intentionality.

And you will see it goes far beyond than just plugging in God to fill in our gaps of knowledge. Some actual thought has been put into this stuff.

But this is a very dangerous place to put your faith--there have been many gaps in our knowledge where people found God, only to have a naturalistic explanation arise that answers that gap effectively.

I will ask you again...you do understand the difference between a primary cause, and a secondary cause, correct?

We don't know what comprises consciousness within the brain, but we do have pretty good evidence its a product of the brain.

Sorry, Khari...but you are WRONG.

I already addressed this briefly on prior posts, and again, it got very little traction and until it does, I stand by what I said.

Brain trauma has been linked to changes in personality, memory, and awareness. Phineas Gage, acquired sociopathy, changes in impulse control, changes in interest ways of talking, basic preferences are all examples. I have a whole book on Phinead Gage called "An Odd Kind of Fame."

Well first of all, this is the cart before the horse fallacy.

We are talking about the origins of consciousness, not what happens once consciousness is already achieved...and that is the meat/potatoes of the issue.

When you are inside an automobile (brain), and your automobile isn't running properly because of some mechanical defect (brain trauma), sure, your mobility is effected.

But when you get out of the vehicle, "you" can get around just fine.

This is mind/body dualism, your mind and your brain aren't the same thing. They correlate, but they aren't the same thing...and it can be proven that mental states aren't physical...so you can't rely on any naturalistic means to explain the origin of non-physical states.

During the height of the lobotomy craze in the US, behavioral and personality changes were documented as a product of these procedures. People were getting minor lobotomies (They weren't called that at the time) specifically to achieve these personality, impulse, and behavior changes.

Same argument from above. None of that explains origins. Thats what we are talking about, origins.

Another line of evidence is de-cerebrated animals. Removing the neocortex in mammal structures have shown an elimination of what we consider cognitive indicators.

And?

And not evidence, but association that might prove valuable later, we find that across species branches (Avians and mamals specifically) cognitive indicators are associated with isolative structures (neocortical columns in mammals) with long axonal interconnectedness between these structures.

So there is a lot of strong evidence that the brain has a lot to do with consciousness.

Has to do = correlation.

And no one is denying that.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Yep, that's why I think there's a failure to communicate. At minimum I'm not understanding you, and hence my suggestion to think about other ways to explain the concept. Its taken me several tries to learn ways of communicating some of my weirder ideas.

Well again, I think the problem is the failure to understand the argument, in general.

I'm only stating what the argument entails, and if you guys don't understand what I'm saying, then you don't understand the argument.

And that is my point; the argument has been misunderstood at a fundamental level, wayyyy before I joined this wonderful forum.

So, all of this smugness that has been going on here from some of you folks have been coming from a place of ignorance.

From my perspective, there is no infinite past if there is no time.

I agree.

If the extraverse is timeless, then all events in that extraverse happens at the same 'time' such that there is only a single 'moment' for things to happen. If we think of this in terms of space instead of time, given a system with no spatial dimensions (a 0-dimensional universe) all items within that universe would be points, and would all occupy the same space. You could technically fit an infinite number of non-dimensional points within that 0-dimensional universe, and they would technically all occupy the same 'point' of null or 0,..,0 depending on how you look at it.

I had already stated that the causal agent is not timeless now, but timeless before creation. The agent now exists within time.

I made that point very clear.

 

[Kharisym]

The problem is, when science is substituted for God. That is when the lake gets thick and foggy and the waters get murky.

I created a thread where I outlined why I believe non-godly causes are the default position. Its here: How I rationalize my atheism

So based on that argumentation, I would disagree that science is substituting God, but rather the inverse.

( And while I'm plugging my own threads, want to join us for the reading rainbow? Anyone interested in a bible reading rainbow? I hope it'll be fun! )

Well, inform me when a better theory becomes available.

Eventually I'll get around to reading that paper I tossed about that claims to have a better calculation for H_avg, and if it has more predictive power then that would modify the current BGV theorem. When I read it I'll let you know my opinions. That said, the paper *is* prepublication, so its impact factor and citations rates are utterly unknown right now. (Impact factor and citation rates are some of the metrics scientists use to judge how seriously to take an article.)

I will ask you again...you do understand the difference between a primary cause, and a secondary cause, correct?

I assume you're referring to the primary mover arguments, first cause, etc. Basically what this whole thread is about. I didn't answer it previously because my post was already getting too long. lol. I'm not real good at short explanations.

I already addressed this briefly on prior posts, and again, it got very little traction and until it does, I stand by what I said.

Mind stuff is my wheel house. <3 Mind giving me refresher on what you said?

That is nonsense...considering the fact that an actual argument was developed to demonstrate that mind/body dualism is true, and the argument is not based on what we don't know, but rather, what we do know.

So instead of focusing on the actual argument and offering refutation, you'd rather just throw out one of the most famous accusation of all times from the atheist..that is..

"God of the Gaps".

No one is saying "We do not know where consciousness came from, therefore, God did it".

No.

What we are saying is, "Based on the nature of the mind, the best explanation for the existence of the mind is a supermind".

Obviously, it is more to it than just that, but that puts a wayyy better/accurate spin on it than your erroneous "God of the Gaps" accusation.

Plus, I already provided a few highlights of the argument from consciousness on this very thread, and got very little in return in terms of refutation coming from you guys.

Matter of fact, since you have a knack for research...do your research on...

1. Argument from Consciousness.

2. Argument from Intentionality.

And you will see it goes far beyond than just plugging in God to fill in our gaps of knowledge. Some actual thought has been put into this stuff.

Which duality proof are you talking about? I've read several. I'll look up the two arguments your referring. I think we've already covered intentionality as a universal origin requirement, but I'll check and make sure with a bit of google walking.

Has to do = correlation.

Yep, that's what I meant by 'but association that might prove valuable later' Its not an indication of causation but it can point us in a direction of study.

 

[Kharisym]

I had already stated that the causal agent is not timeless now, but timeless before creation. The agent now exists within time.

I made that point very clear.

Ah well. My intent was just to try and give advice, not hammer you with opinions so I'm sorry if I came off as snobbish. I wish you luck in your discussions and hope you continue to enjoy them. Thus far I've had a good deal of fun talking with you, even if we sometimes get caught in the net of our own assumptions.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Why do you dislike quantum mechanics so much?

I like QM just as much as you guys like God.

QM is real and we keep proving its predictions. Granted, we don't have any evidence that QM isn't a product of our universe, but we have nothing to the contrary either. In my opinion, QM is as valid for talking about what's outside our universe as anything else.

In a matter of fact, Vilenkin and Guth of BGV fame both explicitly state that a quantum-based multiverse are very likely: Do Multiple Universes Surely Exist? | Closer to Truth

Well, they can say what they want.

It isn't enough to just toss around hypothesis...they have to show that a theory is true, and they need to have empirical data to corroborate whatever it is they are spewing.

Until they have evidence to support their stuff, it is all just cosmo-babble...just like the theory of evolution is all bio-babble.

So the physicists who came up with the theorem that you (and WL Craig) rely upon to state the universe must have a beginning are both quite comfortable (Guth says 70% confident) that there is a quantum based multiverse.

Yeah, but the problem with that is...

1. According to the theorem, even if there is a multiverse, the multiverse would have to have a beginning.

2. The multiverse doesn't explain fine tuning...and Roger Penrose stated that even if there is a multiverse, the multiverse itself would have to be fine-tuned.

3. It is inexplicable as our universe began when it began, even if it is a product of a multiverse.

4. The multiverse doesn't negate the problem of infinite regress.

So, what you have here are at least 4 independent problems with the multiverse, and by independent I mean; if you negate one, the others still stands.

Which is an uphill battle, because I don't think you can successfully negate EITHER one.

That's just the way I feel.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Ah well. My intent was just to try and give advice

And I've also given you guys advice; learn the argument before you critique the argument.

, not hammer you with opinions so I'm sorry if I came off as snobbish.

Apology accepted.

But just know that you get what you give.

I wish you luck in your discussions and hope you continue to enjoy them.

When you are a passenger on plane of which God is the pilot, you don't need to be wished good luck for a safe landing.

Thanks anyway tho.

Thus far I've had a good deal of fun talking with you

The feeling is mutual.

, even if we sometimes get caught in the net of our own assumptions.

Go...and be fishers of men.

 

[rational experiences]

Every human uses natural human consciousness first. Human survival on their planet.

Who named it God as a human meaning position determined as known highest in science. Rock.

Gases cooled in vacuum prove as a gas the non radiating space effect of no light is caused after. Last status. Non radiating. Like rock was.

So it's the highest water biological life's protection. Known.

Burning was only above in space or within rocks body.

Basic human only observed science of natural observations...a humans ego need to tell human dominion stories.

Behaviour of just humans.

Who in nature's terms don't exist until they do and only said by humans observation of their self.

To not exist as a human is death. As human is then spoken of as subject or science topic in science.

You then have obsessed humans with greedy unnatural human behaviours. A humans subjective past slavery of equal mutual family. Spiritual meek loving kind who didn't murder nor believe in the want of it.

Versus brain defected men from returned sun mass cold asteroid burning attack of earths life.

The theist created.

Subject rock stone sun burning entry from cosmos.

Observed in the living presence the human.

Therefore topics are all present. A cold sun in a pressured space. Cooling. Bursting projectiles frozen cooled after conversion of any body hit.

Collisions. Collisions stopped frozen by space.

Man's scientific thesis memories. Just as oxygenated biological consciousness exact to be conscious.

The want of owning everything a humans bad behaviour owning cruel torment torture slavery threats murder tactics. Control.

Isn't human sanity.

So you take a look at bad behaviours. Knowing we promised our future life wouldn't support them. We lied we have.

When men built machines replacing mutual life bio continuance with machines at his side. He knew. Consciously he made that mind retort a machine instead of natural mutual life continuance.

Doesn't make a human a machine. Yet it's where that first comment of a designer human theist exists in conscious memory.

You then see him comparing which is first place to theory theme. Our earth to the cosmos.

That advice says naturally earth doesn't stand a chance. Even before you write a fake language on a piece of paper to claim look...universal representation.

Earth is just a speck in cosmology power terms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm interested in this--physics isn't my focus but I do enjoy reading about it. Do you have any sources explaining the experience of time at the quantum level?

Guth and Velinken also made reference to the high probably of a quantum multiverse in some video interviews they did.

No, sorry.
I'm honest though, about the fact that I don't comprehend it either, lol

To really understand such things, I'ld imagine one must be half a genius with a phd or 2 in physics.
And even then... as the infamous statement goes (forget which scientist it was that said this): "If you think you understand quantum physics - you don't understand quantum physics".

Many scientists very much dislike quantum physics. They think it's ugly, not elegant, spooky, unsettling,...
But in science one is off course lead by evidence and not emotion. So the evidence is the evidence - regardless of how "unsettling" or "spooky" it is.

The knowledge I do have on the subject, is just the result of reading some popular science books (like Hawking's A brief History of Time) and watching stage events / lectures on youtube.

I'm not at all up to speed with the technicalities and math. And usually, in such books and stage events they also are talking to lay-people and tend to leave the technicalities behind and try and communicate these ideas through analogies and such to make it as clear as possible.

It certainly is very interesting indeed.

 

[rational experiences]

I'd say to a man. As a human all of you came from out of my cell. A woman's cell. An ovary.

And you have nothing else to say that's real.

As you think to invent and invention doesn't exist until you build design it. Just as humans and men. No matter the subject of topic. You try to relate your thought to new resourcing by machines.

I learnt you do nothing but lie about being Mr I know it all.
Pretty sad really.

If you think your first and only human adult man father separate terms was a God. You're sadly mistaken.

But it might be why you believed. As he didn't come out of a human mother's cell woman ovary.

You are just human consciousness using memory of humans to depict choices.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand that you QM fans view Quantum Mechanics as God...you guys give it supernatural powers and have it defying logical reasoning...and even rely on "QM of the Gaps".

Hilarious projection.

When science becomes to hard or you can't explain it in a classical scientific sense...all of a sudden "Heyyy, Quantum Mechanics is here to save the day", as if QM is like Superman or something.

The irony is so insane here.

Judgement is coming, and all of these lies being passed off as facts, along with those people who are gullible enough to believe it...will all..

And there are the threats...............

"believe me, or else..."

Uhu