God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[HVACTech]

But I don't claim that we know things for certain. You don't have to know things for certain in order to still function based on the potentially flawed input that you do have.

this is true, when the very first drunken cave man fell off of a log.
he became aware of both mass and gravity. and he proved both to exist!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You cannot answer "no" to both questions simultaneously because that is still claiming knowledge.

Not at all. You ask if I have a belief. I truthfully answer no, because I do not have a belief either way. I am not claiming knowledge at all; I am denying having a belief that you have the nickel or that you don't have it. In other words, my saying that I don't believe you have it doesn't mean that I believe you don't.

It would be more appropriate to say "I do not know the answer to either question."

That would be appropriate only if your question had been, "Do I have a nickel in my pocket?" But that wasn't the question in my hypothetical.

But you cannot require evidence of that assertion while simultaneously believing the opposite assertion without requiring evidence.

What makes you think I believe there's no deity?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

And if He does exist, you better find out who He is because He might have some rules.

I smell Pascal's Wager.

What if one of His rules is that he will condemn those and only those who believe in Him? You might think this is absurd, but I suggest to you that it's no more absurd than assuming that He will condemn those who don't believe in Him.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

There is no evidence one way or another for an abstract deistic God because there are no attributes that we can check for consistency with themselves and with our observation. I already said I have no opinion one way or the other about such a thing. But as soon as you start saying that God is intelligent, that he cares about humans, that he is perfect,...etc then there are plenty of things that we can look at and compare for consistency. For example, if your pockets aren't sagging and you are still able to stand, then that is evidence that your 5000 pound nickel is not in your pocket.

So you acknowledge that intelligence exists and yet you stop short of claiming that there is an intelligent being who possesses that intelligence. Why?

In order for God to exist, He must be intelligent. In order for Him to create the universe, He must act as the standard for perfection in that universe. To deny this is to say that perfection and absolute knowledge exists with nothing to possess it. God is the be-all-end-all. If He is imperfect and does not possess all knowledge, then He is not God.

I made no claims as to the attributes of the nickel. It is a proof of concept. Whether the nickel exists or not does not depend on its specific attributes.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I smell Pascal's Wager.

What if one of His rules is that he will condemn those and only those who believe in Him? You might think this is absurd, but I suggest to you that it's no more absurd than assuming that He will condemn those who don't believe in Him.

I suppose it's possible. Perhaps you should try to find out. Actually, though, He wrote a book about it and I assure you it does not say that. Either way, though, it certainly doesn't make sense to simply assume that He would condemn those who believe in Him just to avoid finding out.

But to deny that He exists is fallacious because it presumes that you have knowledge of His non-existence.
Pascal's Wager or not, it's a valid question. If God exists, then who is He?

 

[Crashland]

So you acknowledge that intelligence exists and yet you stop short of claiming that there is an intelligent being who possesses that intelligence. Why?

In order for God to exist, He must be intelligent. In order for Him to create the universe, He must act as the standard for perfection in that universe. To deny this is to say that perfection and absolute knowledge exists with nothing to possess it. God is the be-all-end-all. If He is imperfect and does not possess all knowledge, then He is not God.

I made no claims as to the attributes of the nickel. It is a proof of concept. Whether the nickel exists or not does not depend on its specific attributes.

I don't see any reason to infer that patterns in nature are inherently intelligent. All we know is that the universe tends to behave in certain predictable ways. We also do not know that a deistic God necessarily created the universe. Maybe God IS the universe and both have always existed. We don't know that a deistic God is perfect either - perfect according to what? We don't know that a deistic God has unlimited power. There are a lot of attributes you are assigning to God that do not necessarily follow. You say you are not claiming attributes to the nickel but that is exactly what you are doing with god.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But to deny that He exists is fallacious because it presumes that you have knowledge of His non-existence.

Then it would be equally fallacious to claim He does, because that would assume one has knowledge of His existence.

I suppose it's possible. Perhaps you should try to find out.

Short of dying, how in the world could I do that? It reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's views on Christ's divinity:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.
Letter to Ezra Stiles, March 9. 1790 (five weeks before Franklin's death)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Not at all. You ask if I have a belief. I truthfully answer no, because I do not have a belief either way. I am not claiming knowledge at all; I am denying having a belief that you have the nickel or that you don't have it. In other words, my saying that I don't believe you have it doesn't mean that I believe you don't.

Right. All of that is semantics. The point is that both possibilities are just as likely.

That would be appropriate only if your question had been, "Do I have a nickel in my pocket?" But that wasn't the question in my hypothetical.

Again, semantics. The point is that you cannot answer either question without relying on evidence. If you have no evidence either way, then it is fallacious to assume that one answer is more likely true than the other.

What makes you think I believe there's no deity?

That was the point of the whole discussion. If you are finally acknowledging that atheism is irrational because the existence of a deity is just as likely as its non-existence, then welcome to the club!

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see any reason to infer that patterns in nature are inherently intelligent. All we know is that the universe tends to behave in certain predictable ways. We also do not know that a deistic God necessarily created the universe. Maybe God IS the universe and both have always existed. We don't know that a deistic God is perfect either - perfect according to what? We don't know that a deistic God has unlimited power. There are a lot of attributes you are assigning to God that do not necessarily follow. You say you are not claiming attributes to the nickel but that is exactly what you are doing with god.

I didn't say they were intelligent. I said they were intelligence. The existence of intelligence implies the existence of an intelligent mind.

If God exists, then He is, by definition, perfect because He is not just perfect by some arbitrary standard. He IS the standard.

In order for God to exist, He must be all-powerful and all-knowing because, if He does exist, then He is the whole basis of the existence of anything at all. That is simply the definition of God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then I can't help you.

But let's look at the opposite position for a second: The universe just randomly popped into existence and was not created by anything. Are you telling me that that requires less faith than the idea that God exists and has attributes?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If God exists, then He must have SOME attributes. Whatever you believe those attributes to be, fine. That does not invalidate the concept of His existence.

On the other hand, though, if you believe it is even possible for God to exist at all, then you must also accept that God is the standard for everything because, if He does exist, then He is the basis for existence. If He exists, then He cannot be imperfect because that would imply that there is something greater than Him. And if you believe that, then the thing more perfect than Him would be God. You cannot escape the concept of God by denying His attributes.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Knowing things is intelligence, and since knowing things relies on innate truths, it follows that these innate truths are intelligence. You are willing to go that far, but then you stop short of saying that this intelligence is the result of an intelligent being. Why is that?

Because that's an extra axiom that I don't see is necessary.

Btw, you're using "intelligence" in different senses. The innate truths are "intelligence" in the same sense that information about an enemy is "intelligence". It's not the same as saying that someone has "intelligence" because he knows things. The latter connotes consciousness, which mere information doesn't have.

So you're saying nothing is certain...?

Not at all, because if I said that I'd be making a contradictory statement. But determining just what is certain is the problem, isn't it?

All of that is semantics.

Not at all. There is a huge difference between asking whether something is the case and asking if I believe that something is the case. Put another way, if I say I don't believe A it doesn't follow that I believe not-A.

 

[Crashland]

I didn't say they were intelligent. I said they were intelligence. The existence of intelligence implies the existence of an intelligent mind.

I don't agree with your terminology. As you say, describing the properties of the universe as "intelligence" is not correct outside the context of there being minds that understand it. But the only reason we might call the properties of the universe "intelligence" is because we ourselves have the capacity to come to some degree of understanding of those properties. So in this case, those minds are us. What you have shown is that humans have intelligent minds. If there were no intelligent minds to understand the properties of the universe, then the properties of the universe would not be "intelligence" because the word would have no meaning.

If God exists, then He is, by definition, perfect because He is not just perfect by some arbitrary standard. He IS the standard.
In order for God to exist, He must be all-powerful and all-knowing because, if He does exist, then He is the whole basis of the existence of anything at all. That is simply the definition of God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then I can't help you.

It really doesn't make sense to me, so maybe you can't help me. If I am just going based on "the thing which caused the universe to exist", I fail to see how I get from there, to "all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect". We don't even know if the thing that caused the universe to exist is sentient. Even if it is sentient, how do you know it didn't just create a giant bomb and then blow it up without knowing or caring where all of the pieces land?

But let's look at the opposite position for a second: The universe just randomly popped into existence and was not created by anything. Are you telling me that that requires less faith than the idea that God exists and has attributes?

We do not know what happened before the big bang. I think it is reasonable to assume that there was some sort of cause for the universe starting the way we think it started, whether it came from some even older universe with different properties, or whatever. Maybe the thing that caused the universe has always existed (or, the universe itself has always existed). But I don't see how you get from there to speculating that the thing that started it was a sentient, all-powerful intelligent designer.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because that's an extra axiom that I don't see is necessary.

Btw, you're using "intelligence" in different senses. The innate truths are "intelligence" in the same sense that information about an enemy is "intelligence". It's not the same as saying that someone has "intelligence" because he knows things. The latter connotes consciousness, which mere information doesn't have.

How does intelligence not suggest an intelligent source for the intelligence?

Not at all, because if I said that I'd be making a contradictory statement. But determining just what is certain is the problem, isn't it?

So you believe that absolute truth exists, but you could be wrong, and yet you're not saying that it doesn't exist? That makes absolutely no sense. If absolute truth exists, then it exists! There's no room for "I could be wrong" because saying that you could be wrong is to accept that it's possible for absolute truth not to exist, which, as you said, is self-contradictory.

Not at all. There is a huge difference between asking whether something is the case and asking if I believe that something is the case. Put another way, if I say I don't believe A it doesn't follow that I believe not-A.

All I am saying is that, without evidence, it is just as likely that God does exist as it is that God doesn't exist so you have no reason to believe one or the other or disbelieve one or the other until you have evidence. Being that you do NOT have evidence, it is just as likely that either one could be true. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't agree with your terminology. As you say, describing the properties of the universe as "intelligence" is not correct outside the context of there being minds that understand it. But the only reason we might call the properties of the universe "intelligence" is because we ourselves have the capacity to come to some degree of understanding of those properties. So in this case, those minds are us. What you have shown is that humans have intelligent minds. If there were no intelligent minds to understand the properties of the universe, then the properties of the universe would not be "intelligence" because the word would have no meaning.

But they remain true whether our minds can understand them or not. I would call that intelligence because it is knowing. If knowledge depends on our existence, then knowledge or absolute truth don't really exist.

It really doesn't make sense to me, so maybe you can't help me. If I am just going based on "the thing which caused the universe to exist", I fail to see how I get from there, to "all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect". We don't even know if the thing that caused the universe to exist is sentient. Even if it is sentient, how do you know it didn't just create a giant bomb and then blow it up without knowing or caring where all of the pieces land?

If the thing can act, then I would say that means it has intelligence. It can be nothing other than the absolute first cause, and being the absolute first cause requires it to literally BE the universe, so that, in turn, would suggest that it knows everything about the universe because it's impossible for anything else to exist besides the original cause that is not contained by it. God is EVERYTHING. He is not just a piece of the universe floating around outside of it. He is the whole basis for existence, so there is no knowledge that can exist apart from Him. These are undeniable axiomatic truths. God MUST be perfect because there is no standard outside of Him by which He can be judged as imperfect.

We do not know what happened before the big bang. I think it is reasonable to assume that there was some sort of cause for the universe starting the way we think it started, whether it came from some even older universe with different properties, or whatever. Maybe the thing that caused the universe has always existed (or, the universe itself has always existed). But I don't see how you get from there to speculating that the thing that started it was a sentient, all-powerful intelligent designer.

Talking about older universes doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it.

And when you say "maybe the thing that caused the universe has always existed" YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

You know what I call that "thing"?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But I don't claim that we know things for certain. You don't have to know things for certain in order to still function based on the potentially flawed input that you do have.

You are making a contradictory claim. Do you know for certain that you don't know things for certain?

 

[Crashland]

You are making a contradictory claim. Do you know for certain that you don't know things for certain?

I didn't claim that I was certain of anything, including uncertainty. I can't imagine a possible scenario where that would be incorrect, but for the sake of argument...

 

[VIDEODROME]

You are making a contradictory claim. Do you know for certain that you don't know things for certain?

Tautology?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't claim that I was certain of anything, including uncertainty. I can't imagine a possible scenario where that would be incorrect, but for the sake of argument...

But if you reject the claim that there is certainty, then you accept the claim that there is not, by default. There is no other option. If you believe there is absolute truth, then claim it! Own it! It's either true or it's not true, and for it not to be true would be logically impossible, so it IS true. If you're not comfortable saying it's true, then you don't really believe it.

 

[robert68]

...
And if He does exist, you better find out who He is because He might have some rules.
...

It’s contradictory that a will received from a rule maker can defy the rule maker.

P.S. Based on a post you made elsewhere, I don’t expect your reply to be “but he gave free-will”.

 

[HVACTech]

It’s contradictory that a will received from a rule maker can defy the rule maker.

I am guessing that you are not a parental unit.