God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[Sonny Tufts]

If you can't trust your senses by evaluating them with your senses, then what do you trust?

Who says I can't trust my senses? I have all the trust in the world that if I drop an object it will fall to the ground instead of flying upwards. This isn't to say that my sensations are always 100% accurate; sometimes they're not what they seem, which is how magicians make a living.

Deists rely on a creator that is outside of the material universe and not beholden to it who created the laws of logic and nature for a specific purpose. That way, things make sense and we can have absolute knowledge.

How do you have absolute knowledge of the existence of a deity? You don't. You simply assume (have faith) that it exists.

If you are an atheist, you are stuck in the awkward position of explaining how you can know anything when you deny absolute truth.

I don't deny absolute truth for the simple reason that such a claim is self-contradictory.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Of course you don't have a problem behaving as if your reasoning were reliable, but by doing so, you have to assume that there is an absolute truth out there that is independent of the material world and that the laws of logic are not just chemical reactions in our brains. If they were, then it would be stupid to even argue anything because we don't even know that logic is the same for me as it is for you. I, however, acknowledge the fact that things make sense and that there is an absolute truth out there that is not a result of random chemical reactions.

The fact that we agree that 2 + 2 =4 could be explained by the fact that our brains have the same chemical reactions.

There is a standard of logic and rationality out there that is true whether or not we think it is true. We all agree that 2+2=4 because we all accept that the truth of that is not affected by our individual thinking processes or by the natural world. It is innate and beyond the realm of natural existence.

In the philosophy of mathematics this is called Platonism, because it's similar to Plato's Theory of Forms. Under this view, the Pythagorean Theorem (for example) would be true even if there were no humans around to contemplate it. On the other hand, there are those who say that mathematics is a human invention that is simply an abstraction from our experience caused by our brain activity. If nobody were around to observe two objects being combined with two other objects, the concepts of "2", "+", "=", and "4" wouldn't exist because it takes a human brain to form a concept.

I personally prefer the Platonic view, but I can appreciate the other. But I question the necessity to endow such logical and mathematical truths with a divine nature.

 

[Ronin Truth]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein

"God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man." -- Leopold Kronecker

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan! The proper study of mankind is Man."

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The fact that we agree that 2 + 2 =4 could be explained by the fact that our brains have the same chemical reactions.

Why would our brains have the same chemical reactions if they're the result of chance? It doesn't make sense.

In the philosophy of mathematics this is called Platonism, because it's similar to Plato's Theory of Forms. Under this view, the Pythagorean Theorem (for example) would be true even if there were no humans around to contemplate it. On the other hand, there are those who say that mathematics is a human invention that is simply an abstraction from our experience caused by our brain activity. If nobody were around to observe two objects being combined with two other objects, the concepts of "2", "+", "=", and "4" wouldn't exist because it takes a human brain to form a concept.

We didn't invent the concept, though. we just discovered it. The fact that it is true for everyone means it is not dependent on nature. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, states that something cannot simultaneously be something and not that thing at the same time and in the same sense. The only reason we know this to be true is because it is true regardless of whether we believe it to be true.

I personally prefer the Platonic view, but I can appreciate the other. But I question the necessity to endow such logical and mathematical truths with a divine nature.

You prefer the view that says the Pythagorean Theorem would be true even if there were no humans around to contemplate it? That means you believe in things that exist outside of the natural realm. In other words, there is an innate standard that exists apart from STEM (space, time, energy, and matter), which in turn suggests that not everything is the result of natural processes but rather that there is innate intelligence in the universe that guides the laws that we observe resulting in the natural processes that are supposed to have "made" us despite the fact that the processes themselves are evidence of innate intelligence. That's how we know we can make sense of the universe, because it is based on innate intelligence (things that are true with or without the natural universe).

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Who says I can't trust my senses? I have all the trust in the world that if I drop an object it will fall to the ground instead of flying upwards. This isn't to say that my sensations are always 100% accurate; sometimes they're not what they seem, which is how magicians make a living.

I believe you CAN trust your senses and that this is the result of the innate logical sense that dictates how the natural world operates. However, if you believe that your senses are the result of completely natural processes, then you would have no reason to trust your senses because you would have to rely on their validity in order to validate them, which is viciously circular.

How do you have absolute knowledge of the existence of a deity? You don't. You simply assume (have faith) that it exists.

Ah, but you, too, have faith. If you dismiss the idea of a deity, then it's like telling me that you don't believe I have a nickel in my pocket. Why would you assume such a thing? Why would you require evidence of the nickel when either possibility could be true? You would have to require equal evidence for the non-existence of the nickel as you do for the existence of the nickel.

The difference is that my faith makes sense based on what we know about the creation. If you believe the entire universe is the result of natural causes, I would say that requires an awful lot of faith. You may disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that you are equally uncertain about both possibilities for the origin of the universe.

I don't deny absolute truth for the simple reason that such a claim is self-contradictory.

That is the entire point! It is obvious that we really do know things, and the fact that we know things presupposes a logical order for the universe which in turn presupposes innate logic that is independent of the material world. If you are an atheist, then you are forced into the awkward situation of explaining how you know things when you must rely on your sense to validate your senses so that you can know things. Otherwise, you are forced to admit don't really know anything, which doesn't make sense.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You prefer the view that says the Pythagorean Theorem would be true even if there were no humans around to contemplate it? That means you believe in things that exist outside of the natural realm. In other words, there is an innate standard that exists apart from STEM (space, time, energy, and matter), which in turn suggests that not everything is the result of natural processes but rather that there is innate intelligence in the universe that guides the laws that we observe resulting in the natural processes that are supposed to have "made" us despite the fact that the processes themselves are evidence of innate intelligence. That's how we know we can make sense of the universe, because it is based on innate intelligence (things that are true with or without the natural universe).

It doesn't follow from the existence of mathematical and logical truths that thay are "intelligent" in the sense of having consciousness or purposefulness. Deists wish to require that these truths have their origin in a Creator to whom they ascribe certain human characteristics, but I don't see that this requirement necessarily follows. And don't ask where these things came from, or I'll ask where the Creator came from. Maybe they're just features of reality that are as eternal as the deity whose existence you wish to assume.

While I find a certain psychological comfort in the Platonic existence of these truths, I could be wrong, and it could very well be the case that unless there were a human brain to conceptualize them, they wouldn't exist.

Why would our brains have the same chemical reactions if they're the result of chance? It doesn't make sense.

Why do you think they're the result of chance?

 

[Crashland]

Again, why is admitting that you don't know things with 100% certainty a bad thing? I do admit that, and theists should too. The claim that our senses are all illusions is unfalsifiable, and there is no observable evidence for it. So actually, the reason I reject that proposition is the same reason I reject the claim that there is a God...

 

[HVACTech]

"our senses" are really pretty lousy. the reason that we spin generators at 60 Hertz or 120 cycles per second is so that you cannot see the lights flicker.
while the human mind is a really wonderful computer..
it is severely limited by it's inputs.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Ah, but you, too, have faith.

I do in the sense that I assume the validity of my sense experience. As I said before, I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere.

If you dismiss the idea of a deity, then it's like telling me that you don't believe I have a nickel in my pocket. Why would you assume such a thing? Why would you require evidence of the nickel when either possibility could be true? You would have to require equal evidence for the non-existence of the nickel as you do for the existence of the nickel.

If you were to ask me if I believed you had a nickel in your pocket, I'd say no. If you then asked if I believed you didn't have a nickel in your pocket I'd say no. Both answers are consistent, because I have absolutely no basis to believe one way or the other.

I don't rule out the existence of a deity, unless it's one whose definition contains a contradiction (e.g., a loving God who causes evil or a perfect being who is insecure or sadistic enough to punish those who don't believe in him). But I'm unconvinced that the assumption of the existence of a deity is logically necessary.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It doesn't follow from the existence of mathematical and logical truths that thay are "intelligent" in the sense of having consciousness or purposefulness. Deists wish to require that these truths have their origin in a Creator to whom they ascribe certain human characteristics, but I don't see that this requirement necessarily follows. And don't ask where these things came from, or I'll ask where the Creator came from. Maybe they're just features of reality that are as eternal as the deity whose existence you wish to assume.

I will ask you where those things came from, and you're free to ask me where the Creator came from. My answer is that they are one and the same. They are eternal and independent of the natural universe. The universe is finite, so it relies on the existence of infinite truths. These truths don't "have" intelligence. They ARE intelligence. 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?

While I find a certain psychological comfort in the Platonic existence of these truths, I could be wrong, and it could very well be the case that unless there were a human brain to conceptualize them, they wouldn't exist.

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

Are you aware of what you're saying right now? You're telling me that you believe absolute truth to exist, but you "could be wrong" while simultaneously admitting that this is a self-contradictory position.

Why do you think they're the result of chance?

I don't believe they are. You do.

 

[HVACTech]

But I'm unconvinced that the assumption of the existence of a deity is logically necessary.

that would seem to be a tremendous leap of logic for a species that cannot even figure out what gravity or mass is.

we have now been beating the same two horses for almost 100 years now.
Einstein 1915 (general relativity) Planck 1918 (quantum theory)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Again, why is admitting that you don't know things with 100% certainty a bad thing? I do admit that, and theists should too. The claim that our senses are all illusions is unfalsifiable, and there is no observable evidence for it. So actually, the reason I reject that proposition is the same reason I reject the claim that there is a God...

The point is that it is a logical impossibility for absolute truth not to exist.

You're claiming that there is no evidence for an illusion when you would have to rely on the illusion in order to evaluate the evidence in the first place. How do you know there is no evidence?

Ok, let me ask you this: Do you believe there is a nickel in my pocket?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I do in the sense that I assume the validity of my sense experience. As I said before, I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere.

And yet you believe that absolute truth exists?

If you were to ask me if I believed you had a nickel in your pocket, I'd say no. If you then asked if I believed you didn't have a nickel in your pocket I'd say no. Both answers are consistent, because I have absolutely no basis to believe one way or the other.

That is exactly the point. The belief that I do not have a nickel in my pocket requires just as much faith as the opposite claim that I DO have a nickel in my pocket. Likewise, the belief that God does NOT exist requires just as much faith as the belief that He does.

You cannot answer "no" to both questions simultaneously because that is still claiming knowledge. It would be more appropriate to say "I do not know the answer to either question." The point being that both atheism and deism require just as much faith.

I don't rule out the existence of a deity, unless it's one whose definition contains a contradiction (e.g., a loving God who causes evil or a perfect being who is insecure or sadistic enough to punish those who don't believe in him). But I'm unconvinced that the assumption of the existence of a deity is logically necessary.

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

 

[Crashland]

The point is that it is a logical impossibility for absolute truth not to exist.

You're claiming that there is no evidence for an illusion when you would have to rely on the illusion in order to evaluate the evidence in the first place. How do you know there is no evidence?

Ok, let me ask you this: Do you believe there is a nickel in my pocket?

That is why I said there is no observable evidence. Maybe there is evidence for that somewhere. Wherever it might be though, it would be impossible for me to discover it because I have no other input other than what comes in through my senses.

Whether or not there is absolute truth is kind of irrelevant if there is no absolutely certain way to come to know what it actually is.

No I don't have any reason to believe that there is a nickel in your pocket. I also have no reason to believe that there isn't a nickel in your pocket. There is no evidence either way, so to believe either way would be unsubstantiated.

 

[Crashland]

And yet you believe that absolute truth exists?



That is exactly the point. The belief that I do not have a nickel in my pocket requires just as much faith as the opposite claim that I DO have a nickel in my pocket. Likewise, the belief that God does NOT exist requires just as much faith as the belief that He does.

You cannot answer "no" to both questions simultaneously because that is still claiming knowledge. It would be more appropriate to say "I do not know the answer to either question." The point being that both atheism and deism require just as much faith.



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

If we are talking about god in a deistic sense where we do not assign all of these attributes to him, then yes, I am agnostic about that kind of god. I do not believe that such a god does not exist any more than I believe he does. But if we are talking about an all-powerful, loving, just God who interacts with humans as described in the Bible, then there are reasons to believe affirmatively that it is more likely that such an entity does not exist.

For example, I have no opinion on whether you have a nickel in your pocket. But if you were to claim that you have a nickel in your pocket that weighs 5000 pounds, then we can see inconsistencies and come to favor one conclusion over the other.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That is why I said there is no observable evidence. Maybe there is evidence for that somewhere. Wherever it might be though, it would be impossible for me to discover it because I have no other input other than what comes in through my senses.

Whether or not there is absolute truth is kind of irrelevant if there is no absolutely certain way to come to know what it actually is.

But absolute truth DOES exist. This means that truth is not dependent on the material world and that there are innate concepts that exist apart from and independent of the natural world. You have to assume that there is intelligence in the universe to claim that you can know anything for certain, and since we DO know things for certain, we can verify that there is intelligence in the universe. This means that we CAN trust our senses and that our observations ARE valid. It simply makes no sense to claim that there is no absolute truth.

No I don't have any reason to believe that there is a nickel in your pocket. I also have no reason to believe that there isn't a nickel in your pocket. There is no evidence either way, so to believe either way would be unsubstantiated.

EXACTLY. Either claim is unsubstantiated, and yet you require evidence that God exists while simultaneously believing the opposite claim with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If we are talking about god in a deistic sense where we do not assign all of these attributes to him, then yes, I am agnostic about that kind of god. I do not believe that such a god does not exist any more than I believe he does. But if we are talking about an all-powerful, loving, just God who interacts with humans as described in the Bible, then there are reasons to believe affirmatively that it is more likely that such an entity does not exist.

It is no more likely that He does not exist than it is that He does exist. You're talking about specifically who God is, and that is another question entirely.

I make no claims as to WHO God is. That is for you to find out. The important point is that you now realize that NOT believing in God without evidence is not an option. Without any evidence, either claim is just as likely. And if He does exist, you better find out who He is because He might have some rules.

For example, I have no opinion on whether you have a nickel in your pocket. But if you were to claim that you have a nickel in your pocket that weighs 5000 pounds, then we can see inconsistencies and come to favor one conclusion over the other.

But that would require evidence. You have already acknowledged that you have no evidence one way or the other.

I made no claims as to how much the nickel weighs, just as I have made no claims as to the attributes of God. The important part is that you acknowledge that He really could exist, and in fact it is just as likely as the claim that He does not exist.

 

[Crashland]

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.

 

[Crashland]

It is no more likely that He does not exist than it is that He does exist. You're talking about specifically who God is, and that is another question entirely.

I make no claims as to WHO God is. That is for you to find out. The important point is that you now realize that NOT believing in God without evidence is not an option. Without any evidence, either claim is just as likely. And if He does exist, you better find out who He is because He might have some rules.



But that would require evidence. You have already acknowledged that you have no evidence one way or the other.

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.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

Sure, you can function without acknowledging that you know things for certain, and yet the fact that you are functioning relies on the assumption that there are certainties.