God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Miscellaneous General
, , ,
81

Not my problem. And clearly we can show god exists in the realm of fiction. It’s not that difficult. I don’t know why you’re being so closed-minded as to not understand that. Clearly, we can show that unicorns and elves exist in the realm of fiction. Why you believe that such can’t be done with god is arrogance to the nth.

Not hardly.

Yeah bubba, you have. And what I’ve said you’ve said is what you’ve said, despite your denial of what you’ve said you’ve said.

Yes, since you said that words couldn’t describe reality.

So what?

Whatever god is claimed. I don’t have to define it; the one who claims it exists does.

But you go on and be some silly mystic and try to shift the burden of proof. I’ll just laugh at you.

Only later, when I showed you your words. You keep choosing to ignore that.

Already did.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Then you’re clearly wrong about atheism.

Ok. What does “pass beyond the limits of existence” mean? It means “does not exist”. You denied that. You need to understand what words mean. If you have such a problem grasping that, such is YOUR problem and YOU need to deal with it. Don’t blame me for your inability to grasp the words you were using.

But it’s not. And you think it’s pointless to talk about it, yet you are talking about it.

And yet you don’t understand that “transcending existence” is the same as “not existing”. How odd.

Just as much meaning as “transcendent”.

It’s not a presumption. But you go on and be a silly mystic.

And yet you had said reality. Why you want to run from you own words only shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

See? You just admitted to saying that words can’t capture reality. Thanks for lying.

And you don’t have to deny the existence of god to not have belief in it. Remember: not having a belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in not. If you think it is, I suggest you go back to grade school.

Yeah, I did. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

So then you acknowledge that there can be a framework. Thank you.

If only you had a clue.

82

Jon, I don’t think you’re right to say that the hypothesis placing God in another plane of existence involves a rejection of the laws of logic. It’s not a necessary truth that the physical universe is the only kind of existence that there is. The hypothesis does rest on the idea that God cannot reasonably be thought to exist entirely within the realm of this universe; His alleged attributes are such that it simply wouldn’t make sense for Him to be a physically extant being. In order to make sense of the kind of thing God is supposed to be, it would be necessary to posit an alternative way that something could exist without being bound by the sorts of rules which constrain existence in the physical sense.

I mean, it’s not like there’s any compelling evidence that such a being actually exists. I’m just saying that it’s not logically impossible that something like God exists. If people want to believe in such a thing, then fine. But I do think that the FSM is a pretty penetrating critique of the God hypothesis at its most plausible. So Pastafarianism it is!

83

Then the person so positing must show the ontology of that realm.

And if perhaps we’re talking about physical as material, one wonders what immaterial existence is.

Yes, a person would need the ontology. And no one has ever provided such. As such, it’s just a begged question.

Perhaps if you have that as your SHORDURPERSAV. But SLACK is your right, and THEY have denied it to you. THEM. The barbies and kens! The pinkboys! Only J.R. “Bob” Dobbs can lead you to SLACK!

Praise “Bob”, let there be SLACK.

84

That’s ridiculous, you couldn’t possibly demand such an account; we don’t even have an uncontroversial ontological account of our own universe. If someone were claiming that God does exist, then they surely would need to provide some pretty solid evidence (which as I’ve said, I don’t believe to exist; I’m not sure what kind of thing would count as evidence for such a claim). But theists don’t need to claim that God does exist. They only need to claim that they have faith in the existence of God, and it’s possible that He exists.

85

Of course I could. After all, those who say god exists usually say god (of whatever sort) created the universe, indicating some ontology apart from the universe. Can’t have them begging the question, you know.

You know, evolution is “controversial” as well. Yet it’s fact. Similarly, our existence isn’t actually in controversy insofar as the nature of it; we exist and we know how we exist. We are material. Do not confuse the physics aspect with the philosophy aspect, either.

Well then they admit that it’s just a wish on their part, don’t they? After all: faith isn’t a valid epistemological method.

86

It is often evoked as a defence of God being exempt from the laws of logic…

87

Or that god created logic/logic flows from god ala presuppositionalism.

88

Pastafarianism should be the state religion of market anarchism (irony intended [:P])

89

No! Only the Church of the Subgenius shall do!

90

Knight, they could say, “I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe,” without begging the question. Again, I’m here defending theism at its most plausible; I don’t pretend that this is actually the position that theists tend to take.

Regarding the ontology of our own existence, I’d point out that epistemological contextualism does not refute the transcendental turn. I know that I exist, and that I have experiences. I certainly seem to exist in a physical universe that is populated by material objects and other entities which experience things in the same sort of way as me. But even if we jumped contexts and granted that things are basically the way that they seem, it still would not clear what sort of thing existence is, what explains its manifestation, or whether it exists within the context of something else.

As for whether faith can be fairly characterized as a “wish,” I’m not really sure if that’s fair or not. I personally can’t see how it would be reasonable to have faith in religious accounts or to take a theistic position. So because I don’t understand what could possibly lead a reasonable person to adopt such a position, I’m sort of at a loss to explain why people would do so. But I don’t think anyone would try to characterize faith as having to do with epistemology.

Jon, I guess all I can say is that stupid people advancing a hypothesis doesn’t make the hypothesis wrong. You can take the position without accepting the coherence of polylogism.

Wombatron, agreed!

91

No, they can’t. They’re still begging the question, even with couching and hedging.

The transcendental must be supported. If not, it’s junked. Period.

Now you’re delving into dual-realmist garbage. It has no place in any ontological discussion. Existence needs no explanation in the first place.

It’s entirely fair. Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. That’s called a “wish”.

Oh, but theists do all the time. They assert that they know god exists via faith.

92

Which of the two premises in the claim, “I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe,” would you question? Surely some people have faith that religious accounts are true, and surely some of those religious accounts claim that God created the universe. So no question is begged. What you could have in mind is that the first premise represents faith in something which is necessarily false, but then you’d be begging the question.

On the transcendental turn, I think it’s supported pretty well in the Critique of Pure Reason; I think the ball’s in your court if you want to argue that Kant was wrong. But that would require another thread, I think.

Regarding “dual-realmist garbage,” I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I cited a logically possible manner in which meta-existence could be structured; I didn’t make any non-hypothetical ontological claim. I’d point out that a need to explain existence has nothing to do with anything. You’re disputing a particular explanation of existence. No one claimed one was needed; we’re working with one which has been offered.

I really don’t want to get into a protracted discussion about this point, but I’d mention in passing that your definition of a “wish” is not exactly what is commonly meant by the term. If that’s how you want to use the term, it doesn’t matter to me, as long as you consistently divorce the “desiring” sense of “wishing” from your use of the term.

As for your point about theists claiming knowledge of God, I’d again point out that stupid people advancing a hypothesis does not make that hypothesis false. As I’ve explicitly embraced Kant’s Transcendental Idealism, I think it should be obvious that I would not agree with any claim that faith in God can lead one to knowledge of God’s existence. [Edit: When I said “anyone,” I meant “anyone worth listening to;” sorry about the confusion]

93

Both.

They’re presuming that the universe was created in the first place and that existence can be apart from the universe. Ergo, begged question.

I don’t believe that. You’d have to show that dual-realmist ontologist is ok. And it’s simply adding a layer which isn’t necessary at all and has no backing. It’s just a version of Plato’s forms. It’s garbage. Please disabuse yourself of that nonsense.

The whole “transcendental” line relies on a second realm of existence, one which we can never access. In doing so, you not only commit epistemic suicide, but you violate the principle of parsimony.

Gotta say no on that one, too. We could just be talking past each other, though.

But that’s what you’re demanding: an explanation for existence.

I’m disputing that existence requires an explanation in the first place, i.e. that the notion of existence needing an explanation even makes sense.

Yeah, it really is. It’s substituting the wish of how reality works with reality. It’s a wish.

And I’d like to point out that such is a strawman.

Yet there are people who make such a claim–you can’t deny that without looking like a fool.

94

They are not presuming that the universe was created and that there can be existence which is non-physical. They’re saying that if their religious account were true, then those things would be as well. The claim that the universe was created, and that non-physical existence is possible, are not claims being introduced by the theist; they are inherent to the religious account in which they’ve placed their faith. So they don’t beg the question. If anyone were begging the question, it would be the biblical author or whoever came up with the religious account in question. But those accounts aren’t arguments, and therefore cannot really beg the question.

Regarding the use of the word “transcendental,” I’m not using it to refer to multiple realms of existence. I’m refering to Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism, which is a metaphysical position making reference to our own realm of existence. As for the “principle of parsimony,” I think you’re misunderstanding the debate over simplicity in science. Where simplicity has a role in helping us to decide between competing theories, the implication is not that the less simple theory is wrong, especially not necessarily so. The idea is that simplicity can count as a reason to adopt one theory over another: that it’s often reasonable to adopt the simpler theory. It most certainly does not mean that only simple theories can be true.

Once again, you seem to be clinging to the idea that someone thinks that existence must be explained. This need not be the theist’s position. The following is a perfectly consistent statement: “There would be nothing wrong with having no explanation for existence, but I believe that existence can be explained by [insert religious account].” The important thing to note is that since we do not have a true explanation for existence which is incompatible with the theists’, we cannot demonstrate their account to be false. It’s not like that’s a failing on our part, especially if we insist that we don’t need an explanation for existence. It just means that in the face of radical uncertainty, we can’t rule anything out that could be the case.

On the issue of faith and knowledge, I concede that I didn’t realize what point you were responding to until after i posted. I edited my comments accordingly; sorry about that.

95

Yeah, they are. They need them to be true for their religious account to be true. It’s begging the question, period.

Yes: the noumena and phenomena. Dual-realmist garbage.

No, I don’t, actually. For in the principle of parsimony you need to have it as simple as possible and back everything that you have. There is no backing for transcendental idealism, non-material existence, the universe being created, etc. Therefore, those should be junked.

Because they do think that.

No theist I know of says that. No theist I’ve ever heard of says that. They all say “you can’t explain the universe without god”. All. Of. Them. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

Existence requires no explanation, so saying we don’t have a true explanation begs the question. On this, I agree with Rand: existence exists, and only existence exists. Period. To even consider the laughable idea of the universe having an explanation is to divorce terms from their foundation, i.e. gibber and babble.

96

Does that mean that all human experience can be explained in material/mechanical terms as in…physics ?

97

What is non-material existence? How does the non-material interact with the material?

98

I haven’t got the slightest idea. But I was wondering if your position includes the belief that, well, beliefs don’t really exist ? I realize that ideas need a material substrate, say, a brain, but do you think that ideas and the brain are basically the same thing ?

99

Okay, quickly:

  1. Unless you believe that it is false that “There are some people who believe that [insert religious account] is true” or that “If [insert religious account] were true, then God would have created the universe,” then the cited argument does not beg the question. The falsehood or controversial status of the statements “[insert religious account] is true” or “God created the universe” will not suffice to demonstrate question-begging. If you don’t see why that’s true, then you either don’t understand what it means to beg the question, or you don’t understand formal logic.

  2. Calling Kant’s transcendental idealism “dual-realmist garbage” either belies a complete misunderstanding of what Kant was saying, or at least demands that you say a little bit more about what’s wrong with the view. That’s especially true if you’re basing that rejection on Ayn Rand’s epistemology, given her cavalier willingness to insult Kant allegedly without ever having seriously studied his work. I think Kant’s view is entirely plausible.

  3. The principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact. If you think it is, then no, you don’t understand the debate over simplicity in science.

100

Of couse they do. As you state: they need a material substrate. Ideas are the end-products of the microstates of the brain. No brain–no ideas. Clearly we know that a person’s sense of self is dependent upon the brain (viz. alzheimer’s patients and lobotomy patients).