Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2013, 07:30 PM
Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 03:22 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The following is an argument made by a physicist concerning the existence of God.
A couple years back I had a little back and forth exchange with this person where I argued his "proof" was flawed. I'm just curious what you guys think about his proof and if any of you can expose the error in his thinking.

The first 2 and half minutes is a bit cheesy, then the substance of the argument comes.





He assumes that everything has an explanation, and everything has a cause.
We WANT this to be true.

There are no nature laws other than the man made laws. There are theories in physics that describe
nature, but nature does not have laws itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 07:30 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  There are no nature laws other than the man made laws. There are theories in physics that describe
nature, but nature does not have laws itself.

Why then do we call somethings we observe in nature "laws" if they aren't "laws"?

It seems as if you are almost making his point. Nature doesn't have behave in a certain way....yet it does......Why? Why is nature consistent?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 04:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A perfect description for a "god of the gaps".
He assumes the universe in intuitive. That has been proven false.
Only HE *needs* what he describes. A description of his *needs* is neither science nor useful. 6:07 is obviously false. Science "requires" nothing. Science is a method. Obviously, he has no clue what science is or how it works.
Utterly worthless trash. He needs to examine his unspoken premises, and assumptions. What a dolt.

You are right in that the error of his thinking lies in his unspoken premises, but the rest of what you wrote is wrong me thinks. Constancy requires an explanation and often science is task with providing it.

He essentially defines God as that which conserves the laws of nature and also conserves itself. How does this proof not show that his God exists?

Also you shouldn't call him a dolt. Its immature and Ad hominens don't help the discussion.

He is a dolt. What is "constancy", and who died and decided that was the value that had to be maximized, or something that science was tasked with ? "Constancy" is what he thinks is "intuitive". Is the double slit experiment demonstrative of "constancy''. The word "constancy" does not appear in the scientific method. The dolt made it up. If I make a valid point, along with calling him a dolt, the point stands.
No scientist says "the most elusive evidence is the evidence for god". He lied. 2:55 he admits whatever he cooks up is just his interpretation. 3:34 He has neither defined what "the evidence" is, nor what his null hypothesis is, or what would falsify his crap.
Every single one of his 5 points are flawed. He has not defined what a god is, or stated WHY he thinks his missing explanation HAS to be ONLY his deity. Given enough time, and sufficient technology the rock DOES "go poof", simply by quantum motion. He conflates the elements of the rock with the "being" of the rock, and does not define a rock's "being". If his rock is a "being", than his deity could be a rock, that follow his laws.

It's a rehash of the "un-caused cause". There is no reason his deity has to be the ultimate cause, just the next one in line, given the property to be a cause by his omnipotent deity. A rock is not a "being". There are so many things wrong with this bullshit it would take a day to pull it all apart. His definition of a deity does not match with any religious one, and any "proof" invalidates "faith", thus is an non-religious concept. All he "proves" is where his brain thinks the argument leads, and then he names that "god". There is no reason to grant any credibility to someone with so many errors. He is a presuppositionalist dolt, who thinks he's come up with something unique. He hasn't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
While the question as to why the laws of nature are constant and seemingly eternal is an interesting one, the argument put forth in the video you posted amounts to little more than a "God-of-the-gaps" argument. If we lack a scientific explanation for any given phenomena, the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit ignorance, to say that we don't know. I find it profoundly sad that this has to be stated in the 21st century.

In my humble opinion, the much bigger issue with this argument, however, is that the God which is being advocated bears no resemblance to any of the deities worshiped by the adherents of the world's major religions. There is no reason to think that the thing which conserves the laws of nature, provided that something like that exists, possesses any of the attributes commonly ascribed to Gods by theists around the world, the most important one of which is sentience.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Vosur's post
07-11-2013, 08:21 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 08:24 PM by Free.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 06:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 05:27 PM)Free Wrote:  The fellow in the video is committing a number of logical fallacies in reasoning that are commonly known as:

1. Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

2. Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

3. Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

In a nutshell, all this man said was:

"God exists because the rock exists and that is why God exists."

Seriously ...Blink

The following are excerpts from my exchange with him.

Me: "If the stone in you kitchen went poof there would be a reason for it. It seems your argument depends on an implied premise that it is logically possible for the laws of nature to fail without a cause. Otherwise it would seem you are assuming the existence of God to sustain the stone and then concluding God must exist when the stone doesn't go poof. Why should an atheist accept the premise that it is logically possible the laws of nature can fail without a cause"

Him: "It could go poof only if what maintained it ceases operating, as lamps go out when the power fails. I don't see that as a problem. The laws of nature are not logically necessity. It is logically possible for them to cease operating. If they were logically necessary, physics would be a branch of logic, & no experiments would be needed. I assume what science requires: that phenomena are caused. If that fails, so does science. Don't you agree?"


Him: "Events require causes, non-being requires none. There is no cause for Mars having no moon. We can say why we know there is none, but that is not saying what causes this non-fact. Suppose I ask why a lamp is let. A reasonable explanation is it is getting power. Your suggestion is the lamp is lit because there is nothing causing it to be dark. Nothing is not a cause. The fact is the laws persist. That fact requires an active explanation."

Everything he has said is absolutely meaningless. His entire objective was to provide evidence to prove the existence of God. He miserably fails to acknowledge the fact that his entire position in no way whatsoever proves the existence of God.

The question you need to ask him is this:

"Why does "God" have to be the explanation?"

I guarantee you his answer will be by asking another question along the lines of:

"Is there any other scientific explanation?"

And right there you will know for a certainty that his logic is fundamentally flawed. Just because some things cannot be explained scientifically by no means indicates that the answer must be God.

The fallacy he will commit is known as:

"False Dilemma:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So go ahead, ask him the question I have given you and watch him trap himself.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 08:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Everything he has said is absolutely meaningless. His entire objective was to provide evidence to prove the existence of God. He miserably fails to acknowledge the fact that his entire position in no way whatsoever proves the existence of God.

The question you need to ask him is this:

"Why does "God" have to be the explanation?"

I guarantee you his answer will be by asking another question along the lines of:

"Is there any other scientific explanation?"

And right there you will know for a certainty that his logic is fundamentally flawed. Just because some things cannot be explained scientifically by no means indicates that the answer must be God.

The fallacy he will commit is known as:

"False Dilemma:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So go ahead, ask him the question I have given you and watch him trap himself.

I don't plan on resurrecting this discussion with him....but in a round about way I did ask that question to him:

Me: "Would you agree then that if a Law conserving the Laws of Conservation were rigoriously proved there would be no infinite regression as suggested in your video? Wouldn't Kleene's recurison theorem show that such a law actually conserves itself?"

Basically I am asking him why this thing which conserves the laws of nature and also conserves itself has to be God. I'm not proud of this question because as he pointed out there is no infinite regress and I couldn't give him a reason why Kleenes should apply to the natural system.

Him: "There is no infinite regress. The idea is considered & rejected as useless. As I proved the existence of a Law keeping other laws in operation, there is no "if.". When we reflect, we see that this Law meets the definition of God as the Supreme Being (it maintains everything else in operation), creator (via the laws of nature) & ruler of the universe (why we call them "laws"). How does Kleene apply here? It's a property of formal, not natural systems"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:55 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 09:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 08:21 PM)Free Wrote:  Everything he has said is absolutely meaningless. His entire objective was to provide evidence to prove the existence of God. He miserably fails to acknowledge the fact that his entire position in no way whatsoever proves the existence of God.

The question you need to ask him is this:

"Why does "God" have to be the explanation?"

I guarantee you his answer will be by asking another question along the lines of:

"Is there any other scientific explanation?"

And right there you will know for a certainty that his logic is fundamentally flawed. Just because some things cannot be explained scientifically by no means indicates that the answer must be God.

The fallacy he will commit is known as:

"False Dilemma:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So go ahead, ask him the question I have given you and watch him trap himself.

I don't plan on resurrecting this discussion with him....but in a round about way I did ask that question to him:

Me: "Would you agree then that if a Law conserving the Laws of Conservation were rigoriously proved there would be no infinite regression as suggested in your video? Wouldn't Kleene's recurison theorem show that such a law actually conserves itself?"

Basically I am asking him why this thing which conserves the laws of nature and also conserves itself has to be God. I'm not proud of this question because as he pointed out there is no infinite regress and I couldn't give him a reason why Kleenes should apply to the natural system.

Him: "There is no infinite regress. The idea is considered & rejected as useless. As I proved the existence of a Law keeping other laws in operation, there is no "if.". When we reflect, we see that this Law meets the definition of God as the Supreme Being (it maintains everything else in operation), creator (via the laws of nature) & ruler of the universe (why we call them "laws"). How does Kleene apply here? It's a property of formal, not natural systems"

Regardless, his entire point was to prove the existence of God, and all his smoke and mirrors miserably failed to conceal the fact that his argument is fundamentally flawed by some very obvious series of logical fallacies.

None of what he said has any merit whatsoever, and he can be dismissed.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
The way I see it, even IF he were correct through every stage of his reasoning right to the very end, what he has done is pose a question. He then goes one unnecessary step further and posits god as the answer.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 10:00 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  The way I see it, even IF he were correct through every stage of his reasoning right to the very end, what he has done is pose a question. He then goes one unnecessary step further and posits god as the answer.

Except it's not unnecessary to him.
"That fact requires an active explanation."

He *must* have an answer, NOW, TODAY, or he can't sleep.
With no other answer available to him, he MUST plug in his god of the gaps.
It's about psychology. Not about physics, theology, logic, or philosophy.
(It also demonstrates that what religion is, for him, is not about a "relationship" with his deity).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
07-11-2013, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 10:35 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(07-11-2013 09:55 PM)Free Wrote:  Regardless, his entire point was to prove the existence of God, and all his smoke and mirrors miserably failed to conceal the fact that his argument is fundamentally flawed by some very obvious series of logical fallacies.

None of what he said has any merit whatsoever, and he can be dismissed.

He's actually a very smart person who holds and argues quit well a view contrary to yours. You shouldn't just dismiss him as this is the kind of guy you want to mentally exercise with. It is true his "proof" of God's existence was hardly that because it is fatally flawed. But just because his argument contains logical fallacies doesn't mean his conclusion was false.

One of his assumptions is that there exists something which conserves the laws of nature and also conserves itself. I don't have a problem with accepting this assumption as intuitively true. The question is can you credibly call this thing God? In my discussion with him he said you can because:
A) This thing maintains everything else in operation.
B) This thing creates via the laws of nature.
C) This thing rules( the laws of nature are laws after all).

And these things essentially define God. Now if A, B, and C, are the case then I think we can say a deistic type of God exists.

Well A and B, I can see that given the assumption being true...those things are also essentially true. C is a bit of a stretch for me because to rule requires to be able to make choices and to choose requires intellect. Polis makes no effort whatsoever to show this thing has an intellect....but this was a youtube comment discussion so he didn't have enough characters to make it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: