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
08-11-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Leaving aside the problems with the actual argument:
it doesn't get you to a specific religion.

A God is necessary,
THEREFORE Christianity.

NOPE.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 10:00 AM
Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
In reasoning about reality, we should start with what we are absolutely certain of.
Foremost we are certain that we exist ourselves, because we observe our thoughts
and our senses. Secondly, we are pretty sure that logic is valid.

For something to be real, we have to be able to observe it, directly or indirectly.
The sun is real, because we can see it. Molecules are real, even though we
cannot see them with our bare eyes. There are many ways we can observe molecules
indirectly. But in a way, they are less real, because we cannot see them directly.

So there really a hiarchy, where thoughts and our senses are the most real, and abstract
concepts that describe nature in some way are less real ( but still real because it
still has some relations to our observations).

Every proof of God assunes that logic is valid, and that we exist. In order to give
a proof you have to exist to be able to do so. Questions like "why is logic true?"
is not meaningful because the only way we can answer that question is by using
that very same logic. The same is true for the question "why do we exist?"
Every reasoning is going to be based on our understanding of the world that
is based on our observations. But to be able to observe means that you exist.

Since our existence is the most real thing, it cannot be the consequence of something else.
So order in the universe is a consequence of our existence, not a cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
08-11-2013, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 10:34 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 02:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  If you don't have anything substantive to offer then don't post.

Dickheads like you deter competent religious people from coming here and arguing a point. We then just end up with simpletons and Bible thumpers. The half-wits here which are their atheistic equivalents bring out their canned arguments in some pointless ritual and then other half-wits give that half-wit "likes" and "reps" for serving up their canned arguments. It's just a circle jerk and I've no interest in watching a circle jerk. If you need that sort of ritual to feel clever then you aren't clever.

A great deal of other users posts are of this nature, where is their lecture? I had comments to two other users in the thread, not to Heywood. I just decided to express my disgust for his argument. Please go on to tell me you've never posted a substance-less post or derailed a thread.

---------

As for Sporehux I have a post for you that I'll put in spoiler tag because it's irrelevant to the current topic.

What I was thinking was that all particles have pressures at which they break down, and that at the density of the big bang no particles would be able to handle the pressure and the whole speck of space-time would simply be saturated with energy, like a cosmological constant saturates the whole of space, and from that bath of energy pair production would take place.

However I should have slept before posting because it escaped me that the higher mass quarks could be stable at those densities, and even if they aren't there could be more beyond the three generations of particles (not sufficient energy to produce them in our accelerators, and too uncommon to have detected in cosmic rays) we know of today that could be able to stand that pressure. Also the initial state of the universe can be thought of behemoth fluctuations in the fields of space, we detect points of high energy in a field as particles (not the electromagnetic field, but quark and electron fields).

It was silly to assume that no energy existed in a state of matter at the moment of the big bang. It could be more likely because in pair production equal amounts of antimatter and matter are formed so that wouldn't explain the observed abundance of matter in our universe. So perhaps the process that caused the big bang (or the process of the big bang, whichever is preferred) tends to create more of one than the other. I don't know, can't be said for sure.

Anyway my point is my comment was stupid and there was no need for correction.

(08-11-2013 12:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Here is an argument for God's existence.

Premise 1: A supernatural event would prove God's existence.
Premise 2: A supernatural event is one that can't be modeled or described by the laws of physics.
Premise 3: The big bang happened.
Premise 4: The big bang is an event that cannot be described or modeled by the laws of physics.

Conclusion: The big bang is a supernatural event and thus proves the existence of God.

Problems with Premise 1

1. Any observed supernatural event could be the effect of any number of supernatural causes (Someone astral projecting, psychics, fairies, ect). I.E. Not necessarily a god.

2. Even if we could agree a god had committed the act, it would be impossible to say which god it was. Unless say the stars aligned to say 'Allah' or 'Yahweh'.

Premise 2...

3. The term supernatural itself has proved to be as useless as magic. There have been many times in the past when we have labelled things supernatural when we simply lacked understanding of the process taking place, like lightning. We also had a tendency to subscribe specific phenomena to a specific god, like Thor.

Premise 3 and (in conflict with what you previously said) premise 4 are fine.

Happy Blowjob? The reason there was no point in me posting a rebuttal was because things simply get reiterated after the first few rebuttals have taken place.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
08-11-2013, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 12:08 PM by Free.)
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Firstly, let me give you an analysis for the layman.

Let's review the key points of his argument. He says the following:

"You recall observing the rock. What did it do?

The rock persisted and continued in being.

Why does it persist and does not go poof?

Science requires explanations not only for changes, but for constancy."


He claims that some things "do not change," such as the rock, but yet fails to demonstrate any evidence to support this assertion. In fact, according to science, all things are in a constant state of flux, and there is no such thing as constancy in this respect. The rock is indeed changing with the passage of time, and given enough time it will completely crumble to dust.

This man is attempting to apply the Laws of Conservation- which only apply to the sum total of mass in the universe- to a single rock, and then posits the theory that the rock does not change. The truth is, all matter in the universe is in a constant state of flux- changing continuously from one shape to the next. Here is the definition of the law of coservation:

"The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added to or removed."

The key to understanding the Law of Conservation is to understand that it refers to the sum total of all mass in the universe, and that it is assumed that the system of mass (all known mass) is finite and cannot be added to in respect to its quantity. By the way it is interesting to note that even if all the mass and energy in the universe was infinite, it would still have constancy.

It does not refer to mass that changes due to external forces. Therefore, nothing is holding the shape of the rock together, as it is losing its shape particle by particle, second by second, due to external forces. It is to be understood that despite the changing shape of the rock, the sum total of universal mass and energy does not change whatsoever.

Therefore, this demonstrates his lack of understanding in regards to the Laws of Conservation, as he makes a ridiculous attempt at trying to convince people that the rock itself has constancy when in fact ... it simply does not.

The matter and energy that comprises the rock does have constancy according to the the Law of Conservation, but his example of demonstrating this law is very very poor, as he is attempting to convince you that the shape of the rock itself has constancy when in fact we all know it does not.

In a nutshell, the shape of the rock itself does indeed go "poof" over time.

Even if his rock example is merely an analogy to describe the Law of Conservation, it does not teach us something we do not already know. Basically all this man is really saying is that mass and energy are a constant, and then he posits God as the answer as to why mass and energy are a constant.

The rest is all smoke and mirrors, and we can find that any where.

Secondly, the man makes a very large leap by trying to explain that the Laws of Conservation and Nature must be held together by an external force. He then posits that the external force must be God.

Why must it be God? Why can it not be something else that has yet to be discovered? This man has absolutely no basis or evidence whatsoever to come to the conclusion that God must be the answer. He is making a positive claim that God is responsible for holding together the Laws of Conservation and Nature.

The Burden of Proof is now on him to prove the existence of God before he can make the claim that the Laws of Conservation and Nature are held together by God.

You need to understand that he begins with the premise that God exists. Therefore, before he can demonstrate his theory to be true, he must first prove that God exists.

But no, he is using the fallacies of:

1. Circular reasoning (god exists because the stone does not go poof; the stone does not go poof because God exists).

2. False dilemma ( 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).

3. Fallacy of the single cause (it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of other jointly sufficient causes).

4. Begging the question (providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise).


I have investigated this man on the internet. He is basically not well respected, and appears to be relatively unknown.

So stop defending his argument. It has been conclusively demonstrated to you numerous times how flawed it actually is.

Indeed, we also see the following regarding him from Richard Carrier:

Quote:Richard Carrier
Quote:Jules said… Richard, you might be interested (if you're not aware of it already) in a book by catholic philosopher-physicist Dennis Polis - http://xianphil.org/index.html

Server was dead when I tried it. At any rate, I haven't heard of him, and when I googled him I was not encouraged. He sounds like a lunatic to me.

Regarding Dennis Polis, God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism...

There's a lot of lame pseudoscientific silliness in there, which makes me unwilling to rely on him even when he seems to be saying something sane.

His attempt to explain the EPR paradox bears similarities to mine, but is much less well defined (cf.pp. 291ff.). He wants to say that the detectors have been entangled with the emitters since the Big Bang and thus everything is connected to everything else in a long chain of causation back to the first point of spacetime, and therefore what appear to be nonlocal effects are actually just the end results of really long chains of causation from a common shared point (the nucleus of the Big Bang). In other words, the detector and the emitter, traced back in time, both were once one entity, and as they split up they have remained in contact and so there should be no surprise that they now "know" what configuration they each are in.

I find this massively implausible, and at any rate he gives no mathematical formalism or any reason to believe his account even works. Indeed, his explanation is in worse shape than mine, since physicists would have to work vastly harder even to make sense of his theory, much less vet it for consistency with present physics.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2011/0...cists.html

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
[+] 6 users Like Free's post
08-11-2013, 11:08 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Poor old guy. Probably afraid to die. I guess no one ever explained entropy to him. Confused

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Assumptions
Gigantor is the biggest conscious entity that exists.
God is an existing conscious entity.

Premise 1: There exists conscious entities
Premise 2: Conscious entities come in different sizes
Premise 3: If we have a conscious entity then there is the possibility that there is another conscious entity that is bigger than it.
Premise 4: God is a conscious entity
Premise 5: God is not Gigantor

Conclusion: Gigantor exists and is the biggest conscious entity that exists.

Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 10:29 AM)Free Wrote:  He claims that some things "do not change," such as the rock, but yet fails to demonstrate any evidence to support this assertion. In fact, according to science, all things are in a constant state of flux, and there is no such thing as constancy in this respect. The rock is indeed changing with the passage of time, and given enough time it will completely crumble to dust.
This is a game changer.

If the theory posited in the OP is in fact a scientific theory then that means it is falsifiable.
Since you have proven it as false (the rock is in an unavoidable state of change) then there is no god to maintain consistency.
Which irrefutably means that this god does not exist.

This is what the god believers who appeal to science need to realise. If they want scientific proof of their god then they have to insist that their scientific proof be falsifiable and thus they must put their faith to the test, they must be prepared to accept if their falsifiable proof is falsified that their god cannot exist.

Heywood Jahblome - Let me be the first to give you a warm welcome into the family of free thinking atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
08-11-2013, 02:59 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
Heywood, you're not supposed to be trying to think. Read your own signature for crying out loud. Drinking Beverage

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(08-11-2013 01:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is what the god believers who appeal to science need to realise. If they want scientific proof of their god then they have to insist that their scientific proof be falsifiable and thus they must put their faith to the test, they must be prepared to accept if their falsifiable proof is falsified that their god cannot exist.

I hate it when religious people try to get all scientific about their beliefs, especially pastors. The fact that religion appeals to faith means that there can be NO other means to accept the belief. It cannot be proven scientifically. This is why faith is needed. Otherwise why ask for faith if there was another more reliable way to show the validity of the belief/claim?

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BlackMason's post
09-11-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Can you show this proof of God's existence to be wrong?
(09-11-2013 08:27 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  I hate it when religious people try to get all scientific about their beliefs, especially pastors. The fact that religion appeals to faith means that there can be NO other means to accept the belief. It cannot be proven scientifically. This is why faith is needed. Otherwise why ask for faith if there was another more reliable way to show the validity of the belief/claim?
Yeah, it seems somewhat contradictory when a person appeals to apologetics or science in order to prove their god whilst at the same time appealing to the requirement of faith, that a person would have no choice of free will if their god revealed itself.

The implications of "requirement of faith" is that one's belief system must be consistent with a position that "the observable universe behaves in a way as if there is no god".

Thus the believers receive no measurable Earthly advantage, prayers are not answered in materialistic or statistically measurable ways. It results in something not too dissimilar to a deistic belief, that their god created the universe but has no dominion and does not intervene. Of course their god can still be personal, it can behave as a great listener to their prayers and thoughts. These believers can even feel good imagining that some great, perfect friend is listening to them. For the Catholics, they can imagine that bread and wine become the substance of blood and flesh of their god, but they can't look for proof. The bread and wine scientifically will be bread and wine.

Insistence that Eucharist miracles, globs of "uncorrupted" blood are somehow proof, would violate the "requirement of faith".

So when a believer prays, they need to pray for things that can't be measured. They cannot pray for sunny wedding days, or for the outcome of a test or sports game, they cannot pray for a miraculous recovery, because these all would appear as statistically measurable.
They could however pray for inner strength, or pray with regards to giving thanks or simply recounting their day or their troubles as it they were writing a private diary. This makes me wonder, "with people whom write diary entries frequently do they feel a personal relationship with their diary?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: