Scientific Argument for God's existence

[SelfSim]

The fundamental things that the universe is made out of have predictable characteristics. So what?

(There are no objective tests that I've seen, and therefore there won't be any evidence for, 'fundamental particles' existing independently from any meanings we choose assign to that phrase, too. The predictable characteristics aren't that evidence .. that's only evidence of consistencies we perceive .. and nothing 'beyond' that).

 

[variant]

(There are no objective tests that I've seen, and therefore there won't be any evidence for, 'fundamental particles' existing independently from any meanings we choose assign to that phrase, too).

OK. The standard model makes many good predictions about how matter is basically organized.

So what?

 

[SelfSim]

OK. The standard model makes many good predictions about how matter is basically organized.

So what?

Oh .. I totally agree with your point about how none of anything mmarco said (shown in your post #158) justifies the existence of his apparently math-practising 'God'. Just replace 'God' with: 'something that exists independently of a human mind' (admittedly, somewhat wordier) .. and we arrive at the same conclusion.
My point was extending your point to the same applying to 'fundamental particles' ... and now also, to those you make above.

 

[variant]

Oh .. I totally agree with your point about how none of anything mmarco said (shown in your post #158) justifies the existence of his apparently math-practising 'God'. Just replace 'God' with: 'something that exists independently of a human mind' (admittedly, somewhat wordier) .. and we arrive at the same conclusion.
My point was extending your point to the same applying to 'fundamental particles' ... and now also, to your point above.

I understand that there are conceptual constraints on what I am talking about, but I'm also in the camp that there are things outside my mind that my mind is attempting to describe.

 

[SelfSim]

I understand that there are conceptual constraints on what I am talking about, but I'm also in the camp that there are things outside my mind that my mind is attempting to describe.

Oh .. ok .. (sorry to hear that).
One doesn't need that part to make the point you're trying to make. In fact, it undermines it.

 

[variant]

Oh .. ok .. (sorry to hear that).
One doesn't need that part to make the point you're trying to make. In fact, it undermines it.

I can't see how it could be avoided.

It's also quite a bit easier I think than demonstrating Gods if you are interested.

 

[SelfSim]

I can't see how it could be avoided.

It's also quite a bit easier I think than demonstrating Gods if you are interested.

Sure .. but expediency also doesn't make it good science.

 

[variant]

Sure .. but expediency also doesn't make it good science.

Less difficult than impossible is what I am going for.

I'll shoot you a PM sometime soon, I don't want to completely derail the thread, and today Isn't great for me.

 

[Michael]

Quite; you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

Unless it relates to the "big bang".

 

[Michael]

So, unsurprisingly I can't find anything that actually backs your assertions that you could actually claim to know.

Your take on quantum mechanics is fun, but I don't see how you could possibly support the conclusion that an independent conscious God mind is required for us to have a very good model of quantum mechanics that makes predictions well into the future.

That is free to mean that quantum mechanics was particularly easy to model given what we already did with math at the macro level.

The Standard model came with a huge amount of experimentation and the input of a lot of people, so, the idea that they boiled it down to it's essence and made some great predictions isn't really enough to proclaim that "obviously God must exists".

Fundamental particles are free to be as logical as mathematics, what does that show us really? A quantum mechanical revolution that showed we missed a bunch of stuff and opened up new avenues of scientific intrigue certainly wouldn't show God to be false either so I don't get it.

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

 

[variant]

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

Yeah I've never found that particularly convincing.

Calculating the probability for very complex things you don't fundamentally understand is always going to be a trigger of mine.

 

[Michael]

Yeah I've never found that particularly convincing.

Calculating the probability for very complex things you don't fundamentally understand is always going to be a trigger of mine.

Well, if you consider the *whole of eternity*, it's quite likely that something intelligent has existed for a very long time.

 

[variant]

Well, if you consider the *whole of eternity*, it's quite likely that something intelligent has existed for a very long time.

How long has time been going on then?

Long enough to create an intelligence that never dies and can create anything it wishes? Randomly? How would we know?

I think you might be positing not just one God but an infinity of them.

Not exactly the most elegant or simple solution.

 

[Michael]

How long has time been going on then?

Beats me. It could be infinite for all I know.

Long enough to create an intelligence that never dies and can create anything it wishes? Randomly? How would we know?

Randomly? I'm not sure we could know of it's existence if it's actions were purely "random".

 

[variant]

Beats me. It could be infinite for all I know.

Right, well that's kind of the problem with probability's when we don't know the fundamentals.

It's pretty easy to go from 0 to 1 by just lengthening out time to infinity even for the slowest increases or unlikely events.

So, if there is no such thing as an "unlikely" event we shouldn't be using probability.

Randomly? I'm not sure we could know of it's existence if it's actions were purely "random".

We can't know of any entity's actions if we can't tell the difference between (it) and (not it). So, you've got two problems.

I was merely suggesting it's creation was random like with the Boltzmann Brain idea.

I'm not really convinced either way just playing around. I don't think we have the capacity to predict the probability of our own chemically produced brains.

And, as much fun as this is, I just said I didn't want to derail this thread.

 

[Michael]

Right, well that's kind of the problem with probability's when we don't know the fundamentals.

It's pretty easy to go from 0 to 1 by just lengthening out time to infinity even for the slowest increases or unlikely events.

So, if there is no such thing as an "unlikely" event we shouldn't be using probability.

Maybe not, but it's done all the time, particularly in astronomy. Multiverse theory is pretty much dependent upon it.

We can't know of any entity's actions if we can't tell the difference between (it) and (not it). So, you've got two problems.

I was merely suggesting it's creation was random like with the Boltzmann Brain idea.

It's method of creation (random of otherwise) are less problematic IMO than it's motives in terms of "being known".

I'm not really convinced either way just playing around. I don't think we have the capacity to predict the probability of our own chemically produced brains.

Well, whatever the odds, there's 100 percent chance it happened at least once, so I fail to see why it would be "impossible".

 

[variant]

Maybe not, but it's done all the time, particularly in astronomy. Multiverse theory is pretty much dependent upon it.

"it's done all the time" doesn't make it a great, or productive idea.

I consider multiverse ideas to be particularly sloppy in this regard.

It's method of creation (random of otherwise) are less problematic IMO than it's motives in terms of "being known".

Or if it exists at all.

Well, whatever the odds, there's 100 percent chance it happened at least once, so I fail to see why it would be "impossible".

Yeah of the three brains we talked about, we know only that human brains have a non-zero probability. So, what is the likelihood that they are produced first out of the three?

What is the likely-hood of any statistic where we don't fundamentally understand the first thing about what we're talking about? Somewhere on or between 0 and 1 I would suppose.

Maybe I can get them to assign negative numbers for stupid ideas that are counter productive.

 

[Michael]

Math is a human invention.

Perhaps so, but physics is not. The fact the physical universe follows predictable patterns is also not a human invention. We simply use math to demonstrate it's predictability.

 

[Michael]

"it's done all the time" doesn't make it a great, or productive idea.

I consider multiverse ideas to be particularly sloppy in this regard.

Well, perhaps, but it's done in (standard) particle physics too, quite successfully I might add.

Or if it exists at all.

We would not be able to prove a negative, but we might be able to prove a positive.

Yeah of the three brains we talked about, we know only that human brains have a non-zero probability. So, what is the likelihood that they are produced first out of the three?

You keep asking questions I can't answer.

What is the likely-hood of any statistic where we don't fundamentally understand the first thing about what we're talking about? Somewhere on or between 0 and 1 I would suppose.

Maybe I can get them to assign negative numbers for stupid ideas that are counter productive.

Since we have no evidence that energy can be created or destroyed, I think it's "reasonable" to assume that something (some form of energy) has existed eternally. Time as we understand it is a function of mass/energy, so it's not a great leap of faith to assume that time has always existed. If that is true, then the probability of intelligent life becomes close to 100 percent, and our existence would tend to support that concept.

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps so, but physics is not. The fact the physical universe follows predictable patterns is also not a human invention.

That we all share a common brain, most of which recognise consistencies in perceptions, is the demonstrable fact here .. and not that there is a universe which exists independently from us.
(We control what 'exists' means .. the meaning is not something we suddenly find floating around 'out there', someplace).

We simply use math to demonstrate it's predictability.

Math is a descriptive language used in describing perceptions .. the logic of it is what allows extrapolations to form predictions.