Scientific Argument for God's existence

[Michael]

That we all share a common brain, most of which recognise consistencies in perceptions, is the demonstrable fact here ..

Well, that is demonstrated too, but what's also demonstrated is the fact that the universe does and has been following predictable patterns which we are able to discern.

and not that there is a universe which exists independently from us.

Of course the universe exists independently of us. The physical universe existed *long* before humans first walked the Earth and it will exist long after we're gone too.

(We control what 'exists' means .. the meaning is not something we suddenly find floating around 'out there', someplace).

We're not the only form of life in the universe however.

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

Ok.

 

[SelfSim]

.. but what's also demonstrated is the fact that the universe does and has been following predictable patterns which we are able to discern.

.. and it took a model of 'the universe' you have in your mind as well as a human mind perceiving time and patterns, to tell you (and us) all of that.

Of course the universe exists independently of us.

Just claiming that, whilst concealing your objective test for that, does not convince me, nor anyone who understands how the word 'exists' acquires it meaning.

The physical universe existed *long* before humans first walked the Earth and it will exist long after we're gone too.

That's a (testable) model you hold in mind .. and not evidence of anything more than that.

We're not the only form of life in the universe however.

We're the only form that can describe what that word ('exists') means and how it got that meaning, however.

 

[SelfSim]

... but what's also demonstrated is the fact that the universe does and has been following predictable patterns which we are able to discern.

.. and it took a model of 'the universe' you have in your mind as well as a human mind perceiving time and patterns, to tell you (and us) all of that.

See, there are actually two main hypotheses under test in what you said:

1a) Some kind of reality might exist independently from us ('the physical universe') and;
1b) Our perceptions that we model when we use our words 'the physical universe follows predictable patterns', (or exhibit a constant regularity), which we then go on to call 'the laws of Physics'.

However, we only ever test (1b), and that has absolutely nothing to do with (1a).
No connection between (1a) and (1b):
- is necessary for science,
- ever appears in any science textbook and;
- is ever tested by any science experiment.

(1a) is pure belief, (1b) is Physics .. and what's more, it's a kind of naive physics which, for some odd reason, we always leave out the role our minds play in doing the perceiving and modelling from the get-go. (1b) is like a 'what if' scenario that brings us all kinds of benefits from being able to think in terms of hypotheticals. Which is of course, why it has nothing to do with (1a).

 

[ruthiesea]

.. and it took a model of 'the universe' you have in your mind as well as a human mind perceiving time and patterns, to tell you (and us) all of that.

Just claiming that, whilst concealing your objective test for that, does not convince me, nor anyone who understands how the word 'exists' acquires it meaning.

That's a (testable) model you hold in mind .. and not evidence of anything more than that.

We're the only form that can describe what that word ('exists') means and how it got that meaning, however.

So, you are unable to argue the points made by Michael. Instead you resort to semantics. Not very effective.

That G-d created the universe, is by my beliefs, a given. That addresses the “who”. It is the job of science to learn about the “how”.

 

[Michael]

.. and it took a model of 'the universe' you have in your mind as well as a human mind perceiving time and patterns, to tell you (and us) all of that.

Your mind and my mind have *very* different perceptions about our universe.

You appear to be arguing the position that humans and humans alone are the only living beings that exist, or have ever existed in the entire universe that have/had the ability to "perceive" the universe or comprehend it. I have no evidence to support such a conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

Lets make this simpler:

Do you think the statement 2+2=4 is mind independent, or mind dependent?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lets make this simpler:

Do you think the statement 2+2=4 is mind independent, or mind dependent?

Working with an assumption that you consider that statement to be true I think you miss a fundamental point - it depends if reality is mind independent or mind dependent.

 

[Michael]

See, there are actually two main hypotheses under test in what you said:

1a) Some kind of reality might exist independently from us ('the physical universe') and;

Are you actually arguing otherwise? Surely you don't believe that the universe came into existence only after the first human was born?

1b) Our perceptions that we model when we use our words 'the physical universe follows predictable patterns', (or exhibit a constant regularity), which we then go on to call 'the laws of Physics'.

The terms themselves are indeed human concepts, but the ability to predict the movement patterns of the physical universe aren't necessarily limited to humans. I'm sure other animals for instance understand the concept of day and night, perhaps not as we do, but they 'predict' it's pattern none the less.

(1a) is pure belief,

I would argue that it's empirical fact.

I think you read more into 1b that is necessary IMO. Being able to predict hot and cold cycles for instance is something even single celled organisms have mastered.

How brainless slime molds redefine intelligence

 

[Michael]

Lets make this simpler:

Do you think the statement 2+2=4 is mind independent, or mind dependent?

Try this example: Are daylight and night mind dependent processes, or physical facts?

 

[SelfSim]

Do you think the statement 2+2=4 is mind independent, or mind dependent?

Working with an assumption that you consider that statement to be true I think you miss a fundamental point - it depends if reality is mind independent or mind dependent.

So you need to know whether reality is mind dependent, or mind independent, before you’d know the answer to that question? (Is that right??)

How do you propose to go about knowing that, then?

 

[Michael]

So you need to know whether reality is mind dependent, or mind independent, before you’d know the answer to that question? (Is that right??)

How do you propose to go about knowing that, then?

Birds Can Count: How We Know it

 

[SelfSim]

Are you actually arguing otherwise? Surely you don't believe that the universe came into existence only after the first human was born?

No .. but more importantly; say I talked about planets that form, have rivers cut canyons on them, and then freeze into oblivion as their stars die, and no mind ever knows anything about those planets. Those are not mind independent planets .. because it was my mind that just told you about such hypothetical entities, and hence my mind gave meaning to everything I just said.

Since I could not possibly know what meaning you took from the words I just used, then your mind also gave those words meaning .. again the mind dependence is completely clear, and you and I might not be picturing the same planet there at all. That's still mind dependence.

Say you learned about a specific planet ‘XYZ’ in that group of planets .. your mind gave your knowledge that meaning. That meaning simply did not exist yesterday, it didn't exist in some unformed ethereal glow that you'd could call mind independent simply because your knowledge didn't exist.

Perhaps some other person knew a bunch of stuff about ‘XYZ’ before you did, and then their minds gave meaning to their knowledge, which is of course demonstrably different from your knowledge. More mind dependence there. Nothing anywhere in that story is mind independent and I can see quite easily the role of all the minds involved.

The terms themselves are indeed human concepts, but the ability to predict the movement patterns of the physical universe aren't necessarily limited to humans. I'm sure other animals for instance understand the concept of day and night, perhaps not as we do, but they 'predict' it's pattern none the less.

And what is it that tells you that they 'predict its pattern'?

I would argue that it's empirical fact.

Yet there is not even a test which doesn't involve a human mind to produce the evidence supporting that so called 'fact'.

I think you read more into 1b that is necessary IMO. Being able to predict hot and cold cycles for instance is something even single celled organisms have mastered.

.. and everything you said there is the model you have in your mind .. That model is certainly objectively testable too .. but it is only ever the model you're testing (and not 'the thing' which supposedly exists independently from it).

 

[SelfSim]

Birds Can Count: How We Know it

Let's see:

That's at least according to a study recently published in the journal Behavioral Processes, which details how wild robins in New Zealand become noticeably bothered when they've been "cheated" out of a set number of promised mealworms.

‘Bothered’ and ‘cheated’ are human words (emotions). ('Cheated' was even put in double quotes). They have the meanings we give them. We can only infer that’s what robins do under these circumstances .. and its us that do the inferring here .. and not a robin describing what the actual model in its mind may be ..

Just about all the rest of the commentary in that article describes what the scientists interpreted .. ie: their model .. and not what the robin was interpreting (see the emboldened terms for the evidence for that):

“We asked ourselves, how does she know to rob the site with the biggest food source? And that's when we started to think that these birds understood the concept of amounts," Burns explained in a statement.

I won’t deny that robins may possess what we mean by ‘basic intelligence’ .. that’s what our model known as Evolution/LUCA informs us about in a way that makes sense to us of our observations we make around us.

None of the article, nor any of the scientist's interpretions are evidence of anything existing independently from our minds ... but plenty of evidence of the human mind dependence in explaining the observation of our perceptions of what we now mean by 'a robin's behaviours'.

 

[mmarco]

I mean they act in a way we find rational and logical. Simple systems that exhibit behavior that we find rational and logical to us are the easiest to predict.

So, what about this requires a God?

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

First of all, fundamental particles are not "things", as also Heisenberg said; in physics, with the word "fundamental particles" we refer to abstract mathematical models; the intuitive common meaning of the word "particle" is absolutely inadequate do describe what "quantum particles" are.

This is my point:
All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as the realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

Of course you are free to reject our scientific knowledges about the universe, but in this case, what do you know about the external reality? Do you think it is just a creation of your own mind, like a dream?

 

[SelfSim]

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

A perfectly circular argument here .. based on personal incredulity with not a shread of evidence or even an objective test supporting any of it!

Of course you are free to reject our scientific knowledges about the universe, but in this case, what do you know about the external reality? Do you think it is just a creation of your own mind, like a dream?

'External reality' remains a model of something we like to believe exists .. and that's all.

 

[Speedwell]

First of all, fundamental particles are not "things", as also Heisenberg said; in physics, with the word "fundamental particles" we refer to abstract mathematical models; the intuitive common meaning of the word "particle" is absolutely inadequate do describe what "quantum particles" are.

This is my point:
All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as the realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

Of course you are free to reject our scientific knowledges about the universe, but in this case, what do you know about the external reality? Do you think it is just a creation of your own mind, like a dream?

I'm still not seeing a necessary connection between "is modeled by" and "is the realization of."

 

[mmarco]

I'm still not seeing a necessary connection between "is modeled by" and "is the realization of."

Actually, I use these terms as synonimous; if you conceive a mathematical model and then you construct a real situation which behaves exactly as your model, you have made a realization of your model.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, I use these terms as synonimous; if you conceive a mathematical model and then you construct a real situation which behaves exactly as your model, you have made a realization of your model.

That's only true if the real situation is constructed to match the model. But isn't that what you are trying to prove? And you still don't know if the model used by the constructor of the real situation was the same exact same model that observers like us have constructed to model it.

 

[mmarco]

That's only true if the real situation is constructed to match the model. But isn't that what you are trying to prove? And you still don't know if the model used by the constructor of the real situation was the same exact same model that observers like us have constructed to model it.

No, as I have already said, I am not trying to give a proof of God's existence; I am just explaing an argument, which personally, I find fully convincing.

Let me try to rephrased what a wrote:

All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as a possible realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

I hope this makes clearer my position.

 

[Speedwell]

No, as I have already said, I am not trying to give a proof of God's existence; I am just explaing an argument, which personally, I find fully convincing.

Let me try to rephrased what a wrote:

All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as a possible realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

I hope this makes clearer my position.

Yes, that's much better now that you have dropped the corollary,

Of course you are free to reject our scientific knowledges about the universe, but in this case, what do you know about the external reality? Do you think it is just a creation of your own mind, like a dream?

Which implied that anyone who disagreed with you was a solipsist. There are other possibilities.

"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

--J. B. S. Haldane​