How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

The question you just asked does not assume that.

Here's an example of a question that does: Is testing a viable way of determining what is real? Answer: Yes, however, how you test things does matter.

I would say that *empirical* cause/effect testing is a viable way to determining what is *empirically* real. How something like "awareness" or intelligence fits into the realm of "empirical" is anyone's guess, and probably open to subjective interpretation at some point.

Answer: There's no reason to assume anything in reality can't be tested. If you have a reason, give it.

The example I would use is the concept of "space expansion". By "design", no amount of "space expansion" is expected to occur on Earth, or inside our solar system, or inside our galaxy, or inside even our local galaxy cluster. Furthermore there are *multiple* empirical causes of photon redshift that would be more "probable" causes of any sort of redshift phenomenon in plasma over massive distances.

In fact, the transfer of photon momentum to a plasma medium is a documented fact in the lab. I would therefore "assume" it would occur in plasma in space as well. Moving objects and potentially time dilation is also a documented "cause" of photon redshift.

How then could I setup a real "test" for "space expansion" which can presumably only ever occur between galaxy clusters where humans can never reach to start with, and without any control mechanisms whatsoever?

There are simply too many empirical alternatives and too many potential "causes" to rule them out as the real "cause" of any photon redshift patterns we observe in space.

I'm in agreement with others on this board that God cannot be proven via the scientific method because it depends upon falsifiability.

Actually, I would say it depends upon the definition of God (or hypothetical entity) being used more than it depends on the concept of "falsification". The less "natural" (empirically) the definition, the more difficult the "falsification" aspect becomes.

It might be possible rule out some hypothetical ideas about "gravitons" being a carrier particle of gravity, but it's unlikely that we could ever rule out every potential definition of a graviton.

I would also stress the point that "science" certainly crosses the boundary with respect to falsification and infinity, so any limitation imposed on the topic of God with respect to either of those issues is really just a personal choice one makes that isn't related to the scientific method.

 

[Michael]

The question you just asked does not assume that.

Here's an example of a question that does: Is testing a viable way of determining what is real? Answer: Yes, however, how you test things does matter.

I would say that *empirical* cause/effect testing is a viable way to determining what is *empirically* real. How something like "awareness" or intelligence fits into the realm of "empirical" is anyone's guess, and probably open to subjective interpretation at some point.

Answer: There's no reason to assume anything in reality can't be tested. If you have a reason, give it.

The example I would use is the concept of "space expansion". By "design", no amount of "space expansion" is expected to occur on Earth, or inside our solar system, or inside our galaxy, or inside even our local galaxy cluster. Furthermore there are *multiple* empirical causes of photon redshift that would be more "probable" causes of any sort of redshift phenomenon in plasma over massive distances.

In fact, the transfer of photon momentum to a plasma medium is a documented fact in the lab. I would therefore "assume" it would occur in plasma in space as well. Moving objects and potentially time dilation is also a documented "cause" of photon redshift.

How then could I setup a real "test" for "space expansion" which can presumably only ever occur between galaxy clusters where humans can never reach to start with, and without any control mechanisms whatsoever?

There are simply too many empirical alternatives and too many potential "causes" to rule them out as the real "cause" of any photon redshift patterns we observe in space.

I'm in agreement with others on this board that God cannot be proven via the scientific method because it depends upon falsifiability.

Actually, I would say it depends upon the definition of God (or hypothetical entity) being used more than it depends on the concept of "falsification". The less "natural" (empirically) the definition, the more difficult the "falsification" aspect becomes.

It might be possible rule out some hypothetical ideas about "gravitons" being a carrier particle of gravity, but it's unlikely that we could ever rule out every potential definition of a graviton.

I would also stress the point that "science" certainly crosses the boundary with respect to falsification and infinity, so any limitation imposed on the topic of God with respect to either of those issues is really just a personal choice one makes that isn't related to the scientific method.

 

[Freodin]

Paging Loudmouth, let us resume our exchange on babies as the evidence of God existing from my part, and from your part for God not existing.

We were talking about babies are caused by their parents, what do you say - again?

I think it was with Freodin, but it is okay with Loudmouth.

Again?

Shall I repeat myself... again?

You seem to have missed my first post regarding this question... which you can find here, post #589.

You seem to have missed my second post, made after you asked me to point you to that post. You can find it here, post #686.

And now you have the insolence to ask me what I say - again?

How about you after a snail-trail of a thread, after managing from post 1 to "establish" nothing but your two soundbites... how about you get your stuff together and present us with something reasonable?

Again, I can only speak for myself. I don't know what others will or won't do.

But here is a WARNING!
I give you one last chance to stop stalling, to present a reasonable argumentation or to respond to my rebuttal of your line of reasoning... which you can find in the linked post. (Seriously, CLICK THE LINK!)

Otherwise this conversation is over.

 

[Kylie]

Dear Hitch, thanks for your invite to me to concur with you on the following items:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

I concur, except No. 3, please give four (4) concrete examples from things present in the realm of existence outside of concepts in our mind, explaining as to illustrate what you mean by the wording of your No. 3 item.

A falsifiable model is an idea of how something could work, and it is something that we can prove to be wrong. So if we have an idea, we can say, "If the idea is true, then we would not be able to find such and and such a thing. Thus, if we DO find that thing, it would falsify our idea." For example, if evolution is true, then we would not expect to find a fossil rabbit in the pre Cambrian. If we ever did find a fossil rabbit in the pre Cambrian, then it would show us without any doubt that there was something seriously wrong with our understanding of evolution. Similarly, other theories like gravity, electrical theory, germ theory etc are also falsifiable. Gravity, for example, could be easily falsified if I was to drop something and instead of falling it just hung unsupported in the air.

Predictive capabilities mean that we can use the idea to figure out what we will find in the future. Again, evolution fits with this. The existence of Darwin's Hawk Moth was predicted by the discovery of an orchid. The nectary of the orchid's flower was a foot long. Since orchids were pollinated by insects as they came to drink from the nectary, scientists were able to say that there would have to be a kind of insect with an extraordinarily long proboscis which had evolved to feed on the nectar. Another example is the periodic table. When it was first developed, there were several holes in it, where elements would fit, but those elements had not yet been discovered. Nonetheless, scientists were able to predict what properties those elements would have based on their understanding of how elements were arranged in the table, and when the elements were later discovered, they found that their predictions were confirmed. I can also make predictions using the theory of gravity. I can use that theory to determine where a projectile will land if I launch it in a particular direction, at a particular speed, at a particular angle, in a particular gravitational field.

On the other hand, let's look at a theory that is not falsifiable and does not make any predictions - there are elves that live in my washing machine that steal socks. It is not falsifiable. If you look inside the washing machine and see no elves, I can say, "Oh, but they're invisible." Of you reach inside and can't feel them, I can explain it by saying they are intangible. Whatever you say to show the elves are not there, I can come up with some explanation to show they are the explains why your reasoning is wrong. and I can't use it to make predictions either. The elves steal socks completely at random. And sometimes they take other items of clothes instead of socks. I can never say if a particular sock will be stolen or not. Of course, this idea is silly.

Does this clear up number three?

 

[Michael]

Does this clear up number three?

It doesn't clear it up as it relates to big (and little) applications of physics.

How would I go about falsifying every potential QM oriented concept of gravity and every potential configuration of a "graviton"?

How would I go about falsifying every potential form of exotic matter theory in a lab, particularly after the LHC results have shown us no hint of exotic forms of matter?

How would I go about falsifying the claim "space expansion did it"?

No microscopic or macroscopic branch of physics is limited by a falsification necessity. It's nice and all, but if it worked as you claimed, SUSY theories (plural) would be dead by now, and so would any additional searches for exotic forms of matter.

In terms of the "predictions" aspect, most of that process is "haphazard" at best. Astronomers and particle physicists made all sorts of "predictions" about exotic forms of matter prior to LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. Instead of finding anything, they found nothing they "predicted". Normally, at least by your logic, this should have falsified something, but instead, they keep insisting that some forms of exotic matter must exist and they keep building additional experiments.

There's no falsification possible in an 'exotic matter of the gaps' theory, and the supposed "predictions" aren't even actually used to falsify the concept as a whole, just one small "gap" region.

 

[Pachomius]

Dear Freodin, you know what? I have come to the enlightenment that there is only one rule by which all talkers must adhere to, unless anyone wants to be unreasonable and un-intelligent.

So, be reasonable and intelligent.

As an atheist you seek evidence for God existing.

As a theist I give you babies as evidence for God existing.

Now, let us we two be reasonable and intelligent.

I say babies are the evidence of God existing because it is the reasonable and intelligent conclusion, from thinking on how babies come about.

What do you say, please be reasonable and intelligent.

 

[bhsmte]

Dear Freodin, you know what? I have come to the enlightenment that there is only one rule by which all talkers must adhere to, unless anyone wants to be unreasonable and un-intelligent.

So, be reasonable and intelligent.

As an atheist you seek evidence for God existing.

As a theist I give you babies as evidence for God existing.

Now, let us we two be reasonable and intelligent.

I say babies are the evidence of God existing because it is the reasonable and intelligent conclusion, from thinking on how babies come about.

What do you say, please be reasonable and intelligent.

I can be reasonable and intelligent. I say, babies are evidence of a man and women having sex.

 

[Freodin]

Dear Freodin, you know what? I have come to the enlightenment that there is only one rule by which all talkers must adhere to, unless anyone wants to be unreasonable and un-intelligent.

So, be reasonable and intelligent.

As an atheist you seek evidence for God existing.

As a theist I give you babies as evidence for God existing.

Now, let us we two be reasonable and intelligent.

I say babies are the evidence of God existing because it is the reasonable and intelligent conclusion, from thinking on how babies come about.

What do you say, please be reasonable and intelligent.

I am doing the reasonable and intelligent thing now: I am ending this conversation.
Rant and rave about us unreasonable atheists playing hide and seek... I think I gave you enough chances. You didn't take them... I am not going to speculate about your reasons.

This conversation is over.

 

[Pachomius]

So far two atheists have responded to my request to think as to show the use of reason and intelligence.

Yes, babies are evidence of a man and a woman having sex and thus the woman gives birth to a baby.

Now, please be intelligent, go further to the parents of these two persons, they were babies also once: as you are intelligent and thus curious, ask yourselves where they the parents come from?

 

[Pachomius]

Thanks, Michael, for using your reason and intelligence.

Now, tell me, are babies examples of reality, and tell me how they get to come to be in reality?

The Earth is an example of a physical entity that is in reality which we can learn things about.

 

[Pachomius]

Falsifiability is the criterion that some people want to use as the criterion to distinguish between science and metaphysics.

Testability is the criterion by which people with reason and intelligence use to ascertain that something is working, like a man and a woman doing sex to ascertain that they could and would come to the woman giving birth to a baby.

First you need to demonstrate that the items you mentioned are even applied in science in the same way that you're trying to apply them to the topic of God.

Show us how these definitions apply to the topic of cosmology for instance, and then I'll have some confidence that they are applicable to the topic of God, and have value in "science".

F

 

[Pachomius]

Now, I get it, when a poster here using his reason and intelligence decides to not talk with you anymore, he will first issue you a ‘warning’ to agree with him, else he will no longer talk with you.

Oh, that is very reasonable and intelligent on his part.

 

[Gene2memE]

Now, please be intelligent, go further to the parents of these two persons, they were babies also once: as you are intelligent and thus curious, ask yourselves where they the parents come from?

From their parents, who came from their parents, who came from their parents, and so on and so forth down the generations, until you reach the LUCA.

If you want to argue that the last universal common ancestor is evidence for your concept of God ("first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning"), you'll have to do a lot better than you've done until now.

What have you got?

 

[Kylie]

How would I go about falsifying every potential QM oriented concept of gravity and every potential configuration of a "graviton"?

Are these things being presented as scientific fact?

How would I go about falsifying every potential form of exotic matter theory in a lab, particularly after the LHC results have shown us no hint of exotic forms of matter?

Again, are scientists presenting this as scientific fact, or are they just saying, "We think this is very likely, and what we see can be interpreted in this light."

How would I go about falsifying the claim "space expansion did it"?

Did what? Are you going on about your electric universe stuff again?

No microscopic or macroscopic branch of physics is limited by a falsification necessity. It's nice and all, but if it worked as you claimed, SUSY theories (plural) would be dead by now, and so would any additional searches for exotic forms of matter.

Are you suggesting that they are incapable of being tested? And that they are incapable of providing testable predictions?

In terms of the "predictions" aspect, most of that process is "haphazard" at best. Astronomers and particle physicists made all sorts of "predictions" about exotic forms of matter prior to LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc. Instead of finding anything, they found nothing they "predicted". Normally, at least by your logic, this should have falsified something, but instead, they keep insisting that some forms of exotic matter must exist and they keep building additional experiments.

You'll have to take it up with them, as I have very little knowledge about subatomic particles, QM and the like. Needless to say, since they have studied this stuff for years and I doubt you haven't (please feel free to prove me wrong, however! Have you studied quantum mechanics?), I think they know a great deal more about this topic than you do, so I shall go with their judgement on the matter, not yours.

 

[Freodin]

I am not attempting to share in this conversation any more. I just thought to point out this gem:

Now, I get it, when a poster here using his reason and intelligence decides to not talk with you anymore, he will first issue you a ‘warning’ to agree with him, else he will no longer talk with you.

Oh, that is very reasonable and intelligent on his part.

Now go back a few posts and compare that with:

If you do not concur, please bear with me, I will not interact with you, because I see you to be bereft of reason.

If only there was a religion that had a divine commandment against bearing false witness... how glorious that would be!

 

[Radrook]

Thanks, Michael, for using your reason and intelligence.

Now, tell me, are babies examples of reality, and tell me how they get to come to be in reality?

Thanks, Michael, for using your reason and intelligence.

Now, tell me, are babies examples of reality, and tell me how they get to come to be in reality?

Their ubiquitous and immediate answer is always that the chemicals did it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Their ubiquitous and immediate answer is always that the chemicals did it.

And your "ubiquitous and immediate answer is always," 'things are so complex and I don't understand it, so mygoddidit.'

Arguments from ignorance don't impress anyone, least of all the actual experts doing the work.

Rather than wasting your time trying to convince others to be as incredulous as you, go to a book store and pick up a real book about biology, or cosmology, or paleontology. You'll be a better person because of it. I promise.

 

[Michael]

Are these things being presented as scientific fact?

That's irrelevant. They are presented as scientific theories. 'Space expansion' is in fact typically presented as a "scientific fact", even though it's a subjective *interpretation*, not a fact.

Again, are scientists presenting this as scientific fact, or are they just saying, "We think this is very likely, and what we see can be interpreted in this light."

That really doesn't matter one iota. The fact it's presented as a viable "scientific" theory, and it's unfalsifiable is all that matters in terms of making my point.

The degree of "confidence" in the concept is irrelevant.

Did what? Are you going on about your electric universe stuff again?

No, I simply pointed out that "space expansion" never happens in the lab. I didn't say a peep about other empirical options.

Are you suggesting that they are incapable of being tested? And that they are incapable of providing testable predictions?

Dark matter theory has failed every single "testable prediction" made by it's proponents over the past decade. The entire basis for the idea, namely their confidence in their baryonic mass estimation techniques, has been shown to be *hugely flawed* as well. What "test" could possibly falsify the whole concept of exotic matter? There are potentially an infinite number of mathematical options to choose from.

You'll have to take it up with them, as I have very little knowledge about subatomic particles, QM and the like. Needless to say, since they have studied this stuff for years and I doubt you haven't (please feel free to prove me wrong, however! Have you studied quantum mechanics?),

Ya, I've studied it a bit, but not as much as I've studied astronomy and GR theory. Which of your experts told you that QM oriented ideas about gravity can be completely falsified?

You seem to be pulling an appeal to authority fallacy out of your hat, without even quoting any specific "expert" that claims the idea is "falsifiable".

I think they know a great deal more about this topic than you do, so I shall go with their judgement on the matter, not yours.

That's fine if you could produce any evidence to support your beliefs. Really the only one of the four supernatural elements of big bang theory that can actually be tested in the lab has been a complete and utter failure to date. That's a fact. So much for their 'expert predictions', and their supposed superior understanding of the topic.

 

[Kylie]

That's irrelevant. They are presented as scientific theories. 'Space expansion' is in fact typically presented as a "scientific fact", even though it's a subjective *interpretation*, not a fact.

No it isn't.

That really doesn't matter one iota. The fact it's presented as a viable "scientific" theory, and it's unfalsifiable is all that matters in terms of making my point.

The degree of "confidence" in the concept is irrelevant.

How is it unfalsifiable?

And, while we are on the subject, how is your pet theory falsifiable?

No, I simply pointed out that "space expansion" never happens in the lab. I didn't say a peep about other empirical options.

If you think it has to be able to happen in the lab in order for it to be science, then I don't think you actually understand science.

And I've read enough of your posts to know that you love trying to bring the conversation around to your pet theory. Not fooling me.

Dark matter theory has failed every single "testable prediction" made by it's proponents over the past decade. The entire basis for the idea, namely their confidence in their baryonic mass estimation techniques, has been shown to be *hugely flawed* as well. What "test" could possibly falsify the whole concept of exotic matter? There are potentially an infinite number of mathematical options to choose from.

So why do the vast majority of scientists stick with it? Could it be because they see it as the best explanation, they just have some of the details wrong?

Ya, I've studied it a bit, but not as much as I've studied astronomy and GR theory.

And what qualifications do you have?

Which of your experts told you that QM oriented ideas about gravity can be completely falsified?

Dunno. Like I said, I haven't studied it. And it's rather too technical for me. I prefer to leave it to the people who spend their entire lives studying it, and who are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable about it than me (or you, for that matter).

You seem to be pulling an appeal to authority fallacy out of your hat, without even quoting any specific "expert" that claims the idea is "falsifiable".

You claim it is an appeal to authority, but you don't seem to realise that when the authority in question actually has proper credentials in the field, it's not a logical fallacy. If your computer has problems and the computer technician tells you what the problem is, do you discount what he says because it's an appeal to authority and instead listen to what your plumber says? "Delete sys32, it makes you computer run much faster!" Of course not. You understand that a computer technician is far more qualified than you to comment on the probably causes of the problem and is also better qualified to offer a solution. Likewise, I think that the majority of actual astrophysicists are far more qualified to tell me about how the universe works than you are. So why should I ignore the statements of lots of qualified scientists working in the field and instead go with your idea when you haven't got any relevant qualifications?

That's fine if you could produce any evidence to support your beliefs. Really the only one of the four supernatural elements of big bang theory that can actually be tested in the lab has been a complete and utter failure to date. That's a fact. So much for their 'expert predictions', and their supposed superior understanding of the topic.

So you are telling me that all those scientists with their combined centuries of experience and years of in depth study know LESS about what they have been studying than you? Please.

 

[Michael]

No it isn't.

Not it isn't presented as fact, or no it isn't a subjective interpretation of evidence?

How is it unfalsifiable?

It's unfalsifiable because it doesn't happen anywhere humans could ever hope to reach, and *many* other empirical causes of photon redshift are *known and demonstrated* in the lab.

And, while we are on the subject, how is your pet theory falsifiable?

Demonstrating that the universe is not electrical in nature should do the trick.

If you think it has to be able to happen in the lab in order for it to be science, then I don't think you actually understand science.

So what exactly is your rejection of people's testimony of having a "relationship" with something they call God based upon again?

My complaint wasn't about an idea needing to occur in controlled experimentation, my complaint was that the concept isn't falsifiable anymore than string theory is falsifiable, or exotic matter claims are falsifiable as a whole. Falsification is *optional* in physics today.

And I've read enough of your posts to know that you love trying to bring the conversation around to your pet theory. Not fooling me.

In this case, it's not even about cosmology theory. I'm simply keeping your feet to the fire as it relates to your emotional requirement for "falsification". That's not a requirement in "science", so it must be a subjective belief which you *personally* hold which is part of your atheistic "belief system".

So why do the vast majority of scientists stick with it?

Beats me. Exotic matter claims never really made much sense to me in the first place. I'm inclined to believe it's related to their nucleosynthesis "predictions" which fall apart if they try to use ordinary matter.

Could it be because they see it as the best explanation, they just have some of the details wrong?

They don't even have the *basics* worked out in their theory yet, let alone any "details". Every popular mathematical definition of 'dark matter' has already been tested and blown out of the water at LHC, LUX, PandaX, electron roundness "tests", etc. None of their so called "predictions" was worth the paper it was printed on.

And what qualifications do you have?

What qualifications do I need to simply notice they've struck out repeatedly in their own "tests"? What good were all those "qualifications" when it came to those negative lab results?

What exactly are they "qualified" in?

Dunno. Like I said, I haven't studied it. And it's rather too technical for me. I prefer to leave it to the people who spend their entire lives studying it, and who are a heck of a lot more knowledgeable about it than me (or you, for that matter).

Well, you can really only speak for yourself. I've been fascinated by astronomy since the Apollo missions and many current "astronomers" weren't around for those missions.

You claim it is an appeal to authority, but you don't seem to realise that when the authority in question actually has proper credentials in the field, it's not a logical fallacy.

Those "proper credentials" didn't mean squat when it comes to lab *results*. They struck out repeatedly, so I wouldn't call them "experts" in exotic matter theory. They're experts at wasting money however.

If your computer has problems and the computer technician tells you what the problem is, do you discount what he says because it's an appeal to authority and instead listen to what your plumber says?

I've put together quite a few computers from parts actually, and I spend most of my day doing tech support, so I don't typically need much help with computer problems.

"Delete sys32, it makes you computer run much faster!" Of course not. You understand that a computer technician is far more qualified than you to comment on the probably causes of the problem and is also better qualified to offer a solution.

You're "assuming" I can't figure the problem out myself. Why? Do I need a degree in computer science to swap out a memory stick, a CPU, a hard drive, or a motherboard?

Likewise, I think that the majority of actual astrophysicists are far more qualified to tell me about how the universe works than you are.

Qualified in what way? *If* they'd found WIMPS at LHC, LUX, PandaX, or any other experiment they ran at the energy states they claimed they would find them, I might buy your "qualification" argument. As it stands however, I have ample evidence that they botched their original baryonic mass estimates of galaxies in 2006, and they don't seem to be "experts" in the lab when it comes to producing "useful predictions". What "qualifies" them as "experts" on invisible snipes again?

So why should I ignore the statements of lots of qualified scientists working in the field and instead go with your idea when you haven't got any relevant qualifications?

Well, like I said, the "track record" of your so called "experts" has been pretty ridiculous over the past decade. Not a single prediction worked right in a real 'experiment' and they produced no tangible fruits from any of the efforts. I don't see much evidence of them being "experts" on anything. Their NULL results speak for themselves.

I'm not even deviating from empirical physics when looking for alternative explanations to the same observations, and the ideas I put my faith in actually work in the lab:

So you are telling me that all those scientists with their combined centuries of experience and years of in depth study know LESS about what they have been studying than you? Please.

Actually, yes. Most astronomers today specialize in one specific part of LCDM theory, or in solar theory, or in some small subset of astronomy. They don't necessarily even know all the gory details about all the facets of their own theories, let alone *alternative* ideas. I've spend most of my life studying astronomy from a general perspective, motivated by pure curiosity, not financial incentive. I've actually read Alfven's papers for myself, Birkeland's work for myself, Einstein's papers, Hubble's papers, and a lot of other ideas that most mainstream astronomers seem to know little or nothing about. The so called "professionals" who've commented on EU/PC theory on their blogs have kludged even the most *basic* elements of solar theories related to EU/PC theory and they know almost nothing about the cosmological implications of it.

I've probably studied a wider variety of materials that most astronomers, if only due to my age.

Your entire argument amounts to an appeal to authority argument, while your so called authorities have nothing but egg on their face with respect to any "test" results.

What exactly makes them "experts' when they came up empty and wasted billions in the process?