Scientific Argument for God's existence

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In my view, number exists even if only as an abstraction, regardless of whether the abstracting entities still exist, or will in the future, etc. That is, regardless of whether entities exist to realize or understand that basic idea.

That was my question - in what sense can an abstraction exist in the absence of abstracting entities? Does this mean that abstractions are timeless things requiring no representation? that an idea someone once had, that was never recorded or passed on, still exists? do abstractions not yet conceived already exist?

 

[SelfSim]

Well I'm glad to see you're getting around to acknowledging that it takes a living being to come up with the concept of objectivity .. It is therefore, an artificial concept.

A living thing, not necessarily a mind.

Nonetheless, you agree that this 'living thing' still generates an artifical concept(?)
Can you provide an objective test for this 'living thing' so as to enable us to distinguish it from us?

Once things start to be physically systems that perpetuate boundary's like life does, it separates from the rest of the universe that simply exists as is.

What makes the call of 'physical system' or not 'physical system'? What basis is used for making such distinctions?

Also 'as is' is a truism. Its meaning relies on the 'truth exists', which is objectively untestable. This creates circular reasoning and is fallacious under the same principles of logic used therein.

I think this is where perspective, and the self come from, where the abstract comes from.

Not wishing to cite a 'rudism' (and appear as being obnoxious) .. but this just appears as word-salad to me .. (devoid of usefulness).
I can accept it as being a belief though .. which is fine by me .. (we all have 'em .. I have lots, myself)!

We've not got to something I would call a mind though, so I think we're still in the realm of the mind independent realities.

(Sure looks like it) .. which would be untestable then, yes?

It is separate, that's the point. Life perpetuates itself and maintains boundaries, that's what it is. Well before life can ever produce something as complex as "concept".

This means that minds as we know them are a byproduct of this external, Independent, physical reality that they depend on for their most basic concept.

But the human brain/body is a testable concept in science. My test then provides an objective test for mind (and it generates abundant evidence supporting the MDR hypothesis, too).
Are you saying that your mind is separate from your brain/body and it exists in the untestable mind independent reality?
(Now that just sounds outright weird to me .. I'm afraid)

 

[variant]

Nonetheless, you agree that this 'living thing' still generates an artifical concept(?)
Can you provide an objective test for this 'living thing' so as to enable us to distinguish it from us?

Well we are a living thing, but yes we have objective evidence that living things have existed for quite some time.

So, the first living things would be distinct from us now by billions of years of time and evolution.

Also 'as is' is a truism. Its meaning relies on the 'truth exists', which is objectively untestable. This creates circular reasoning and is fallacious under the same principles of logic used therein.

In this case the distinction was indicating that part the universe doesn't relay information in an abstract manner with representative systems.

Not wishing to cite a 'rudism' (and appear as being obnoxious) .. but this just appears as word-salad to me .. (devoid of usefulness).
I can accept it as being a belief though .. which is fine by me .. (we all have 'em .. I have lots, myself)!

(Sure looks like it) .. which would be untestable then, yes?

Nope, it's quite easy to demonstrate, we can definitely see that this was happening when we weren't around.

But the human brain/body is a testable concept in science. My test then provides an objective test for mind (and it generates abundant evidence supporting the MDR hypothesis, too).
Are you saying that your mind is separate from your brain/body and it exists in the untestable mind independent reality?
(Now that just sounds outright weird to me .. I'm afraid)

I have no idea what your getting at here could you rephrase?

I am saying that minds are the direct result of how life is structured and that their basis precedes them in a mind independent reality.

 

[Halbhh]

That was my question - in what sense can an abstraction exist in the absence of abstracting entities? Does this mean that abstractions are timeless things requiring no representation? that an idea someone once had, that was never recorded or passed on, still exists? do abstractions not yet conceived already exist?

I think number is one such, having an absolute form, before anyone understands it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think number is one such, having an absolute form, before anyone understands it.

How does an abstraction have form without representation?

What is 'absolute form' - is this a Platonic ideal? are you a Platonist?

 

[SelfSim]

If the abstraction is undiscovered, it still exists, waiting for possible discovery. The laws of physics are evidently like this -- in an absolute sense existing independently of whether we discover them.

.. (yet discovery is a (scientific) process that we follow which depends on our mind's observations .. its easily demonstrable and I have done this numerous times in this thread .. but you have to look to see it).
So you base the laws of physics upon a fundamentally untestable belief in the existence of something independent from the minds that clearly devised those laws, and which based them on those minds' observations, then?
And you see no inconsistencies in that?

A famous example: E=mc^2 meaning that rest mass can be converted into energy: this is true whether or not we discover it, and it remains precise and accurate, regardless of our culture, or ability to understand or not.

'True' before 'we discovered' it, eh? .. Or was it only relatively recently that it entered into our knowledge? (see here for an example on where the evidence on this actually takes us .. as opposed to assertion of 'truth' followed by circularity around the untestable existence of such a 'thing').

and it remains precise and accurate, regardless of our culture, or ability to understand or not. The rest mass converts to energy in fusion or fissions reactions of certain elements in exact and consistent ways that are utterly and totally independent of whether we know, and remain precisely the same regardless of which researcher or culture is discovering this already-existing firm and fixed law of nature.

Its our 'law' (a human is historically documented as having conceived it) .. and 'nature' is our word and not something which was miraculously floating around out there to apply it to what we see around us. (Because that's where the objective evidence takes us).

All you're doing here, is restating your belief in the existence of some untestable 'truth' .. which is fine by me .. so long as you state it as being such .. and not science.

 

[Halbhh]

How does an abstraction have form without representation?

What is 'absolute form' - is this a Platonic ideal? are you a Platonist?

Funny, that did remind me of Plato's perfect form stuff. No, I don't generally think that way. Only some abstractions are about absolutely fixed forms, that I know of, and those are all of math and physics i think, to my understanding. (I'm not thinking of beings or objects as being abstractions)

 

[Halbhh]

.. (yet discovery is a (scientific) process that we follow which depends on our mind's observations .. its easily demonstrable and I have done this numerous times in this thread .. but you have to look to see it).
So you base the laws of physics upon a fundamentally untestable belief in the existence of something independent from the minds that clearly devised those laws, and which based them on those minds' observations, then?
And you see no inconsistencies in that?

'True' before 'we discovered' it, eh? .. Or was it only relatively recently that it entered into our knowledge? (see here for an example on where the evidence on this actually takes us .. as opposed to assertion of 'truth' followed by circularity around the untestable existence of such a 'thing').

Its our 'law' (a human is historically documented as having conceived it) .. and 'nature' is our word and not something which was miraculously floating around out there to apply it to what we see around us. (Because that's where the objective evidence takes us).

All you're doing here, is restating your belief in the existence of some untestable 'truth' .. which is fine by me .. so long as you state it as being such .. and not science.

It's almost like you have decided to misunderstand me, it seems like. I merely say the findings of science in physics are in part (some) about absolute fixed truths. You might not like that, but you ought not have a preference, ideally.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Funny, that did remind me of Plato's perfect form stuff. No, I don't generally think that way. Only some abstractions are about absolutely fixed forms, that I know of, and those are all of math and physics i think, to my understanding. (I'm not thinking of beings or objects as being abstractions)

So how does an abstraction have form without representation?

What is 'absolute form'?

 

[Halbhh]

So how does an abstraction have form without representation?

What is 'absolute form'?

An example of absolute form is the number 2. In physics we have found the reliable E=mc^2, at minimum an expression of a fixed absolute reality. That reality, that prefect reality in nature, exists independently of our understanding.

Not sure if I'm talking to your question.

 

[SelfSim]

Well we are a living thing, but yes we have objective evidence that living things have existed for quite some time.

So, the first living things would be distinct from us now by billions of years of time and evolution.

So I presume you're invoking Evolution there, (which is fine by me .. its well evidenced (tests out well) and is part our our scientific objective reality), however Evolution theory was also developed by human minds. Therefore can you give me a test which excludes the influence of the human mind, which would be a necessary component of pursuing the existence of something truly mind independent?

In this case the distinction was indicating that part the universe doesn't relay information in an abstract manner with representative systems.

Ok .. looking back, perhaps you were invoking Thermodynamics in creating the distinction of life from the non living elements of 'the universe' then (which is also fine by me because there's clearly plenty of objective testing supporting the theory, which is useful as the distinction). However, claiming 'the universe' also exists 'as is', is untestable as its sole basis is a truism.
'The universe' is a perfectly testable model in science which humans developed (this claim is heavily objectively evidenced). See the difference between the claims here?
An 'as is universe' can be easily dismissed on the same basis as it was introduced .. thus consider it as being dismissed.

Nope, it's quite easy to demonstrate, we can definitely see that this was happening when we weren't around.

.. and that doesn't require some human developed model which also makes use of our concept of time (and presumably, of space)?

I have no idea what your getting at here could you rephrase?

No need at the moment .. you confirmed my understanding of what you were saying, below.

I am saying that minds are the direct result of how life is structured and that their basis precedes them in a mind independent reality.

.. and yet you have no evidence or test that I can do for the bit you added at the end of that sentence: 'their basis precedes them in a mind independent reality', so all I can conclude is that this component (upon which you claim as being their basis 'minds' existence) is just another belief in my book

.. So your idea about minds is based on an untestable fundamental belief then ... how is that different from any other religion?

 

[variant]

So I presume you're invoking Evolution there, (which is fine by me .. its well evidenced (tests out well) and is part our our scientific objective reality), however Evolution theory was also developed by human minds. Therefore can you give me a test which excludes the influence of the human mind, which would be a necessary component of pursuing the existence of something truly mind independent?

We have copious evidence for when human minds didn't exist, and how they came into being.

I do not claim we can remove our own situation as an observer, but rather, that it is rationally incomprehensible to think that we always need to exist for something to exist. That something is a reality whether we can observe it or not.

There was a mind independent reality before there were minds, and it gave rise to them.

Ok .. looking back, perhaps you were invoking Thermodynamics in creating the distinction of life from the non living elements of 'the universe' then (which is also fine by me because there's clearly plenty of objective testing supporting the theory, which is useful as the distinction). However, claiming 'the universe' also exists 'as is', is untestable as its sole basis is a truism.

As is, is meant to be opposed to the divided way a mind or a living creature would assess it. It just exists.

The reasoning behind this would be the lack of a mechanism to carve it up into separate ideas, or things.

.. and that doesn't require some human developed model which also makes use of our concept of time (and presumably, of space)?

No, It would require the thing that we're describing as space and time to exist and predate us.

.. So your idea about minds is based on an untestable fundamental belief then ... how is that different from any other religion?

No I've presented you with the obvious evidence of a mindless universe pre-existing our minded one that would satisfy any rational person.

The idea that I need to remove myself as an observer to demonstrate that is just your faf.

 

[SelfSim]

We have copious evidence for when human minds didn't exist, and how they came into being.

I do not claim we can remove our own situation as an observer, but rather, that it is rationally incomprehensible to think that we always need to exist for something to exist. That something is a reality whether we can observe it or not.

There was a mind independent reality before there were minds, and it gave rise to them.

I can see I'm just not getting through .. an example might help to illustrate(?) I'll use the one I posted before:

So, 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 only now learned about a specific planet ‘XYZ’ in that group of planets .. your mind gave your knowledge (about 'XYZ being in that group') that specific meaning. That meaning simply did not exist yesterday .. That meaning didn't exist in some unformed ethereal glow, that you could 'discover', which you call 'mind independent', (or 'physical universe'), 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. Any 'jump' to mind independence simply appears as a miracle!

As is, is meant to be opposed to the divided way a mind or a living creature would assess it. It just exists.

The reasoning behind this would be the lack of a mechanism to carve it up into separate ideas, or things.

Yet I just gave an example above which hopefully, shows that there is no reason for invoking truisms which miraculously zap mind independent 'things' into existence (at will), with absolutely no exposure of how that comes about (other than by way of invoking 'truisms').

No, It would require the thing that we're describing as space and time to exist and predate us.

'Time' and 'space' are both concepts we've developed using science. There is no reason to pretend that we didn't also develop those concepts ourselves (eg: their meanings have also even been changed by us, over our lifetimes) .. therefore there is no reason to pretend that they miraculously 'zapped' into existence.

No I've presented you with the obvious evidence of a mindless universe pre-existing our minded one that would satisfy any rational person.

Yes .. there are many religiously minded rational folk who also believe in 'zap' type miracles.

The idea that I need to remove myself as an observer to demonstrate that is just your faf.

If you assert true mind indepedence then it must be truly independent of minds. If it requires a mind to conceive it, then by the definition of what mind independence means, it cannot involve a mind, (for goodness sake)!

 

[Ophiolite]

So, 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.

One might equally say that if you discuss those planets you must have a planet dependent mind. For one who is fond of identifying the assertions of of others as beliefs you are singularly myopic when it comes to recognising them in yourself.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

and I have cited my test and produced the resulting evidence in dozens of posts now .. but you have to actually look at them to see it ..

What this means is that I at least have a test for distinguishing reality which produces objective evidence, whereas you demonstrate above, by way of your declination, that you don't. Therefore I claim to know what's real (and can show it) ... and you apparently can do neither!

Claiming to have an objective test is not the same as actually having one. You have not demonstrated any objective way to distinguish reality, you have merely used sophistry and misunderstandings in a failed attempt to do so.

 

[SelfSim]

One might equally say that if you discuss those planets you must have a planet dependent mind. For one who is fond of identifying the assertions of of others as beliefs you are singularly myopic when it comes to recognising them in yourself.

A planet has an objectively testable defintion. It is not something I hold as being true for any reason. A planet is therefore not a belief.

That I used unexplored planets as a hypothetical example in a mind experiment, doesn't mean I hold a planet dependent mind as a belief either .. because I actually tested the hypothetical and it produced objective results supporting the MDR hypothesis .. Yet another test passed with flying colours! (But you have to actually look to see that).

 

[SelfSim]

Claiming to have an objective test is not the same as actually having one. You have not demonstrated any objective way to distinguish reality, you have merely used sophistry and misunderstandings in a failed attempt to do so.

I just did the objective semantic test of the MDR hypothesis and demonstrated the results in post #253.

Where's you test for mind independence? I'm still waiting for it! Stop dodging the question!

 

[Ophiolite]

A planet has an objectively testable defintion.

You believe that the decision to declassify Pluto as a planet was objective?
You believe that the current definition of a planet is unambiguously testable?
If so, you are not only replete with beliefs, some of them are wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I just did the objective semantic test of the MDR hypothesis and demonstrated the results in post #253.

Where's the objective test? Your whole premise is based on the assumption that semantics and mind dependence are correct. That's not objective.

Where's you test for mind independence? I'm still waiting for it! Stop dodging the question!

I have not claimed to have such a test. You're reverting to your old habit of not reading what I write but choosing to see what you want me to have written.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An example of absolute form is the number 2.

I was after a definition rather than an example.

In physics we have found the reliable E=mc^2, at minimum an expression of a fixed absolute reality. That reality, that prefect reality in nature, exists independently of our understanding.

That's certainly not a scientific view. That equation is our current best description of observable reality, as a special case of the relativistic energy-momentum relation. However, we know that Einsteinian relativity is incomplete, so your statement is hyperbole.

Not sure if I'm talking to your question.

You didn't answer to how an abstraction can have form without representation.

You also skipped earlier questions - are you saying that abstractions are timeless things requiring no representation? does an idea that someone once had, that was never recorded or passed on, still exist? do abstractions not yet conceived already exist?