Does science prove gods existence?

[Hee_Zen]

The problem with your last claim is that you don’t know whether a lobotomy actually robs them of their personhood, or only that it robs them of the tools with which to express their personhood.

The point is that ALL you can go by is the outside appearance. The other party is a black box to you, and your judgment must be based upon your observation. To quote the famous “duck principle”: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck (etc…) then on what grounds would you doubt that it IS a duck, and think that maybe it is an alligator in “disguise”? When you see a truck heading your way at a dangerous speed, do you start or ponder: “maybe it is just a small kid on tricycle, so there is nothing to worry about?”. No sane human (or animal) would discard the report of his senses. If he did, he would be dead in no time.

 

[Winterwolf00]

If it can it hasn’t yet.
Else someone would be getting the biggest Nobel Prize of all time.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Albert Eintstein said that the more he learnt science, the more he believed in [one] God.[of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob].

Many scientists are theists.

Seeing as how Einstein was a self-professed agnostic for most of his life I find this unlikely.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Seeing as how Einstein was a self-professed agnostic for most of his life I find this unlikely.

Me too. Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

**The point is that ALL you can go by is the outside appearance. **The other party is a black box to you, and your judgment must be based upon your observation. To quote the famous “duck principle”: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck (etc…) then on what grounds would you doubt that it IS a duck, and think that maybe it is an alligator in “disguise”? When you see a truck heading your way at a dangerous speed, do you start or ponder: “maybe it is just a small kid on tricycle, so there is nothing to worry about?”. No sane human (or animal) would discard the report of his senses. If he did, he would be dead in no time.

Well, this is what I don’t think is true. When relating to other persons “the outside appearances” are not the only things we go by. I have been married more than thirty years, there are times when I have a clear sense of what my wife is thinking and minutes later she makes a comment that confirms my sense. This doesn’t happen infrequently, it happens often. AND it happens because I am attuned to her as a person at a personal level, not because I treat her merely as a physical entity that can only be deciphered by external behaviours.

Your premise denies a fundamental fact about personhood - that we can know and love each other as persons, not objects in the world. The fact that we treat others “scientifically” means we are regressing as persons and losing sight of that reality. By thinking that machines can be persons we are assuming that persons are nothing more than sophisticated machines. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion. Or, in terms of computing machine language: garbage in, garbage out.

I am also not claiming we discard the external behaviours. There are many reasons why people do not want to be known as persons and use behaviouurs to mask their internal states. It requires openness to be known in order for others to come to know the person within. Building trust is required and that takes time and commitment. In the meantime, there are external behaviours that help confirm the internal states.

Computers, however, have no internal states and never will because they are not persons, nor have the capacity to ever be persons because persons are not merely mechanical entities, theories of emergence notwithstanding.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, this is what I don’t think is true. When relating to other persons “the outside appearances” are not the only things we go by.

In the stipulated scenario it IS the only thing. Why do you change the basic setup?

I have been married more than thirty years, there are times when I have a clear sense of what my wife is thinking and minutes later she makes a comment that confirms my sense. This doesn’t happen infrequently, it happens often. AND it happens because I am attuned to her as a person at a personal level, not because I treat her merely as a physical entity that can only be deciphered by external behaviours.

Nice anecdotes, but totally irrelevant to the point. Of course I don’t doubt you, since I have experienced the very same phenomenon - many times. But that is simply the observation of minute details and the fact that in our 30+ years we have attuned to each other. Nevertheless we do not experience each other’s thoughts directly. In the process of performing the Turing test we try to come up with a method to decide if the other party’s responses are distinguishable from an expected human response - to decide if the other party “thinks”, or not? And the only information we have is a conversation. No facial clues, no intonation of the voice. Just the bare minimum - simple information exchange, which does not even have to be vocal, it could be similar to what we do right now - exchange of written texts.

Computers, however, have no internal states and never will because they are not persons, nor have the capacity to ever be persons because persons are not merely mechanical entities, theories of emergence notwithstanding.

How dogmatic! I unfortunately lack your psychic powers of seeing in the future. May I borrow your crystal ball?

Anyhow, the problem is STILL the definition of “understanding”. You claimed that computers are incapable of “understanding”, but failed to give a definition and failed to give some arguments for your stance.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Seeing as how Einstein was a self-professed agnostic for most of his life I find this unlikely.

Me too. Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

To claim he was an agnostic is not logically the same as claiming he didn’t believe in a personal God. That all depends upon what Einstein had in mind when he used the defining word “personal” in front of God. Perhaps he held open the possibility of believing in a supra-personal God, though not merely a “personal” one according to what that generally implies.

I do think it is a waste of time trying to read into Einstein’s comments in isolation because they weren’t consistent with each other at a superficial level, though, perhaps, ultimately could be. We should also leave open the possibility that his views, like many others, changed over his lifetime, so what he stated at any one time need not have been his final thought on the subject.

 

[Peter_Plato]

May I borrow your crystal ball?

There you go, claiming physical things have superphysical capacities, again.

What can a crystal ball do that my mind can’t?

By what programmed circuitry do you suppose crystal balls foresee future events? Are there emergent properties of crystal that have hitherto been undiscovered?

Perhaps Turing Tests should be administered to crystal balls to see if they can fool testers any better than computers have been able to.

Oh… Your crystal ball comment was sarcasm?

Did I fool you into thinking I was a humorless thinking machine by giving the impression that I missed the humor of it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the stipulated scenario it IS the only thing.

How dogmatic!

…Of the stipulated scenario to stipulate such a thing!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I do think it is a waste of time trying to read into Einstein’s comments in isolation because they weren’t consistent with each other at a superficial level, though, perhaps, ultimately could be. We should also leave open the possibility that his views, like many others, changed over his lifetime, so what he stated at any one time need not have been his final thought on the subject.

Antony Flew and Jean Paul Sartre, two of the most influential atheists of the 20th century, ceased to be atheists by the time they were approaching the end. Though we have no direct proof that Einstein began to believe in a personal God before his end, it is entirely possible that he did, but might never have given anyone the satisfaction of knowing that he did.

Einstein’s temperament was known to be stubborn, as when he insisted, upon the arrival of quantum physics, that God does not roll dice with the universe (or words to that effect).

Yet perhaps Einstein did roll dice and bet on God at the end.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Antony Flew and Jean Paul Sartre, two of the most influential atheists of the 20th century, ceased to be atheists by the time they were approaching the end. Though we have no direct proof that Einstein began to believe in a personal God before his end, it is entirely possible that he did, but might never have given anyone the satisfaction of knowing that he did.

Einstein’s temperament was known to be stubborn, as when he insisted, upon the arrival of quantum physics, that God does not roll dice with the universe (or words to that effect).

Yes I hear many such unproven claims about influential atheists and even deists having death-bed conversions.
The same claim has been made about Thomas Paine of all people.

Why such dishonesty is believed necessary if they believe their religion is correct is beyond me.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes I hear many such unproven claims about influential atheists and even deists having death-bed conversions.
The same claim has been made about Thomas Paine of all people.

Why such dishonesty is believed necessary if they believe their religion is correct is beyond me.

I think “dishonest” must be your favorite word to describe others.

You have been asked before to stop that!!!

 

[Winterwolf00]

I think “dishonest” must be your favorite word to describe others.

You have been asked before to stop that!!!

Stop what?
It is a fact that lies were told about many supposed death-bed conversions throughout history.
I’m not just going to stop pointing that out because it’s inconvenient for you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Stop what?
It is a fact that lies were told about many supposed death-bed conversions throughout history.
I’m not just going to stop pointing that out because it’s inconvenient for you.

I am no longer reading your posts. You insult people everywhere you turn.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I am no longer reading your posts. You insult people everywhere you turn.

If me pointing out historical facts is ‘insulting’ to you then your problem is with reality not me.

 

[oldcelt]

Stop what?
It is a fact that lies were told about many supposed death-bed conversions throughout history.
I’m not just going to stop pointing that out because it’s inconvenient for you.

Maybe substitute fantasy or fiction for dishonest, since it seems to illicit such pain.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Stop what?
It is a fact that lies were told about many supposed death-bed conversions throughout history.

Interesting fact.

The problem with it, though, is that the word “many” is left undefined. Does “many” mean four or five provably false claims about deathbed conversions throughout ALL of history? Or would eight be a closer estimate? Or do you mean thousands of errant claims have been made?

Unfortunately, if you can’t be very specific with the number represented by your word “many,” we get a little suspicious that this “fact” claim itself has no more validity than the supposed “lies” about death-bed conversions that you seek to decry by your statement.

Would you like to define “many” or do you want to just leave that up to our imaginations?
I’m thinking two or three, tops…

… but I feel certain you will come up with a long list, complete with appropriate citations, since you, like I, feel that the truth is important in all such discussions, right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Anyhow, the problem is STILL the definition of “understanding”. You claimed that computers are incapable of “understanding”, but failed to give a definition and failed to give some arguments for your stance.

Well, let’s at least begin on the right foot. Understanding limits intelligence to a kind of passive activity - taking in information. By choosing that word specifically, you are making a determined attempt to connect thinking in this passive sense of “understanding” to the process of processing data - receiving it and properly allocating it to a category. Sorting it by handling it correctly. To “stand under” it because you know where it belongs.

The ta-da of understanding or “getting” it, is followed triumphantly by an appropriate response to it. Making an association and responding appropriately. Think Watson.

That is hardly everything involved in human thinking, however. One, and not the only, important aspect of thinking that is completely missed by your “understanding” paradigm is the active creativity involved in thinking “outside of the box,” of coming up with novel possibilities never thought of before. This involves seeing the symbolic nature of understanding and using what is “understood” as a “pointer” to a novel idea or concept that is greater than the sum of its parts and only hinted at by those conceptual parts. There is a kind of creative intent necessary that requires more than mere processing power. The capacity is on an entirely different order and requires more than mere circuitry.

I submit that capacity is transcendence - being drawn beyond the current state.
The only reason that computers have transcended whatever their previous state was, was because external minds - programmers and engineers - took them beyond it.

In the case of human beings, we have an in-built inertia to transcend ourselves, but that capacity also comes from what is outside of us, though in-built within us by the One who knew what he was doing because he designed creation itself from the ground up and our existence itself from the inside out - the Pure Act of Being Itself (aka God.)

Computers will never have that kind of capacity precisely because we don’t have the power or knowledge with regard to the inner workings of Being Itself that such a feat requires in order to get them there. Our problem is that we can’t even get ourselves there, let alone computers. In fact, God is working very hard to get us there, we just think it can and will happen without God, but that would be impossible because God himself is the “inner workings” of Being where we need to be.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, let’s at least begin on the right foot.

Ok.

Understanding limits intelligence to a kind of passive activity - taking in information.

It is more complicated than that. I did not say (nor meant) that “passively taking in” the information is the whole process (a tape recorder could do that). The next step is integrating the new information into the already existing knowledge, which is a very active process. Cross referencing, in other words. So take this into account, as well.

The ta-da of understanding or “getting” it, is followed triumphantly by an appropriate response to it. Making an association and responding appropriately. Think Watson.

That is merely an icing on the cake, which is nice, but not necessary. One can grasp the novel concept and store it for later purposes, if and when it becomes useful. But that is the corollary of the understanding process, not the process itself.

That is hardly everything involved in human thinking, however.

Of course not. It is merely the first step, which is a necessary step. The point is that this process can be performed by a computer, without any problem. The assertion was that computers merely “process” data without “understanding” it.

Now, let’s take the next step, and let the computer communicate (as in the Turing test) as you suggested. We can discern, if the computer “understood” the new concept when it incorporates into the communication in a “meaningful” manner. This is what gave away the computer when it failed to incorporate the “meteor strike” into the reply. But then again the other party ***could have been ***a human, who has never heard of meteors, and was not curious about following up the new concept.

One, and not the only, important aspect of thinking that is completely missed by your “understanding” paradigm is the active creativity involved in thinking “outside of the box,” of coming up with novel possibilities never thought of before.

That is WAY beyond the concept of understanding. Besides there are people who go through their whole life without having even one new thought.

The first step is to clarify “understanding”. The definition I presented is this:

1. Taking in new information.
2. Incorporating it into the existing body of information. (cross referencing).
   Nothing impossible about this process for computers.

Of course this is still just the first step. Until the much maligned “(scientific) verification” process is completed, to say that the computer understood the new concept, but it is “disinclined” to show it via a conversation, all we have is another empty claim.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Let me return to those three questions I asked in my previous post:

1. what is that “freedom of thought” that you consider inexplicable under the naturalistic worldview?
2. what is the difference between the evidence for the paranormal and for God?
3. and finally, how do you plan to demonstrate God’s existence without appealing to faith and the bible?

I am really interested in your views.

**Question 1) **what is that “freedom of thought” that you consider inexplicable under the naturalistic worldview?

For example, the freedom of asserting that “naturalism is true”. This is not possible under naturalism as I show in my article:

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

You have presented no evidence so far that freedom can be an emergent property from matter. In particular, you also have not yet responded to Peter Plato’s substantial objections in posts #88 and #89. Those objections also have relevance for your reply to my post you quoted:

A computer cannot even self-reflect and check if its output is right. Instead of being programmed to calculate 9 x 7 = 63, a computer could just as easily be programmed to calculate 9 x 7 = 126, also obeying the laws of physics.

(Quoted by you out of context, disregarding the crucial sentences that follow.)

Your reply:

This is true, and it shows that “deterministic” hardware can produce results contrary to the laws of physics. As such you just proved that the deterministic brain can create a “free though”, independent from the hardware. And children can be trained to produce such results.

False, see above.

Question 2) what is the difference between the evidence for the paranormal and for God?

Evidence for God is philosophical. God and immaterial entities are outside matter and thus not subject to scientific investigation.

I view the paranormal, such as extrasensory perception, telekinesis, or telepathy as properties of matter that contradict what we know from the laws of nature. As such it would be subject to the same empiricism as any other scientific investigation.

I don’t believe in such paranormal things, by the way, nor do I believe in the occult like Ouija boards.

The classification of miracles, suspensions of the laws of nature by God, as paranormal is debatable. Regardless, I view miracles as no more than auxiliary evidence for God.

Question 3) and finally, how do you plan to demonstrate God’s existence without appealing to faith and the bible?

Before this question can be properly addressed, first we need to ask the question “which God?” or “a God with which properties?”

For the classical view on God, see:

Classical theism roundup

I suggest you read all the links contained therein, or at least the ones on a general account of classical theism as well as divine simplicity, and then I can start giving answers.