God's Existence logically proved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemondiesel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
There are a number of things that a computer can use to produce true random numbers, as is done for various cryptographically secure True RNGs. Hardware additions can also be used.

See RFC 4086 for more detail than you probably want.

You are of course correct for a PRNG; given the same seed it will produce the same output.

rossum
Click to expand...
I stand by my word.
Computers cannot generate truly random numbers.

What your article is describing is a generator then runs ever more complex calculations against a seed number generated by some external or internal process that is not likely to be reproduced.

The tale is told in the quote from the article:
As described below, many computers come with hardware that can, with
care, be used to generate truly random quantities…

Many computers are built with (name removed by moderator)uts that digitize some real-world
analog source, such as sound from a microphone or video (name removed by moderator)ut from a
camera. The “(name removed by moderator)ut” from a sound digitizer with no source plugged in
or from a camera with the lens cap on is essentially thermal noise.
If the system has enough gain to detect anything, such (name removed by moderator)ut can
provide reasonably high quality random bits. This method is
extremely dependent on the hardware implementation.
Click to expand...
No matter how complex the calculations, they can be undone by someone that knows all of the variables involved.

They are not providing truly random.
They are simply moving the target.

EDIT:
I had to include this quote from the article…they admit here that they do not generate true random numbers:
Is there any hope for true, strong, portable randomness in the
future? There might be. All that’s needed is a physical source of
unpredictable numbers.
Click to expand...
 
vz71 said:
No matter how complex the calculations, they can be undone by someone that knows all of the variables involved.
Click to expand...
And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ensures that we can never know all of the variables involved to a sufficient degree of accuracy.

rossum
 
Why not looking at the person of Jesus to prove the existence of God, instead of conjuring a non-contingent man.Should’t we recognize God in Him?
If you see someone able to bring to life someone that died several days ago and is decomposing,that makes a born blind man see for the first time,a someone that has power over nature,the wind, storms, a man that resurrects after three days.He showed power over the laws of nature as we know them, as only a supernatural God could. What more logical proof do you need?
Jesus was not some mythological creature, His existence and deeds are historically recorded.
 
rossum said:
And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ensures that we can never know all of the variables involved to a sufficient degree of accuracy.

rossum
Click to expand...
True enough. But as far as computers are concerned, there are no random numbers.

Of course, this is a side track to the initial argument that things happen for no reason.
I am uncertain why, but the argument was put forth that a random number generated from a computer is an example of something happenning for no reason.

Since computers cannot generate random numbers, the example is flawed.
 
vz71 said:
True enough. But as far as computers are concerned, there are no random numbers.

Of course, this is a side track to the initial argument that things happen for no reason.
I am uncertain why, but the argument was put forth that a random number generated from a computer is an example of something happenning for no reason.

Since computers cannot generate random numbers, the example is flawed.
Click to expand...
You can get a hardware RNG for your computer that relies on truly random quantum effects.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
Which brings us back full circle.

I’ll quote the post that most readily applies…
And yet again I see the tendency to lay claim that something we cannot determine the answer to be must have no answer.
Click to expand...
But it is equally flawed logic to rest a proof of God’s existence on the assumption that such an answer will eventually be found. The only correct response in logic is to leave the question as undecided.

rossum
Click to expand...
 
CatSci said:
We you say that “Everything happens for a reason”, it seems like you’re claiming the exact opposite.
Click to expand...
Everything happens for a reason for no reason what so ever would be more accurate.
 
rossum said:
But it is equally flawed logic to rest a proof of God’s existence on the assumption that such an answer will eventually be found. The only correct response in logic is to leave the question as undecided.

rossum
Click to expand...
But there is no reason to presume no cause when we know things that apparently have no cause by their exception.
 
vz71 said:
But there is no reason to presume no cause when we know things that apparently have no cause by their exception.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect logic. Just because two things differ (your ‘exception’) is not a reason to reject the existence of one of them.

In our current state of knowledge the only logically correct answer is “undecided”. That may or may not change in future.

rossum
 
I found it interesting that the Quran also explains how God created the universe, and they explain it in details. In my own words, God took some dust particles and built the universe from that dust, and then later he built the pillars for our sky.
 
rossum said:
That is incorrect logic. Just because two things differ (your ‘exception’) is not a reason to reject the existence of one of them.

In our current state of knowledge the only logically correct answer is “undecided”. That may or may not change in future.

rossum
Click to expand...
OK, so you are claiming that we should leave an undecided in place as to wether or not something has a cause?

If this is the case, I believe the logic is flawed.
Everything around us has a cause of one form or another.

To lay claim that we should be undecided if there is a cause when we haven’t the science to measure it is akin to laying claim that we should remain undecided on whether or not there will be a sunrise tomorrow morning.

I would respect the logic there if there were common things with no cause.
But that is not the case. Those items we perceive as without cause are an extreme exception. So much so that people have difficulty actually coming up with an example.
 
vz71 said:
To lay claim that we should be undecided if there is a cause when we haven’t the science to measure it is akin to laying claim that we should remain undecided on whether or not there will be a sunrise tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...
If there is absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow then the world can never end. If there is less than absolute certainty then it is possible that the world will end.

Do you believe that the world will end?

rossum
 
rossum said:
vz71;7701637:
OK, so you are claiming that we should leave an undecided in place as to wether or not something has a cause?

If this is the case, I believe the logic is flawed.
Everything around us has a cause of one form or another.

To lay claim that we should be undecided if there is a cause when we haven’t the science to measure it is akin to laying claim that we should remain undecided on whether or not there will be a sunrise tomorrow morning.

I would respect the logic there if there were common things with no cause.
But that is not the case. Those items we perceive as without cause are an extreme exception. So much so that people have difficulty actually coming up with an example.
Click to expand...
If there is absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow then the world can never end. If there is less than absolute certainty then it is possible that the world will end.

Do you believe that the world will end?

rossum
Click to expand...
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

Just as it has since the earth began, and continues today.
I have no evidence that this cycle will end anytime soon…so it is logical to conclude it will continue.

And just as everything has a cause.
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that we simply cannot perceive the cause should we happen upon something that apparently has no cause.
 
vz71 said:
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

Just as it has since the earth began, and continues today.
I have no evidence that this cycle will end anytime soon…so it is logical to conclude it will continue.
Click to expand...
I agree, but this is a scientific certainty, not a logical certainty. Science does not deal in absolutes while some forms of logic do.
And just as everything has a cause.
It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that we simply cannot perceive the cause should we happen upon something that apparently has no cause.
Click to expand...
But until we can ascertain the cause, it is scientifically allowable to say ‘uncaused’. Remember that “we don’t know” is an acceptable answer in science.

If you insist that everything has a cause, then you are obviously going to be asked what God’s cause is, especially in a thread entitled “God’s Existence logically proved?”

rossum
 
vz71 said:
If you wish to back the supposed randomness of a radioactive decay using a computers random number generator, it is entirely relevent.
Click to expand...
Why?

If we could model the odds of two possibilities with the flip of a coin and conclude that its random, you arguing that a coin flip isn’t truely random because we could predict which side it would land on given sufficient information about how it was flipped wouldn’t counter that either.

A coin flip is random enough for the explanation and so are randomly generated numebrs in the computer.
As I have said before, everything has a reason behind it.
Click to expand...
But you’re just assuming that.

What is the reason that a particular radioactive atom decays?

Since you don’t know, then you can’t say that everything has a reason.
We may not have the science necessary to understand the process, but that is simply a limitation of the science, not an indication that something has no reason.
Click to expand...
Nor does that support the claim that everything has a reason.
 
rossum said:
But until we can ascertain the cause, it is scientifically allowable to say ‘uncaused’. Remember that “we don’t know” is an acceptable answer in science.
Click to expand...
The fallacy there being that ‘uncaused’ and ‘we don’t know’ are two different things.
 
CatSci said:
What is the reason that a particular radioactive atom decays?

Since you don’t know, then you can’t say that everything has a reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can.
Not knowing the cause and stating there is no cause are two entirely different things.
 
Yes, I can.
Click to expand...
Not correctly…, you can, but you’d be wrong.
Not knowing the cause and stating there is no cause are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...
As is stating that there IS a cause. Which you have asserted with no support.
I invite you to list specific examples of events that have no cause.
Click to expand...
I already did in message #18 that you replied to:
  • In Brownian Motion, the magnitude and direction of any particular step has no reason behind it.
  • In radioactive decay, which particular atom is the next one to decay doesn’t happen for any particular reason.
  • In DNA replication, when and where a particular mutation happens doesn’t happen for a reason.
For you to be able to claim that everything happens for a reason, you’ll have to provide a reason for why the above things happen.

I don’t need to make the assumption that because we have been unable to find a cause then it must be random to show that you are wrong. Still though and even though it doesn’t matter, I maintain the causes for these things have been determined to be random an not simply assumed to be so because of a lack of explanation.

Further, your arguments that a coin-flip isn’t random and has reasons from the minute details of how the coin was flipped doesn’t add weight to an argument of god’s existence logically proven from a series of “causes” or reasons for things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top