My proof for God. Critiques please

[larkin31]

And you don’t think that its an extraordinary claim to say that there is an infinite number of potential events in the past?

Not at all.

“God” is an extraordinary claim as well.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey! It’s been a while, and I’ve kind of missed you. Thank you for the opportunity to re-engage and annoy you only half as much as I must have done during our last set of exchanges.

Greylorn, I’m touched! I’ve been keeping an eye on you, wondering how long you would escape from being banned but it seems the mods regard your humour as harmless! It is good to have some one to lighten the proceedings…

Why did God create human beings, which are pretty much a bunch of nitwits?

Does that include you?
Absolutely! It was from comparison of myself with admirable human beings that I came to realize my own unworthiness to exist.

Which of us does deserve to exist? What could we possibly do to merit the immense gift of life?

From that perspective, I asked why a God who had proven his ability to create truly wonderful and extraordinary people had also created me. I became rather upset with Him for doing so.

You are too modest, my dear fellow In any case it is trite but true that it takes all sorts to make a world…

Then I realized that His creation of me was an act of incompetence. This left me with the option to believe that the Creator of this magnificent universe was incompetent, or that He did not create me (and by inference, anyone else).

You are entitled to a low opinion of yourself - even though it is unmerited - but not of everyone else! Such an evaluation is a very poor reason for denying that the Creator created human beings. You seem to imply that He created everything except us…

Have you a better explanation for the First Law of Thermodynamics (constancy of energy) other than the usual, “God made it that way,” nonsense?
Do you have a superior explanation? You take it for granted that you owe your existence to such laws - a fact that should be taken into account in any adequate interpretation of reality if you are not to fall into the trap of deriving that which is purposeful from that which is purposeless…

Yes, I actually do have an explanation which I regard as effective, on the grounds that it allows no conflict between God and thermodynamics. I’ve expressed it several times on CAF but few seem capable of understanding the simple concept. It is outside of dogma. I don’t figure that there’s any point in reiterating. However, my book should be published by the end of summer. It will explain the relationship of the conservation of energy law to the nature and even the physical origin of the Creator, plus a few other minor ideas.

If the Creator had a physical origin there must have been another creative Power…

Whatever I am, in some parts of this universe, I’m dreadfully ordinary. Both my friends will agree. But I appear to have non-ordinary thought processes. I’ve made my living solving problems which others had written off as insoluble— but I did not know that when I set to work. Insofar as I can tell, this is not an ordinary ability, although it is certainly shared by many individuals— who are formally noted as being extraordinary.

But I’m not extraordinary. I’m simply, not ordinary. Except in basic things, brain driven aspects of life. I’ve loved and been heartbroken. I’ve failed and cried. I’ve done wrong, and some right that never fully compensates. I’m an imprinted Packer fan with a #4 jersey (ordinary) who thinks that Brett Favre did the right thing by doing something else (not quite so ordinary). I’m an Ice Bowl veteran, one of the few left alive (ordinary). The Packers’ last superbowl win came because of me (and an assistant) using psychic stuff (on the far edge of ordinary).

I don’t buy products sold with cartoons or tom-toms, I live alone in some mountains, cut my firewood, shoot some food, write books about how the universe came into existence. Others do these things, making them ordinary.

The planet has offered many examples of extraordinary individuals. Jesus Christ comes to mind. Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Feynman. Bach, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Brahms. You get the idea.

In terms of properties, that is quite simple. Instead of having a tendency to be imprinted with the first set of beliefs they are taught, like baby ducks, human beings might be born with enough intelligence to quickly see through nonsense and arrive at ideas that made sense.

A simpler variation which would be welcome. They might not be so programmable. They might buy beer that tastes good instead of beer which is advertised to make them think that if they drink it, they are more manly. Or whatever.

Non-ordinary is watching a stupid car commercial and thinking, “Is there a manufacturer who put its $10,000 into vehicle quality instead of the mindless ad I just watched?” Is there a voter who demands that a “None of the Above” option be placed on all ballots?

Of course, if everyone actually thought for himself and refused to follow the crowd, and rap was not regarded as music, the standard for “ordinary” would be shifted upward, in the direction of independent intelligence. I would love to live in a world where coherent thought and general honesty and diverse, creative intelligence was ordinary, where neither Bible thumpers nor bobble-headed Darwinists exist.

In spite of your physical disabilities you succeed in enjoying life, far from the madding crowd. Yet, as I remarked last year,you underrate the vast majority of people on this planet. Are you acquainted with the Third Man by Grahame Greene? The protagonist looks down at the dots far below and dismisses them as insignificant - forgetting that like him they have their own desires and ambitions.

That means, if by some clerical error I’m invited into heaven, I won’t go.

No one is compelled to accept the invitation… That’s why we’re here

 

[greylorn]

The OP asked us to critique his proof. We have been doing that. His item #1 has several false assumptions in it and is far too vaguely defined, and his whole argument is based on the claim that the past cannot be infinite. This is a conclusion, not a premise, so he must first establish the thinking upon which this conclusion rests, and we have shown how that thinking contains false assumptions. There is no reason of any kind that energy could not have existed “forever.” All signs point to the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Ever.

I agree with your observations. You may be asking too much serious thought from the OP guy.

You may not have noticed, but I’ve been trying to discuss the consequences of the energy conservation law on CAF for at least a year. You are the first participant to have seen its relevance.

 

[larkin31]

I agree with your observations. You may be asking too much serious thought from the OP guy.

You may not have noticed, but I’ve been trying to discuss the consequences of the energy conservation law on CAF for at least a year. You are the first participant to have seen its relevance.

I am no expert in the law, nor in physics, but some things are common knowledge. Although, at times, hard to acknowledge and reconcile with certain specific tenets of faith or even with “logic.”

 

[rvilbig]

You may not have noticed, but I’ve been trying to discuss the consequences of the energy conservation law on CAF for at least a year. You are the first participant to have seen its relevance.

Greylorn, I’ve posted on this before. Creation does not violate conservation of energy for the following reasons:

1. Physical laws in general do not reveal their cause or point of initiation. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi).
2. As John Henry Newman said: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).
3. Moreover, consider Saint Augustine’s conception of creation: “Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time” (Saint Augustine, City of God, 11:6). If time is part of the universe, how can we consider the"time" when there was no energy and the “moment” when energy conservation was violated? There isn’t time at these “moments” because there is no universe. Make sense?
4. Also consider what Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has written: " I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[larkin31]

Greylorn, I’ve posted on this before. Creation does not violate conservation of energy for the following reasons:

1. Physical laws in general do not reveal their cause or point of initiation. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi).
2. As John Henry Newman said: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).
3. Moreover, consider Saint Augustine’s conception of creation: “Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time” (Saint Augustine, City of God, 11:6). If time is part of the universe, how can we consider the"time" when there was no energy and the “moment” when energy conservation was violated? There isn’t time at these “moments” because there is no universe. Make sense?
4. Also consider what Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has written: " I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

I don’t disagree because this basically claims we don’t know what we don’t know. Indeed! Some put “God” in these gaps. Some don’t.

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn, I’ve posted on this before. Creation does not violate conservation of energy for the following reasons:

1. Physical laws in general do not reveal their cause or point of initiation. For example, consider an object moving through space that becomes trapped in the orbit of a planet. After beginning its orbit, the satellite obeys Kepler’s 2nd law (i.e. conservation of equal area in equal time); however, nothing in this conservation law will reveal the origin of the satellite’s orbit. That is, Kepler’s 2nd law cannot tell you how the orbit began. (This parable was developed by my roommate, fyi).
2. As John Henry Newman said: "At length we go on to confuse causation with order; and, because we happen to have made a successful analysis of some complicated assemblage of phenomena, which experience has brought before us in the visible scene of things, and have reduced them to a tolerable dependence on each other, we call the ultimate points of this analysis, and the hypothetical facts in which the whole mass of phenomena is gathered up, by the name of causes, whereas they are really only the formula under which those phenomena are conveniently represented.” (Newman, Grammar of Assent, page 67).
3. Moreover, consider Saint Augustine’s conception of creation: “Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time” (Saint Augustine, City of God, 11:6). If time is part of the universe, how can we consider the"time" when there was no energy and the “moment” when energy conservation was violated? There isn’t time at these “moments” because there is no universe. Make sense?
4. Also consider what Catholic physicist and U Delaware professor Stephen Barr has written: " I]f one thinks about it for a while, one can see that a thing can be caused without necessarily having had any beginning in time. For example, imagine that an object is illuminated by a lamp. The lamp is the cause or explanation of the object’s being illuminated. However, nothing in that fact tells us whether the lamp has been illuminating the object for a finite time or for infinite time. If the lamp has always been illuminating the object, then the illumination of the object had no beginning, but nevertheless it always had a cause" (Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, page 33)

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

Ryan,
I appreciate the time you spent generating your comments, but must note that they apply to the simple issue of the Energy Conservation Law only as additional verification.

Please note that I only referenced one law. I might have included all three laws of thermodynamics, but am trying to keep this discussion as uncluttered as possible. Nonetheless I will open it up slightly.

Your arguments address to laws of physics except Thermodynamics. There is a reason why Thermodynamics is unique, but I’m saving that for my book.

I agree with you about the other laws, and attribute them to choices made during the creation process. Thermodynamics is a different beast entirely. It’s been awhile, so I don’t recall if you have any physics background or not. If so, surely you will be able to review thermodynamics and determine why and exactly how it differs from, say, Newton’s laws.

If you take the time to stand back from your comments and review them objectively, you will see yourself discussing origins of things, and how various “great” thinkers have decided that origins cannot be defined.

Now if you really pay attention, you will notice that the Conservation of Energy Law declares that energy has no origin, which looks to me exactly what those thinkers are trying to tell you.

You are failing to distill useful concepts from your readings, which suggests, take some reading lessons or get your preconceptions out of the way.

 

[greylorn]

I am no expert in the law, nor in physics, but some things are common knowledge. Although, at times, hard to acknowledge and reconcile with certain specific tenets of faith or even with “logic.”

When logic conflicts with belief, I’ve learned to always choose logic, however distasteful a choice it may be at first. Logic always produces a correct result, and when it seems not to do so, I find that all I need to do is correct a premise or two. This process gives some integrity of mind, along with considerable isolation.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Although we can carefully examine and study the “proofs of God’s existence”, we still require a leap of faith to go from the finite universe to an infinite eternal God.

This is contrary to the teaching of Vatican I, which is de fide.

 

[bonzerdad]

Coolduude, I’m not ignoring your last response. Monday is an overtime day for me and I’m just whipped. I’ll get back to you, probably tomorrow evening.

 

[Ed_CA]

I affirm God exists not based on “proofs” , but by compelling circumstantial evidence that this universe in which we exist is very finely tuned for life. The fine tuning of all the forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. About 10 years ago, some postulated that the universe would undergo an infinite succession of “big bangs” and “big crunches”. However, the astrophysicists have shown the expansion of the universe is accelerating and will die after all the nuclear fuel is consumed. Another piece of evidence is the abundance of carbon that has the ability to form very complex molecules and is an essential part of life. Elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, silicon, iron, and the heavier elements beyond iron formed in supernovae are essential for earth-like planets. Another amazing feature of the laws of nature is that they have a nice (but incomplete) mathematical formulations for which solutions (albeit numerical solutions) exist. The skeptics should read some of Stephen Hawkings books written for the layman. Others accept the existence of God by the sheer beauty of nature and of wonders of children.
I know of atheists who are bankers, physicians, laborers, farmers, business people as well as scientists.It is shear ignorance of persons claiming the only atheists are scientists. The better way of proving the existence of God is to counter G.K. Chesterton’s saying that the trouble with Christianity is that it has not been truly practiced.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What is your explanation of Life? What is the reason for your existence?

None that I’m aware of.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The scientific name dropping might be used to better effect upon someone whose first paper on variable stars had not been published while you were in diapers.

From now on, for the purpose of keeping this civilized, I’m going to ignore your sneering tone and unwarranted attitude of superiority.

Shall we tell the rubes how much raw belief there is behind the inferences made from 1a SN observations, such as the belief that the redshift represents a velocity measurement, and that the velocity of light and the laws of the universe are indeed universal constants?

Redshift most certainly does represent a velocity measurement, and so far none of the Universal conservation laws have ever been broken under any circumstances outwith the Heisenberg Principle.

Except— dare we tell them?— that in order to make the post-big-bang expansion theories work it is necessary to temporarily change the velocity of light? We could explain that this is definitely NOT fudging the data.

Not really. The “boundary” of the Universe can appear to move faster than the speed of light without any particle inside moving faster than the speed of light relative to any other particle.

Shall we tell the rubes that the 1a supernova observations were made, not on actual supernovas, but on stellar remnants which we think are supernovas?

Actually, we constantly monitor a myriad of galaxies to gather, in real time, observational data on Supernovae, although I accept that this might not have been the case when you wrote your essay back in the dark ages of Cosmology.

Shall we ask some of the old astronomers who knew Hubble how much data he threw out because it failed to match his theories?

The observations made by Hubble have been refined by far more precise equipment in the interim time and the big bang idea ratified by the data collated by Penzias and Wilson.

As far as type 1a observations go, you, if you are who you say you are, should know that while some are intrinsically brighter than others they flare up and fade more slowly. There’s a correlation between the brightness and the width of the light curve that allows astronomers to apply a correction factor and standardize the observations. Even though there is an error factor in our estimate of the age of the Universe, we know that it’s very very old. Even more than six thousand years old.

Dare we mention that the half-life of an astronomy textbook is the shortest in the industry?

Of course, which is why your scribblings that date back to when I was in diapers are now rather obsolete, wouldn’t you agree?

Astronomers cannot possibly make any sense of the universe’s behavior without their assumption that the laws of physics are constant throughout space and time. Therefore they adopt that belief. It is a reasonable belief, and personally, I like it. But it could be dead wrong.

As soon as one single example is found where physics is not constant throughtout space and time, we can get back to this. In the meantime I’m quite satisfied on the matter.

So don’t get too snooty about being a “scientist.” Not just now.

This brings to mind an old addage about a pot and a kettle.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to point out that the properties of your “singularity,” (I prefer to call it the cosmic micropea) are in all general respects identical with the traditional God-concept.

My singularity suffers witches to live, doesn’t condone sex slavery and doesn’t push women around when they decide to have an abortion. Nor does it expect me to make fawning supplications to it… I think that even to a non philosopher like myself these are important distinctions.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck.

Of late you’ve been sporting something called “Young’s Theorem” as a signature tag line.

Have you noticed that the “theorem” is expressed in inefficient 5th grade English, and that it is not a theorem at all, but rather a tautology?

Is “Young” your real name, or that of a college buddy invested in your combo Beer Can Holder and Propeller Beanie with Groucho Eyebrows & Nose franchise?

Greylorn.

**** off.

 

[Moonstruck888]

All scientists have beliefs; they have beliefs about how we should conduct our lives. They have beliefs about what a good life would consist of. They have a belief about what ultimate reality consists of. They have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. They believe that other minds exist. Some believe in God. A rational scientist would perceive science as revealing one aspect of reality alone and would not perceive the scientific principle as limiting them in developing an all encompassing rational inferential philosophy about the other aspects of life that are evident to us but cannot be touched by the scientific method.

The problem with you is that you present science as an all embracing measure of truth, outside of which no belief can be rationally or reasonably held or proven; but this contradicts the fact that we hold many beliefs that cannot be validated by science, and we perceive our selves as legitimately holding these beliefs.

All philosophers have beliefs. All humans have beliefs… How can you say that science can’t produce results because scientists are human? That doesn’t hold water.

 

[momor]

REPLY 2 of 2 to post 9-132

From prior posts I’m guessing that you are simply another run-of-the-mill atheist with a physics certificate from DeVry who’s watched NitGeo a few afternoons while cleaning the house for mom, and without an interesting idea in his head, I’d love to be wrong. If you can actually understand anything I’ve just written, and can move to a different position— rather than defending one religion against another, to working on ideas outside existing beliefs, do let me know.

Please do not take the above remarks personally. They are based upon the same kind of objective scientific observations that astronomers use to identify 1a supernovas. That is pretty much comparing one ball of exploded gas to other balls of gas with similar characteristics. It is entirely impersonal. Neither I nor astronomers can reach out and touch the gas balls. We cannot even be certain that the gas balls actually exist.

I am currently working on modeling the pre-existing (pre-matter) universe with one of the Calabi-Yau spaces plus an embedded space, and have a correspondent working on this. Can’t do it myself, since I’m a few decades past my last topology class and 3 hours from the nearest university. Can you assist?

**My purpose is simply figuring out the entire universe **using the known laws of science, and I include a Creator and the “soul” in that figuring. Anyone qualified is welcome to assist.

WOW. Can you spell A R R O G A N T ? I don’t think you need to look any further for God.

Your put down was pretty humorous though.

 

[Moonstruck888]

When logic conflicts with belief, I’ve learned to always choose logic, however distasteful a choice it may be at first. Logic always produces a correct result, and when it seems not to do so, I find that all I need to do is correct a premise or two. This process gives some integrity of mind, along with considerable isolation.

That sounds to me like your coat is on a very shakey nail. If you don’t like the conclusions you reach, just adjust a premise or two? Start where you want to be and work backwards if things don’t seem to be correct?

I think I’d rather stick with experiment to determine what’s correct, even on type 1a supernovae that can and are being directly observed.

The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an
ugly fact. - T H Huxley

My purpose is simply figuring out the entire universe using the known laws of science, and I include a Creator and the “soul” in that figuring. Anyone qualified is welcome to assist.

The sad thing is that while you seem to have grasped some of the fundamentals, any insights that you have to share are made impalatable by the fact that you put them across in such an odious way that you are impossible to engage with. In short, the arrogance with which you adopt an unmerited position of superiority over everyone else makes you impossible to like.

 

[greylorn]

WOW. Can you spell A R R O G A N T ? I don’t think you need to look any further for God.

Yep. I selpl msot wrdos pterty wlel, but hvae ocascoianl lpsaes. Either the electroshock therapy or the prefrontal lobotomy affected my biarn.

On occasion, posters abuse their anonymity to muck up threads with conceit and nonsense, when they could actually learn, question, and even contribute. I figure that my best contributions are all of the above.

I learned debate by often being the only person in a roomful of arrogant (well earned) physicists, astronomers, biochemists, engineers, etc. who defended the concept of a Creator as being essential to a correct understanding of the universe, and of mankind.

My post-grad degree in arrogance is well earned.

I know that it is socially repulsive, but find that it works as an excellent filter for nitwits. It always lets me know who might be worth continuing the conversation with, over burgers and beers. Several of my mentors, far brighter than I, used the same techniques on me, and I admire them for it.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I know that it is socially repulsive, but find that it works as an excellent filter for nitwits. It always lets me know who might be worth continuing the conversation with, over burgers and beers. Several of my mentors, far brighter than I, used the same techniques on me, and I admire them for it.

Personally, I feel you come across as a bombastic simpleton with little of any sincerity to say with this approach.

You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Perhaps you should turn your nitwit filter on yourself?

 

[momor]

Yep. I selpl msot wrdos pterty wlel, but hvae ocascoianl lpsaes. Either the electroshock therapy or the prefrontal lobotomy affected my biarn.

On occasion, posters abuse their anonymity to muck up threads with conceit and nonsense, when they could actually learn, question, and even contribute. I figure that my best contributions are all of the above.

I learned debate by often being the only person in a roomful of arrogant (well earned) physicists, astronomers, biochemists, engineers, etc. who defended the concept of a Creator as being essential to a correct understanding of the universe, and of mankind.

My post-grad degree in arrogance is well earned.

I know that it is socially repulsive, but find that it works as an excellent filter for nitwits. It always lets me know who might be worth continuing the conversation with, over burgers and beers. Several of my mentors, far brighter than I, used the same techniques on me, and I admire them for it.

I happen to think that arrogance closes the mind and humility opens it. When you think you know it all, what more is there to learn?