Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

Actually, this is would be an exercise in differential geometry.

Take a circle drawn on a plane. Warp the plane, stretch it in some parts, contract it in others, rotate it in along whatever axes among the infinite degrees of freedom imagineable and view it in one of the infinite view points possible.

I'm quite sure you'd see a square somewhere.

Is it still a plane if you warp it? How about from the perspective of the people living on the plane? If they think it is a plane is it not a plane still?

But I think you make a good point. For all of our purposes and intents it remains a plane and the circle remains a circle. But from the perspective of an outside observer, perhaps God, there is a way for a circle to be a square. Perhaps with God all things are possible - even things that are logically contradictory.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are misquoting it, I think. Eliminating "probable" explanations is pointless. The quote is more correctly: when we eliminate all other possible explanations, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true. In the Dark Ages people could not imagine electronic computers, that doesn't mean that computers are "god". We have just begun learning about the Universe, to suggest that we have already ruled out all the "possible" or even "probable" explanations is ridiculous.


I said your proof was not proof, I never said God didn't exist. You don't have to resort to changing my posts in this discussion. I think that a Creative Force does exist, but I don't think your proof is anything like adequate. You don't like "froth"? How about sophistry?

It may not be that we have proved one side or the other. Then again maybe we have but we don't recognize it.

When Einstein recognized that the results of the Hubble telescope forced an acceptance of a created universe after much resistance he said:

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

A later reflection was:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man..."

More food for thought on causality:

(an early quote) Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

and a later quote

"[]mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.[]"

We should all note that Einstein was not an expert on God but on physics. I present these as interesting in how they show what a pursuit of physics leads to. Clearly Einstein did not actively believe in the God of Christianity. But he was moving in that direction and who knows what the results would have been if he had lived longer.

The question for you, Mare, is given more time will you move one way or the other? And which will be the mistake? I doubt any of us can predict what our future thoughts will be without being prideful.

 

[Dr.Who]

Look back, Nums, you'll find that I haven't made any goblin or fairy accusations. I rarely use the denigrating terms for people that I see being posted.

Perhaps not with those exact words but no one can deny that you do disparage Christianity and make fun of it by comparing it to fairy tales in one way or another.

It would also be true that Numinus does not hold back his hostility toward the ignorant or those who are sexually different.

Not being innocent myself I suppose it is a good thing that three wrongs don't make a right. Whereas three repentant sinners do.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why would I insult someone who has been so nice to me and called me queer? Why would I insult someone who didn't know enough to tell homosexuals from transsexuals when delivering a denigrating comment? Me? Insult you? Never.

Probably for the same reasons that anyone insults anyone else.

I doubt it is any more justifiable to insult a person because they first insulted you than it is to insult someone because they type so much ignorance (Dawkins) or became a female (ykw), or were mean in just about any way.

Should I insult a developmentally disabled (DD) person because they are ignorant? Why should it make a difference if the person is just enough smarter so that they are no longer DD but still speak ignorance whenever possible?

Should I turn the other cheek when they insult me but then insult back when the insults have reached a certain level of meanness? Even if the meanness crosses a line and becomes dangerously violent I might defend myself but there is still no need to insult.

Same with just about any other quality I can think of. Somewhere out there there might be a place for insults of some sort but it is probably not my place to decide where and to whom they are appropriate. If I thought the insult were the only means to wake someone from a slumber and intended it for their own good, then perhaps? But I don't see that happening much around here.

 

[Dr.Who]

The argument that everything must have a cause is not supported,

Except of course by the Laws of Nature.

If it led to god god would also have to have a cause and you would need to start all over again.

Numinus, you are close to the truth.

You accept that the bible is nonesense.

You accept that god cannot exist as defined as omnipotent and omniscient.

The Bible does not say God is omnipotent nor omniscient. In fact those two words never appear in the bible. And ancient Hebrew is imprecise enough that the statements of power and knowledge could all as easily describe virtual omnipotence and virtual omniscient as absolute omnipotence and absolute omniscience.

 

[Dr.Who]

Two points: lack of proof is a logical refutation. And I don't have a political system, sorry, I'd like to, but as an individual I haven't been able to accomplish that yet.

Um, lack of evidence is never evidence. the most one can say based on lack of evidence is that something is not proven. One can't say that it is proven wrong. if you meant "not proven" when you said refuted then you are right. If you meant "proven" wrong then you are wrong.

 

[top gun]

It may not be that we have proved one side or the other. Then again maybe we have but we don't recognize it.

When Einstein recognized that the results of the Hubble telescope forced an acceptance of a created universe after much resistance he said:

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

A later reflection was:

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man..."

More food for thought on causality:

(an early quote) Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

and a later quote

"[]mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.[]"

We should all note that Einstein was not an expert on God but on physics. I present these as interesting in how they show what a pursuit of physics leads to. Clearly Einstein did not actively believe in the God of Christianity. But he was moving in that direction and who knows what the results would have been if he had lived longer.

The question for you, Mare, is given more time will you move one way or the other? And which will be the mistake? I doubt any of us can predict what our future thoughts will be without being prideful.

Good points and interesting reading.

And I also agree everyone should always keep an open mind during the search for knowledge.

There are most likely some things we will never be able to prove for certain if for no other reason than they are so cataclysmic that they cannot be reproduced.

And I also agree that when studying things of such a great magnitude as the beginning of all things the overwhelming nature of the subject can tend to make one lean toward the spiritual or super natural.

So I'm on board all the way to here.

However... none of this is proof of God and even more certainly not proof that any of the earth's man made religions have been created of that God.

That's why the original thread question was presented in this way, "Prove that God doesn't exist". But that finds us no provable solution. The question could just as easily be turned around to, "Prove God does exist" and you get no closer to proof of anything.

It's all faith from passed down legend. Go to a place that's isolated from any legend or has a different legend passed down and you can draw a completely different supposition.

Thinking logically. A God so great as to be able create the entire universe and all things, one would think it would present itself to everyone, everywhere and leave no doubt... not create some glorified scavenger hunt.

Especially because "knowing all" it would know all of the death and destruction that would be set into motion by battling religious beliefs... all in it's name.

But all this said I still believe everybody should be allowed any religious belief they themselves choose. They should just not push their personal belief onto others by calling it fact... until it is fact.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

And why would such a god bother to make people at all let alone some who will burn forever.

Especially as he made the sin they are guilty of.

 

[numinus]

Is it still a plane if you warp it? How about from the perspective of the people living on the plane? If they think it is a plane is it not a plane still?

It would still be a plane if you warp it along an axis other than the conventional 2d of the plane. 2 points on a sphere would appear like a c-shaped curve viewed 3 dimensionally. It is impossible to lay out this surface flat (2d). At some point, there would be distortions. So the c-shaped curve, laid out flat, would appear as an s-shaped geodesic.

But I think you make a good point. For all of our purposes and intents it remains a plane and the circle remains a circle. But from the perspective of an outside observer, perhaps God, there is a way for a circle to be a square. Perhaps with God all things are possible - even things that are logically contradictory.

The more important point is that an empirical truth is just that -- something true based only on a particular sensory experience.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Which is infintely better evidence than that for the existence of god

 

[numinus]

Good points and interesting reading.

And I also agree everyone should always keep an open mind during the search for knowledge.

There are most likely some things we will never be able to prove for certain if for no other reason than they are so cataclysmic that they cannot be reproduced.

And I also agree that when studying things of such a great magnitude as the beginning of all things the overwhelming nature of the subject can tend to make one lean toward the spiritual or super natural.

So I'm on board all the way to here.

Apparently not. Why else ask for scientific evidence to support a metaphysical truth?

The reason for that, if I may be so bold as to give my opinion of you, is that your question PRESUPPOSES nothing can exist outside what is scientifically verifiable. And that is precisely why I think your sort of agnosticism is nothing more than an elaborate sham.

However... none of this is proof of God and even more certainly not proof that any of the earth's man made religions have been created of that God.

Like this one right here.

This statement demonstrates an inexplicable bias against pure logic. It is like saying that the internal angles of a triangle is not equal to 180 degrees because no triangle manifesting in the material world has the sum of its internal angles equal precisely 180 degrees. And no amount of precise measurement, even if you use current gps technology, would yield a triangle whose internal angles equal 180 degrees.

That's why the original thread question was presented in this way, "Prove that God doesn't exist". But that finds us no provable solution. The question could just as easily be turned around to, "Prove God does exist" and you get no closer to proof of anything.

Correction -- YOU are no closer to proof. For the rest of us reasonable individuals, the existence of god is inescapable.

It's all faith from passed down legend. Go to a place that's isolated from any legend or has a different legend passed down and you can draw a completely different supposition.

Exactly.

Except the three monotheistic religion, all major religions of the world today started independent from one another.

Thinking logically. A God so great as to be able create the entire universe and all things, one would think it would present itself to everyone, everywhere and leave no doubt... not create some glorified scavenger hunt.

Exactly.

He laid out the entire universe for your perusal. He gave you the ability to discern cause and effect. There is no doubt as to the extent of the creator's self-revelation, even to someone with only a rudimentary understanding of logic.

Instead, you are more interested in some complicated mental gymnastics like string or loop-quantum gravity in a vain effort to disprove the obvious.

Especially because "knowing all" it would know all of the death and destruction that would be set into motion by battling religious beliefs... all in it's name.

Exactly.

Knowing the imperfection of the human condition, he gave you the ability to rise above it.

But all this said I still believe everybody should be allowed any religious belief they themselves choose. They should just not push their personal belief onto others by calling it fact... until it is fact.

Spare us with what you pretend to know. You don't know jack$hit.

 

[numinus]

Which is infintely better evidence than that for the existence of god

Now you pretend to understand differential geometry??? And you say the proof is better, eh???

The solution for the geodesic on the surface of an oblate spheroid is a tedious partial differential involving no less than 10 variables. You cannot even understand simple evolution and you imagine you can grasp that, eh?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh I can understand evolution alright depsite counter-examples such as yourself.

Evolution killed creationism.

And another biblical story bit the dust.

The bible is dicredited.

There is not a shred of evidence to link even your half baked ideas with a benevolent god.

And quoting formulae that you have copied off the internet does not impress me nor, I suspect, anyonen else on this board.

Your desperation to try to demonstrate some kind of academic knowldege is just embarrassing

 

[numinus]

Oh I can understand evolution alright depsite counter-examples such as yourself.

Evolution killed creationism.

And another biblical story bit the dust.

The bible is dicredited.

There is not a shred of evidence to link even your half baked ideas with a benevolent god.

And quoting formulae that you have copied off the internet does not impress me nor, I suspect, anyonen else on this board.

Your desperation to try to demonstrate some kind of academic knowldege is just embarrassing

We all know the extent of your (mis)understanding of evolution. What I am not certain is your understanding of geodesics?

Do you know why a geodesic on an oblate spheroid appears like an s-curve when projected on a plane?

And if it is at all possible to cut and paste the standard mathematical symbols here, so much the better.

 

[Lagboltz]

Do you know why a geodesic on an oblate spheroid appears like an s-curve when projected on a plane?

And if it is at all possible to cut and paste the standard mathematical symbols here, so much the better.

Numinus: I see you are in interested in Oblate Spheroids. You must be an airplane pilot. That is the only type of person that would be interested in that. I think the information at this site will help you.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OblateSpheroidGeodesic.html

Good luck with your travels. But I really don't see what this has to do with proof of anything about God.