Logical proof of a deistic "God"

[Strange]

8 hours ago, martillo said:

Well, I will ask why Science would not consider the possibility of a "Universal computing system" running the Physics laws over the elementary particles.

Scientists do consider such models. Stephen Wolfram has written a book about his ideas on the subject.  None of them (so far) work  

But such a model says nothing about the existence (or otherwise) of your god. 

So this is just another non-sequitur based on your lack of knowledge. 

[martillo]

45 minutes ago, Manticore said:

To prove that there exists only one god, you have to show:

1) The Universe is not infinite (since in an infinite Universe there must be either zero or an infinite number of them - depending on whether they can exist at all).

2) Faster than light communication (if you assume that your god can think as fast as the average home computer, then, with the speed of light as a limit, it's maximum possible size is 5cm in diameter - assuming no processing delays).

And may be yet some other things must be proved to prove some kind of "God" for real but that's no reason to negate the possibility. The possibility of a deistic God should be maintained open until demonstrated false I think. Lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo

[martillo]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Scientists do consider such models. Stephen Wolfram has written a book about his ideas on the subject.  None of them (so far) work  

But such a model says nothing about the existence (or otherwise) of your god. 

So this is just another non-sequitur based on your lack of knowledge. 

No, no because lack of knowledge. My consideration of a "God" comes from what I wrote in the following page I posted some posts above. I repeat it here because seems you missed it:

Quote

REALITY IS HARD

 

All kind of deseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies... We don't live in any Paradise. But not being human beings fault, what fails is the Physics of the Universe what I argue at the web page: A Physics' flaw

The Physics of the Universe determines everything material and the entire Nature itself including our own organism. Failing, the things are not as they should be. And in this are all of us, living a wrong life from which nobody scapes. What remains for us is try to live the better possible way doing what we know and could do that always, in one way or another, ends being something others are needing. Nothing else remains.

And as I say at the web page:

_ "Hope would exist if some "Superior Intelligence" would exist, responsible for the Universe Physics System and capable to fix it. But it and its systems could also have been affected by their own Physics' problems and so not being able to think and work properly..."

_ "May be we, all humans at Earth with all of our developed knowledge, technology and our imagination, could be helping someway just following our intuition. Everything could be important."

_ "That's what makes sense to me although with the lack of some proofs."

_ "That's my faith."

 

 

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

I repeat it here because seems you missed it:

I didn't miss it. It is just you complaining that the universe isn't the way you want it to be. So you invent god to give you hope that things could be better. I imagine a great many people believe in their gods for the same reason. 

However, it is not a logical argument but a purely emotional one. (And therefore off topic :))

[martillo]

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

I didn't miss it. It is just you complaining that the universe isn't the way you want it to be. So you invent god to give you hope that things could be better. I imagine a great many people believe in their gods for the same reason. 

However, it is not a logical argument but a purely emotional one. (And therefore off topic :))

I guess you find logical for life be as it is as I saw scientific documentary telling how pretty adjusted are Universe's physics parameters for life, this life with all that "kind of deseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies...". I find that simply resignation for not having even idea of a possible solution and so no hope. As reality gives no hope better is to show things in a pretty way and sustain "la vita e bella", isn't it?. Sorry I (and may be those other ones) can't be so hypocrite.

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo

[Strange]

1 minute ago, martillo said:

I guess you find logical for life be as it is

I guess you don't know what the word "logical" means. (The world being the way it is has nothing to do with logic.)

i strongly recommend signing up for an introductory course in philosophy so you learn what the word means, how to use logic and how to construct an argument. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

No, no because lack of knowledge. My consideration of a "God" comes from what I wrote in the following page I posted some posts above. I repeat it here because seems you missed it:

 

Martillo, 

Nice to hear you arguing your corner . I have my own problem in this direction .

It seems many scientists are ( heisted by their own  petard) Quote  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard   Because of the requirement for much of science to have completely rigorous logic and demonstrable mathematical proof , any ' God ' type reasoning , " falls on completely deaf ears " . 

However there are a growing number of scientists who are looking " outside the box " as more things are becoming non answerable , by centre stage science . 

 

Mike 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[martillo]

7 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Martillo, 

Nice to hear you arguing your corner . I have my own problem in this direction .

It seems many scientists are ( heisted by their own  petard) Quote  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard   Because of the requirement for much of science to have completely rigorous logic and demonstrable mathematical proof , any ' God ' type reasoning , " falls on completely deaf ears " . 

However there are a growing number of scientists who are looking " outside the box " as more things are becoming non answerable , by centre stage science . 

 

Mike 

I appreciate your comment. Glad to not be the unique one thinking in that direction. The first step to solve a problem is to recognize it exists. Even knowing we could not have the final solution to it we must continue on the way I think. May be as a Morpheus giving skill tools for some posible Neo (Matrix remember?) anywhere I think. We know the problem exists and it affects everybody. We cannot give up in trying to make our part in solving it even if the way is frustrating sometimes. From my point of view it demands high rationalism in Physics and Metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism) where I find good inspiration in Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes). Just tell me if you want to talk about something. May be we could exchange ideas. You said you have your own problem in that direction, may be I could help in something. You can even message me in the profile if you would prefer.

Edited August 11, 2017 by martillo

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, martillo said:

I appreciate your comment. Glad to not be the unique one thinking in that direction. The first step to solve a problem is to recognize it exists. Even knowing we could not have the final solution to it we must continue on the way I think. May be as a Morpheus giving skill tools for some posible Neo (Matrix remember?) anywhere I think. We know the problem exists and it affects everybody. We cannot give up in trying to make our part in solving it even if the way is frustrating sometimes. From my point of view it demands high rationalism in Physics and Metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism) where I find good inspiration in Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes). Just tell me if you want to talk about something. May be we could exchange ideas. You said you have your own problem in that direction, may be I could help in something. You can even message me in the profile if you would prefer.

Again, you are doing nothing but constructing a version of science that is not accurate and then arguing against that strawman. That accomplishes nothing, indeed it takes away from your credibility severely, and a straw man fallacy is dishonest...  

[Moontanman]

8 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Martillo, 

Nice to hear you arguing your corner . I have my own problem in this direction .

It seems many scientists are ( heisted by their own  petard) Quote  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard   Because of the requirement for much of science to have completely rigorous logic and demonstrable mathematical proof , any ' God ' type reasoning , " falls on completely deaf ears " . 

However there are a growing number of scientists who are looking " outside the box " as more things are becoming non answerable , by centre stage science . 

 

Mike 

So you think that scientists that by definition use the scientific method to find answers should think outside the scientific method and use the concept of the supernatural to make up answers you would like to see. 

I'd like to see a citation for things becoming "non answerable" via the scientific method! In fact I would assert the exact opposite is true and our knowledge of the universe is constantly expanding.  Just because science doesn't have an answer you approve of or currently have an answer doesn't mean we have given up or that we will never have the answer. 

At no time has considering the supernatural brought us knowledge and at no time has the supernatural corrected science by showing science to be wrong about anything. 

[Moontanman]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

I guess you find logical for life be as it is as I saw scientific documentary telling how pretty adjusted are Universe's physics parameters for life, this life with all that "kind of deseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies...". I find that simply resignation for not having even idea of a possible solution and so no hope. As reality gives no hope better is to show things in a pretty way and sustain "la vita e bella", isn't it?. Sorry I (and may be those other ones) can't be so hypocrite.

The universe is not adjusted to favor life, in fact almost none of the universe is suitable for life just as almost none of the earth is suitable for human life. Your disappointment that science cannot answer your personal pet questions in a way that you want has no bearing on those answers. 

[Strange]

On 11/08/2017 at 9:28 AM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Because of the requirement for much of science to have completely rigorous logic and demonstrable mathematical proof , any ' God ' type reasoning , " falls on completely deaf ears " . 

1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it.

2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: 

Q: Why are people good? A: God; 

Q: Why are people evil? A: God

Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God

Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God

After all, he moves in mysterious ways.

On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it.

2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: 

Q: Why are people good? A: God; 

Q: Why are people evil? A: God

Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God

Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God

After all, he moves in mysterious ways.

On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything.

Hang on a minute ! That is all a bit of a hasty and sweeping comment about the whole subject,  ( both of science , and of a tentative shot at what ' may ' just be another addition to current science understanding , that has not yet been grasped or even entertained by a large section of the science community ) . Namely , that there is .another , rather large , indeed massive , extra to science , that has a very variable , flexible , unpredictable  aspect to the Universe and its function and origin , that as of yet , in not even being seriously considered or in any way understood . 

POSSIBLY ! 

Even Einstein broached this subject with his (" God does not play dice ") 

 

Mike 

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Hang on a minute ! That is all a bit of a hasty and sweeping comment about the whole subject,  ( both of science , and of a tentative shot at what ' may ' just be another addition to current science understanding , that has not yet been grasped or even entertained by a large section of the science community ) . Namely , that there is .another , rather large , indeed massive , extra to science , that has a very variable , flexible , unpredictable  aspect to the Universe and its function and origin , that as of yet , in not even being seriously considered or in any way understood . 

POSSIBLY ! 

Even Einstein broached this subject with his (" God does not play dice ") 

 

Mike 

The thing is, god simply doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to science and religion. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The thing is, god simply doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to science and religion. 

Well , I am not so sure you are right about that . 

Scientists up through the ages have often dismissed proposals offered in advance that have later come to the for . ( in advance ) . 

Quantum ideas, dark matter , dark energy , complexity ,

 Mandelbrot  sets,  automata, bottom up/ top down , time , 

etc 

 

mike 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[dimreepr]

What does god effect in the real world?

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Hang on a minute ! That is all a bit of a hasty and sweeping comment about the whole subject,  ( both of science , and of a tentative shot at what ' may ' just be another addition to current science understanding , that has not yet been grasped or even entertained by a large section of the science community ) . Namely , that there is .another , rather large , indeed massive , extra to science , that has a very variable , flexible , unpredictable  aspect to the Universe and its function and origin , that as of yet , in not even being seriously considered or in any way understood . 

How would you test this? (Hint: if can't be tested, it isn't science.)

Quote

Even Einstein broached this subject with his (" God does not play dice ") 

That is what we call a "metaphor".

Edited August 12, 2017 by Strange

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Well , I am not so sure you are right about that . 

Scientists up through the ages have often dismissed proposals offered in advance that have later come to the for . ( in advance ) . 

Quantum ideas, dark matter , dark energy , complexity , etc 

Because of EVIDENCE. Not something that is going to come up with regard to god (by definition). 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

20 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What does god effect in the real world?

May be the whole '  schaboodle ' is originated, maintained , and altered by God! 

Maybe ? 

Mike 

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

May be the whole '  schaboodle ' is originated, maintained , and altered by God! 

Maybe ? 

Mike 

2

If that were true then scientific explanations would suddenly and inexplicably be nonsense, whenever it chose to alter things.

[martillo]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Hang on a minute ! That is all a bit of a hasty and sweeping comment about the whole subject,  ( both of science , and of a tentative shot at what ' may ' just be another addition to current science understanding , that has not yet been grasped or even entertained by a large section of the science community ) . Namely , that there is .another , rather large , indeed massive , extra to science , that has a very variable , flexible , unpredictable  aspect to the Universe and its function and origin , that as of yet , in not even being seriously considered or in any way understood . 

POSSIBLY ! 

Even Einstein broached this subject with his (" God does not play dice ") 

 

Mike 

Referring to:

Quote

 

Quote

 

     On ‎11‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:28 AM, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Because of the requirement for much of science to have completely rigorous logic and demonstrable mathematical proof , any ' God ' type reasoning , " falls on completely deaf ears " . 

 

 

1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it.

2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: 

Q: Why are people good? A: God; 

Q: Why are people evil? A: God

Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God

Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God

After all, he moves in mysterious ways.

On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything.

I think it all relies in which kind of "God" we are referring to. Any of those assertions corresponds to the deistic concept of "God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

Edited August 12, 2017 by martillo

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

Referring to:

I think it all relies in which kind of "God" we are referring to. Any of those assertions corresponds to the deistic concept of "God" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

If god does nothing then he is pointless and might as well not exist.

If god intervenes then that should be detectable. Unless he deliberately intervenes in a way that is identical to him not intervening, in which case he is pointless and might as well not exist.

[martillo]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

If god does nothing then he is pointless and might as well not exist.

If god intervenes then that should be detectable. Unless he deliberately intervenes in a way that is identical to him not intervening, in which case he is pointless and might as well not exist.

That has sense. Let me think in what could a deistic "God" intervene in the Universe without violating any physics' law...

Edited August 12, 2017 by martillo

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, martillo said:

That has sense. Let me think in what could a deistic "God" intervene in the Universe without violating any physics' law...

Maybe a sex god...

[martillo]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Maybe a sex god...

Not so bad. Many churchs predicates "God is love". ... ... ...But I don't believe that...

Edited August 12, 2017 by martillo