God and science

[koti]

55 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is describing algorithms. My argument is not that mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, but that the universe functions based on algorithms.

Mathematics attempt to describe the universe. The universe does not function based on Mathematics/algorithms, Math/algorithms are just a language/tool which we use to describe the universe. You got it the other way around, look at the dancing balerina and think about it.

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe, the nature of which is not fully understood. In this way, we are not confusing "god" with the symbolism that is used to describe god.

Not fully understanding is also known as 'we don't know'. Why are you so worried by not knowing to the point you will invent something called god to pretend you do know?

 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If "god did it" then what that explains is there is a reason why humans are supposed to exist in the universe.

But it doesn't explain why or how god exists - has he been forever, or did he pop out of nothing? These questions still exist only we apply them to something called god instead of the universe. 

Nothing has been answered, but an illusion of knowing has been conjured.

[Endercreeper01]

8 hours ago, Prometheus said:

You not being aware of hypotheses is not the same as them not existing. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about all the scientific hypotheses about consciousness, but why would you remain so wilfully ignorant when it's obviously a subject you're interested in and why would you argue from this position of ignorance so strongly? 

After about 10 seconds on google i found three: the Perceptronium,  the Orchestrated Objective Reduction hypothesis and the Astonishing hypothesis. 

 

If you are being consistent then you should also not accept other humans beings are conscious. After all, how do you prove they are conscious? 

 

By the way - are you ever going to answer Studiot's questions about the Incompleteness theorem? 

I am aware of those hypotheses. However, those are not the hypotheses I am talking about. None of those hypotheses explain how consciousness arises in the same way that Newton's theory does not describe how gravity arises.

My reasoning for accepting other humans as conscious is because I am a human, and I am also conscious, so I have reason to assume that other humans should be conscious as well. Artificial intelligence, however, I would not assume to be conscious without good reason to.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Endercreeper01

[Prometheus]

2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I am aware of those hypotheses. However, those are not the hypotheses I am talking about. None of those hypotheses explain how consciousness arises in the same way that Newton's theory does not describe how gravity arises.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain the how species arise in the same way as Newton's theory describes gravity so what's your point?

I could have happily accepted a lack of evidence for not accepting these hypotheses, but this just seems like mental contortion to keep hold of your beliefs.

 

9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

MY reasoning for accepting other humans as conscious is because I am a human, and I am also conscious, so I have reason to assume that other humans should be conscious as well. Artificial intelligence, however, I would not assume to be conscious without good reason to.

So you infer consciousness in others based on your own consciousness coupled with the 'sameness' of them to you. I'm sympathetic to that reasoning so long as you don't make the bar for supposing some AI is conscious so high that it will never pass. Based on your view that mathematical constructs cannot be conscious and that a computer is essentially a mathematical construct i suspect you think it is impossible. What would an AI need to do to prove it's consciousness to you?

[Endercreeper01]

8 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Not fully understanding is also known as 'we don't know'. Why are you so worried by not knowing to the point you will invent something called god to pretend you do know?

 

But it doesn't explain why or how god exists - has he been forever, or did he pop out of nothing? These questions still exist only we apply them to something called god instead of the universe. 

Nothing has been answered, but an illusion of knowing has been conjured.

It's not about god being something which exists, it's about god being something which affects change in the universe. It doesn't explain the nature of god, but it can explain that there is a reason why humans exist, as in the sense of "purpose" and "meaning".

God doesn't have to be anything more than something which is necessary to exist in order to lead to consciousness arising. Although god's physical, mechanical nature is still unknown (just as the mechanisms behind the universe itself), it would explain what god "is".

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Mathematics attempt to describe the universe. The universe does not function based on Mathematics/algorithms, Math/algorithms are just a language/tool which we use to describe the universe. You got it the other way around, look at the dancing balerina and think about it.

No, mathematics is describing algorithms which dictate the operation of the universe. If the universe functions in a logical, consistent manner, it is reasonable to state that algorithms are a part of the operation of the universe. What we would describe as algorithms are rules which describe how what we would describe as quantities relate to one another. These rules are what are fundamental to the universe.

[koti]

23 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

No, mathematics is describing algorithms Which dictate the operation of the universe.

It looks like you didn’t take time to look at the ballerina and take some time to think about what Strange and Prometheus are saying. What you wrote above is profoundly wrong for reasons explained to you in numerous posts in this thread.

Edited November 25, 2017 by koti

[Prometheus]

 

9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It's not about god being something which exists...

Well you got that bit right.

 

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

... it's about god being something which affects change in the universe. It doesn't explain the nature of god, but it can explain that there is a reason why humans exist, as in the sense of "purpose" and "meaning".

God can't imbue purpose in us unless he comes down and tells us what that 'purpose' is. Which hasn't happened. So by your own measure god is useless. Unless god told you his purpose for you?

The need for purpose is not evidence for god.

But why the need to recieve purpose from some 'higher' being anyway? You can create purpose for yourself or receive it from another human. That way you'll actually know what it is, or can change it if you don't like it.

 

10 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

God doesn't have to be anything more than something which is necessary to exist in order to lead to consciousness arising.

Which is just not needed. We can just be honest and say we don't know, but we're looking it into.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

My argument is not that mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, but that the universe functions based on algorithms.

Algorithms are a set of instructions. There is no evidence that such instructions exist. There is no evidence that such a set of instructions can exist (we certainly couldn't produce anything like that). And there is no evidence for anyone who could have written such a set of instructions.

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe

But all the changes in the universe can be explained without invoking god. Water runs downhill for well understood reasons that don't require your god to be there pushing it. And, anyway, why your god? Why not invisible pink unicorns pushing the water downhill?

2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If "god did it" then what that explains is there is a reason why humans are supposed to exist in the universe

This is the fallacy of begging the question. You assume there has to be a reason and then invent an explanation. (For some reason, almost every description of this fallacy includes an example from religion. I wonder why...) 

40 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

The theory of evolution doesn't explain the how species arise in the same way as Newton's theory describes gravity so what's your point?

Actually, it does explain how species arise.

37 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

but it can explain that there is a reason why humans exist, as in the sense of "purpose" and "meaning".

As there is no need for any such explanation, your god has no purpose.

38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If the universe functions in a logical, consistent manner

If that is what you mean by "algorithm" then you are abusing the word. It is interesting that the universe appears to behave in a consistent manner (I don't know about "logical" but never mind) but I don't see why that requires a god.

[Prometheus]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Actually, it does explain how species arise.

But not in the same way as Newton explained gravity, which was the point i was trying to make (unless we take the most general case of formulating hypothesis and testing them against observations - but i think Endercreeper wasn't talking at that level). 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But not in the same way as Newton explained gravity

This could be an interesting topic in its own right. But is probably a distraction here...

[dimreepr]

On 24/11/2017 at 12:33 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics?

 

It seems to me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle puts a fundamental spanner in your works. 

On 24/11/2017 at 9:34 PM, jonnobody said:

dimreepr 

In short, your belief is immaterial... oh I give up.

Believe what you want it won't change anything.

Actually - believing DOES change things - https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2015/oct/09/probation-officer-believe-people-can-change

You're taking my reply out of context and what I believe you meant to say is "believing DOES can change things."

If you want to argue my point please include the post I was replying to.

On 11/11/2017 at 4:21 PM, Mario Finato Cestari said:

  In short, I come to the conclusion that the more we study and understand the perfection of our universe from astronomical bodies like stars to the atom it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that all this is simply the result of randomness, precisely because of what I believe in existence of God.

 

On 25/11/2017 at 5:38 PM, Endercreeper01 said:

If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe, the nature of which is not fully understood. In this way, we are not confusing "god" with the symbolism that is used to describe god.

1

I get your confusion, you assume god is a mathematician.

[DaniWhite]

On 25.11.2017 at 11:54 AM, Prometheus said:

It doesn't say anything. It isn't using evolution. The universe doesn't gain anything. Why insist the universe has such human tendencies?

So what's the point of it all? Well why does does there need to be one? Just to satisfy people who crave purpose to the universe it seems. Which is no reason at all. You have presupposed purpose and then used that to prove to yourself there is purpose - can you see how this reasoning is flawed? These processes are part of the dance of the universe which maybe we'll explain to our satisfaction and maybe we won't. But it's OK to say we don't know - far better than saying, 'erm, yeah, something called god did it - that's all that explained then'.

Even if we say god did it what has that explained? The universe is complicated because he wanted it that way. But why? Nothing has been gained or explained. Except for people afraid of the bizarre nature of the universe, who want to explain things in familiar terms - desire, purpose, will. A being with desires? i can understand that - but this quantum fluctuation stuff - far too abstract. It's often said scientists lack imagination because they deny cool stuff like the supernatural, but when we really look at it we see it's theists who really lack imagination as they need to couch everything in terms of a being with motives and desires - just like them.

Play Conway's game of life, watch a Mandelbrot zoom (or better yet, create them yourself). Observe how extremely complex patterns emerge from the iteration of some ridiculously simple rules for yourself. Then actually learn some basic sciences and observe how complexity arises

 

When I understand you correctly, you say that the universe in its current state just
happened without purpose, without any force that created it that way, that gravity and
all other laws of physic are not developed or used by the universe itself or
some little creator force in the universe but that everything just happened because
mathematically there is a chance for this. That this happened by randomness.
Because when having a lot of possibilities mathematically
Something like that can just happen.

Can I compare this randomness of creation, to throwing a huge dice? And depending on how the
Dice is thrown, humans can be created, or other creatures, or just no life at all. And by throwing the dice
just something is created in the universe?

Yes, you are completely right. Why this matters to me so much, is that my soul wants to
be in a safe harbor. That I am not "lost" in this big wide universe all alone. I had
struggles with finding life purpose all my life, and it's not over yet (although I have 3 wonderfull kids
and a very nice wife, It helps a lot of course but this little nagging insecurity / lostness is still there). But I have no problem
what so ever to say "I don't know". I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I would consider
myself an Agnostic. Because I say, I don't know what’s it all about, I don't know if god
exists. I can’t make a conclusion just on what I know and the experience in life. So I am
very fine with saying " I don't know". But still this question is a very interesting one
and I like to broaden my view and get new input… this time a scientific one.

I mean when god exists this means, that we have some kind of purpose. But now when I think
about your words and the role god plays, it feels more than a parent who made but then abandoned us. But still I think
It would be slightly better, just to know we were made by purpose. But Ok I understand
that my human categories should not be applied to the functioning of the universe. This
idea is really new to me and very strange beginning to think that way. I mean of course
I thought about that no god exists, and the universe is what it is without god. But erasing
The idea that something was created out of nothing (in contrast to something always have been there), a willful
Development of life or complexy. This idea of complete randomness just by mathematically probability is new to me.

Ok, but someone created this game of life. Someone invented the rules. So who invented the
rules of the universe. Did they just happen by throwing the dice of existence?

 

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, DaniWhite said:

Ok, but someone created this game of life. Someone invented the rules. So who invented the
rules of the universe. Did they just happen by throwing the dice of existence?

Why assume someone created the rules?

And the alternative that is not randomness. But setting up a false dichotomy like that, it may feel like it is easier to rationalise your faith but it is also a bit dishonest.

Why not just accept you believe in a god and leave it at that? Why do you have try and pretend there is some scientific basis for it? After all, if there were then it wouldn't be "faith" would it?

Edited November 30, 2017 by Strange

[seriously disabled]

While I'm not trying to denigrate the religious I think that it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that religion is just wishful thinking and that religion is silly and quite irrational.

If there was a real God then I think he could have done a better job at gathering believers and I think that if he was a moral God then he could do a better job of smiting all of the fake Gods and making us know that he is the real God for certain.

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

While I'm not trying to denigrate the religious I think that it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that religion is just wishful thinking and that religion is silly and quite irrational.

If there was a real God then I think he could have done a better job at gathering believers and I think that if he was a moral God then he could do a better job of smiting all of the fake Gods and making us know that he is the real God for certain.

What has god got to do with it?

[zapatos]

On 12/14/2017 at 10:02 AM, seriously disabled said:

While I'm not trying to denigrate the religious I think that it doesn't exactly take a genius to see that religion is just wishful thinking and that religion is silly and quite irrational.

If there was a real God then I think he could have done a better job at gathering believers and I think that if he was a moral God then he could do a better job of smiting all of the fake Gods and making us know that he is the real God for certain.

It is interesting that you see a Christian belief in God as "silly and quite irrational", but a God acting according to your specifications would be "real" and rational.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is interesting that you see a Christian belief in God as "silly and quite irrational", but a God acting according to your specifications would be "real" and rational.

Not really, though. The science supports this. tldr? We ALL make god(s) in our own image. 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/#.Wj82WyRMGhA

Quote

For many religious people, the popular question “What would Jesus do?” is essentially the same as “What would I do?” That’s the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God.  Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions

 

[beecee]

On 12/1/2017 at 1:00 AM, DaniWhite said:

 

When I understand you correctly, you say that the universe in its current state just
happened without purpose, without any force that created it that way, that gravity and
all other laws of physic are not developed or used by the universe itself or
some little creator force in the universe but that everything just happened because
mathematically there is a chance for this. That this happened by randomness.
Because when having a lot of possibilities mathematically
Something like that can just happen.

Can I compare this randomness of creation, to throwing a huge dice? And depending on how the
Dice is thrown, humans can be created, or other creatures, or just no life at all. And by throwing the dice
just something is created in the universe?

Yes, you are completely right. Why this matters to me so much, is that my soul wants to
be in a safe harbor. That I am not "lost" in this big wide universe all alone. I had
struggles with finding life purpose all my life, and it's not over yet (although I have 3 wonderfull kids
and a very nice wife, It helps a lot of course but this little nagging insecurity / lostness is still there). But I have no problem
what so ever to say "I don't know". I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I would consider
myself an Agnostic. Because I say, I don't know what’s it all about, I don't know if god
exists. I can’t make a conclusion just on what I know and the experience in life. So I am
very fine with saying " I don't know". But still this question is a very interesting one
and I like to broaden my view and get new input… this time a scientific one.

I mean when god exists this means, that we have some kind of purpose. But now when I think
about your words and the role god plays, it feels more than a parent who made but then abandoned us. But still I think
It would be slightly better, just to know we were made by purpose. But Ok I understand
that my human categories should not be applied to the functioning of the universe. This
idea is really new to me and very strange beginning to think that way. I mean of course
I thought about that no god exists, and the universe is what it is without god. But erasing
The idea that something was created out of nothing (in contrast to something always have been there), a willful
Development of life or complexy. This idea of complete randomness just by mathematically probability is new to me.

Ok, but someone created this game of life. Someone invented the rules. So who invented the
rules of the universe. Did they just happen by throwing the dice of existence?

 

Hiya Danni, if my post appears irrational its because I have had a few Fosters and at my age it doesn't take too  much to get me schnozzled.I was raised as a good Catholic boy and was even at one time an Altar boy until I got caught drinking the Altar wine. My Mrs of 40 odd years now is a devout christian. In my life time and interest in science, I have seen the latter, slowly push the necessity of any deity further and futher back.

I still though prefer to let religious people be, unless of course they start threads or make excuses to denigrate science, then I make it known in no uncertain terms what I think of their God and beliefs. While science are now reasonably able to explain how the universe came to be, we still, scientists that is, have a way to go to absolutely banish any need for any deity. Scientists as yet are only able to speculate the how and why of the BB, and that obviously leaaves the door open for religious orginizations to put in their God of the gaps.

Anyway, another Fosters beckons! seeya! 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Long list of equations split to new thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/112529-qm-wrong-split-from-god-and-science/

 

 

[jonnobody]

google 'existence1891' and you will find most of your 6000 questions in your original article are answered

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, jonnobody said:

google 'existence1891' and you will find most of your 6000 questions in your original article are answered

Tried that. It brought up random collection of results related to politics, sport, literature, etc. Nothing obviously relevant to this thread. 

So ... what are you talking about?

[jimmydasaint]

My own tuppence worth as a believer for about 34 years now.

Science is a set of techniques which can be used in a hypothesis/falsification/new hypothesis method to find objective truths.

It is neutral to the existence or absence of God

The Universe, as we know it, is either infinite or finite.

If it is infinite then my whole argument falls apart.

If it is finite, then it had a start.  That start is a hypothesis called The Big Bang.

Science has given evidence of the existence of a Big Bang -for example, cosmic microwave background, Hubble red shift of galaxies 

The Laws of physics apparently came into being at the Big Bang and then became pretty much immutable.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. God created matter and cannot be then contained or trapped by His Laws.

Space-time was created by God. The Bible and other revelations spend time telling us what happens at the end of "Earth" time so God has seen all of Time as it passed before Him.

God's revelations appeared in all three theist religions but as metaphor and allegory not in complete factual detail.  God gave a spark to the start of the Universe and let his revelations and Laws do the rest.  

God gives meaning and purpose to the lives of billions of people on this planet, including myself.

If you do not believe or seek a scientific proof for God, it is not there. What would be the point if we have something called free will if a Father like figure showed His presence all the time - it would be restrictive in the extreme.

But if you are an atheist, I respect your views. 

I love my belief system because it enables me to live with my Ego, Love, Will and Knowledge in a harmonious manner with other people and the Universe (most of the time, unless they really get irrational when I lose the plot slightly). In short, I have hope for the future if I align my moral compass with the intrinsic qualities and personality of God.  

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

<Science> It is neutral to the existence or absence of God

 

So is the bible...

6 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

I love my belief system because it enables me to live with my Ego, Love, Will and Knowledge in a harmonious manner with other people

1

You still don't need God, just the message.

9 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

and the Universe (most of the time, unless they really get irrational when I lose the plot slightly). In short, I have hope for the future if I align my moral compass with the intrinsic qualities and personality of God my brothers/sisters/enemies.

 

FTFY

[jimmydasaint]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So is the bible...

You still don't need God, just the message.

FTFY

First of all best wishes for the New Year to you and your loved ones. Of course you are correct in saying that we don't need God to live in harmony. I think many people  would need a perfect archetype or paradigm against which they can measure the evolution of their Ego, Will, Love and Knowledge, so I referred to an absolute embodiment of personality and qualities in the form of God, rather than humanity, often painfully lacking in both.

My aim was to present a picture of God in a scientific context. I don't know if I succeeded or failed in my efforts.

 

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

First of all best wishes for the New Year to you and your loved ones.

 

Back atcha...

3 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

so I referred to an absolute embodiment of personality and qualities in the form of God, rather than humanity, often painfully lacking in both.

Indeed, I would never begrudge you your beliefs or dumbo his feather, that's not an insult BTW, I'm just suggesting you can fly with or without.

9 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

My aim was to present a picture of God in a scientific context. I don't know if I succeeded or failed in my efforts.

TBH you failed, but that's only because most of us here don't need or want the feather, to fly, just the instructions; don't feel bad, you just picked the wrong crowd, look for those that want to fly but can't because they lack a feather.