Do you believe in God?

[Polymath257]

But if a huge multitude of micro states give an identical macro state, then the probability of that macro state emerging is very, very, high.

Exactly. So the question becomes what qualifies as an equivalent macro state. In the computations relating to, say, the formation of life, that is very far from being clear. For questions related to the structure of the universe, it is even less so.

So, for example, many calculations ask what the probability of some specific protein forming would be. That amounts to calculating a micro state. The appropriate macro state is finding the probability that some protein doing a similar job would be formed. Even this is usually not the correct question, though.

A better question is what the probability is that a system of interacting proteins and nucleus acids will form that allows for reproduction. The difficulty is that we have absolutely no idea how to even approach that question.

So, there are at least two issues: one is what qualifies two micro states as equivalent macro states. The other is a lack of a good probability measure for determining probabilities.

How high is the probability of a billion grains of sand being randomly arranged in such a way as to yield a sandy beach? Compare that with the probability of all the matter and energy in the universe being randomly arranged in such a state as to initiate the Big Bang.

Understood. But we need to be sure that any calculation done is for a reasonable macro state and not for a micro state. So, calculation of specific results is NOT appropriate. Instead, calculation of some result similar is the appropriate one.

And even that assumes there is an appropriate probability measure for determining probabilities. In many situations that is not the case.

 

[Polymath257]

If you think it is reasonable to believe that a universe governed by observable laws unfolded randomly and rushes aimlessly nowhere, please provide your reasoned argument.

If there are laws then the development is not random. It may not be intentional, but it would be predictable, at least to some degree. That’s what it means to be an observable law.

 

[Polymath257]

No, you are the one assuming that. In answer to the question, “Where do natural laws come from?, you replied “From the formation of the early universe, according to my understanding.” Are you now saying that the universe is governed by laws which have always been there? Laws impose order, and have a set of guiding principles, what order and what principles govern the universe?

Well, look to physics. Fundamental particles have certain properties: mass, charge, spin, parity, etc. These properties determine what interactions the particles can have with other particles. This is what natural laws describe.

 

[danieldemol]

This is an excellent example of a “ null hypotheses” in your culture.

I like it.

Pessimistic cultures might believe that the glass is empty as a null hypothesis.

Optimistic cultures might believe that the glass is full as a null hypotheses.

Observation might find that the glass is half-empty and half-full, thereby both confirming and denying both null hypotheses simultaneously.

Then so called "optimistic cultures" would waste a heck of a lot of time slurping at empty glasses instead of waiting for some observation that they are not empty in my view.

I have better things to do with my time than slurping at empty glasses and no amount of disparagement of my culture as pessimistic is going to change that in my view.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Then so called "optimistic cultures" would waste a heck of a lot of time slurping at empty glasses instead of waiting for some observation that they are not empty in my view.

I have better things to do with my time than slurping at empty glasses and no amount of disparagement of my culture as pessimistic is going to change that in my view.

Water is a very important religious issue.

Your understanding of water reflects your own culture.

Your culture can afford to pass up opportunities.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, look to physics. Fundamental particles have certain properties: mass, charge, spin, parity, etc. These properties determine what interactions the particles can have with other particles. This is what natural laws describe.

Which makes me think that things like mass, charge, spin, etc. did not come about by themselves. Without some help, to use an incomplete description, from a 'higher source.' But that's me.

 

[InChrist]

Is that how your god "reasons"?

I suppose that the reality of human sin, the detrimental consequences of sin upon God’s creation, and its impact on one’s relationship with their Creator and their eternal destiny is an important enough reason that God considers it worth communicating.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I suppose that the reality of human sin, the detrimental consequences of sin upon God’s creation, and its impact on one’s relationship with their Creator and their eternal destiny is an important enough reason that God considers it worth communicating.

I asked if that was how your god reasons. I'll take your answer as a yes, that that passage from scripture was an example of what you consider reasoning by your god, and that that's why you cited it. But I saw no reasoning there.

Furthermore, none of what you just wrote is meaningful or reasonable to me. Those are your beliefs and only relevant to those who accept that such a god exists. For me, an unbeliever, sin isn't a real thing, what you call sin has no impact on reality, one can't have a relationship with an idea, and my eternal destiny is likely oblivion whatever I do before death. Those are reasonable ideas by my reckoning.

 

[Polymath257]

Which makes me think that things like mass, charge, spin, etc. did not come about by themselves. Without some help, to use an incomplete description, from a 'higher source.' But that's me.

But then that 'higher source' would also need to have properties, which means natural laws governing that source. All that means is that we haven't found the correct 'fundamental particles' yet. Which, of course, may be true, but does not eliminate that the most fundamental laws have no further basis.

At least, that's how I see it.

I would also add that saying a 'higher source' is conscious only makes the problem worse since consciousness is a very complex system and requires a large amount of order to exist at all. So a consciousness *cannot* be the most fundamental aspect of things.

 

[InChrist]

I asked if that was how your god reasons. I'll take your answer as a yes, that that passage from scripture was an example of what you consider reasoning by your god, and that that's why you cited it. But I saw no reasoning there.

Furthermore, none of what you just wrote is meaningful or reasonable to me. Those are your beliefs and only relevant to those who accept that such a god exists. For me, an unbeliever, sin isn't a real thing, what you call sin has no impact on reality, one can't have a relationship with an idea, and my eternal destiny is likely oblivion whatever I do before death. Those are reasonable ideas by my reckoning.

It’s understandable that you as an unbeliever would find my thoughts as a believer, as well as anything expressed in the Bible, irrelevant or unreasonable.

 

[YoursTrue]

I asked if that was how your god reasons. I'll take your answer as a yes, that that passage from scripture was an example of what you consider reasoning by your god, and that that's why you cited it. But I saw no reasoning there.

Furthermore, none of what you just wrote is meaningful or reasonable to me. Those are your beliefs and only relevant to those who accept that such a god exists. For me, an unbeliever, sin isn't a real thing, what you call sin has no impact on reality, one can't have a relationship with an idea, and my eternal destiny is likely oblivion whatever I do before death. Those are reasonable ideas by my reckoning.

As far as "my" God is concerned, His reasoning does not have to be explained to me. I appreciate, though, what I have learned about the God I worship.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you want me to prove something about God?

My understanding of the whole thread is that it was about supposedly "logical" reasons for believing in God.

So if you believe your reasons for belief in God are strictly logical I'd like to hear them if you don't mind.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

My understanding of the whole thread is that it was about supposedly "logical" reasons for believing in God.

So if you believe your reasons for belief in God are strictly logical I'd like to hear them if you don't mind.

Why would an atheist logician need logical reasons to believe in God?

You aren’t making much sense, here.

Do I require this belief to do some math that I’m interested in?

If so, then I would actually be in need of that hypothesis.

But still, why would I care if I used logic to change my beliefs?

There are easier methods, aren’t there?

I sure hope so, because this proof of God by pure logic alone strikes me as exceedingly difficult.

So I don’t understand why you want me to change my beliefs via that particular method.

It’s just a very strange request.

 

[YoursTrue]

But then that 'higher source' would also need to have properties, which means natural laws governing that source. All that means is that we haven't found the correct 'fundamental particles' yet. Which, of course, may be true, but does not eliminate that the most fundamental laws have no further basis.

At least, that's how I see it.

I would also add that saying a 'higher source' is conscious only makes the problem worse since consciousness is a very complex system and requires a large amount of order to exist at all. So a consciousness *cannot* be the most fundamental aspect of things.

The higher source I am referring to defies description in human terms, although I believe there are some descriptions of His being in the Bible. He sets the terms, the description and the boundaries. He does as He wills.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The higher source I am referring to defies description in human terms, although I believe there are some descriptions of His being in the Bible. He sets the terms, the description and the boundaries. He does as He wills.

No, She is a She. You are taken over by the fallen one, if you claim He and you know what will happen then. And I am right and you are wrong.

The problem is that we can all fill in what we like in the concept of God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If there are laws then the development is not random. It may not be intentional, but it would be predictable, at least to some degree. That’s what it means to be an observable law.

So the universe did not occur by accident, which was my point. We are then left with the question, Which came first, the observable universe, or the laws which appear to govern it? And what anyway are laws, if not order recognised and defined by an observer? In which case it makes no sense to contemplate laws or order without addressing the part consciousness plays in the process.

Perhaps the universe and the laws governing it emerged simultaneously, and while they are interdependent, their correlation is not directly causal. And perhaps in the same way, rather than consciousness having emerged from complex order, the relation between them is itself not causal but mutual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If there are laws then the development is not random. It may not be intentional, but it would be predictable, at least to some degree. That’s what it means to be an observable law.

You really have to explan what you mean by that and give an example.

 

[danieldemol]

Why would an atheist logician need logical reasons to believe in God?

You aren’t making much sense, here.

Do I require this belief to do some math that I’m interested in?

If so, then I would actually be in need of that hypothesis.

But still, why would I care if I used logic to change my beliefs?

There are easier methods, aren’t there?

I sure hope so, because this proof of God by pure logic alone strikes me as exceedingly difficult.

So I don’t understand why you want me to change my beliefs via that particular method.

It’s just a very strange request.

Sorry I missed that you are an atheist.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Sorry I missed that you are an atheist.

Ha!

My wife is the one from a Catholic culture, not me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ha!

My wife is the one from a Catholic culture, not me.

What culture are you from?