Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[ratiocinator]

You just asked for a source because you didnt know about it...

I asked for a source because what you actually said was nonsensical (centre and edge of the universe) and ambiguous (radius). If you can't actually reference anything to define the terms as you are using them, then you're just talking gibberish.

Earlier you were wondering about the Turing test...

So here's a reference to the Turing test: Turing test - Wikipedia - now you can explain what you think having a natural language chat with a machine has to do with cosmology.

You made a claim about WCH as conflicting contradicting Penrose himself. It is obvious you didnt understand any of this.

Simply false, it's in chapter 2.6 of Cycles of Time exactly as I said.

Where does he say WCH is the answer or antithesis to his own calculations.

The "answer or antithesis to his own calculations" doesn't even make any sense.

He points out the "very special nature" of the big bang -- the 10^10^124 volume of phase space --, i.e. its low entropy. Then he characterizes it (as in the quote) as having vanishing Weyl curvature. Hence there is a simple condition that would give us said low entropy.

It's in the wiki article too: Weyl curvature hypothesis - Wikipedia

The Weyl curvature hypothesis, which arises in the application of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to physical cosmology, was introduced by the British mathematician and theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose in an article in 1979 in an attempt to provide explanations for two of the most fundamental issues in physics. On the one hand one would like to account for a universe which on its largest observational scales appears remarkably spatially homogeneous and isotropic in its physical properties (and so can be described by a simple Friedmann–Lemaître model), on the other hand there is the deep question on the origin of the second law of thermodynamics.

Penrose suggests that the resolution of both of these problems is rooted in a concept of the entropy content of gravitational fields. Near the initial cosmological singularity (the Big Bang), he proposes, the entropy content of the cosmological gravitational field was extremely low (compared to what it theoretically could have been), and started rising monotonically thereafter. This process manifested itself e.g. in the formation of structure through the clumping of matter to form galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Penrose associates the initial low entropy content of the universe with the effective vanishing of the Weyl curvature tensor of the cosmological gravitational field near the Big Bang.
[my emphasis]
​

So the 1/10^10^124 (volume in phase space or entropy) is down to the Weyl curvature vanishing.

Now it could be that you misunderstood what I said, so I've provided you with both a book reference (that you claimed familiarity with) and a wiki article to clarify what I meant and provide an independent basis for it.

This is a complicated subject and your post showed apparent misunderstanding, so all you have to do is reference something that explains what you mean by the centre, edge, and radius of the universe - at least that's the starting point. Then we can get one with the rest of it.

 

[firedragon]

I asked for a source because what you actually said was nonsensical

I think you will never ever engage decently. Like some other atheists in this thread, you are just here to make an insult.

You cannot understand the arguments. So there is no point.

So here's a reference to the Turing test: Turing test - Wikipedia - now you can explain what you think that has to do with cosmology.

Read Penrose. Already told.

Simply false, it's in chapter 2.6 of Cycles of Time exactly as I said.

No. Its chapter 7, Cosmology and the arrow of time.

Ciao. .

 

[YoursTrue]

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is evidence that indicates that my beliefs are true, and if they are true that means God exists.

The evidence is the Messengers of God. Nobody can ever prove that God sent those Messengers and that is why it is a religious belief rather than a fact. However, there are facts about the Messengers that indicate that they were sent by God.

No, I am not saying the hijackers had authentic evidence. The authentic evidence would be the Qur’an but since they twisted the meaning it then ceased to be evidence at all.

As long as you get caught up in what happened to other people you will never be able to proceed on your own spiritual path. It is irrelevant what happened to people who have false beliefs, all that matters is that you do not fool end up with false beliefs. If you cannot trust yourself to recognize truth from falsehood then that is another matter.

It is not odd at all because the people who already believe a God exists believe that because they looked at the evidence God provided.

You are absolutely right, God knows what it would take to convince nonbelievers, but God has no need to convince nonbelievers since God does not need their belief, so God does not do what it would take to convince them. Another reason God does not do what it would take to convince them is because God wants them to come to believe by looking at the evidence He provided.

As I read your post, which I like, I think--someone who approaches God is like a child. What decent parent would turn away the request of a child in need whose heart is open? To HIM? Yes, He knows the requests and can sum up a person's mind and heart.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is rather obvious. If people cannot defend their claims by "showing it" it is almost always because they do not really know it.

If a person is honest then supporting one's claims will convince them. The problem is that people are quite often not honest when it comes to beliefs that interfere with their religion. And quite often people do not understand what proper evidence is. But since this is a discussion forum there is no excuse to make claims and then refuse to support them.

The same applies in a court of law. The arguments of those that refuse to support their claims simply do not fly there and can have very negative consequences.

Odd that no one can see evolution of the Darwinian kind. They only surmise that's what happened, then, of course, the argument sets in that "Well, nothing is "proven" in science..." I don't even want to get into the argument about logistics any more, because -- nothing is "proven" in science that's what is the refutation by some, and -- no one has seen evolution of a fish turning into oh, so slowly perhaps, a land animal who cannot breathe under water for a sustainably long tine. Or at all. And let me add that fish cannot live for long out of a water environment. Just so we don't hang too much on words.

 

[firedragon]

As I read your post, which I like, I think--someone who approaches God is like a child. What decent parent would turn away the request of a child in need whose heart is open? To HIM? Yes, He knows the requests and can sum up a person's mind and heart.

All of that sounds great. Yet I think that is anthropomorphism of God. In reality I opine that we dont really know or can know if he thinks like a parent or beyond what we could comprehend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Odd that no one can see evolution of the Darwinian kind. They only surmise that's what happened, then, of course, the argument sets in that "Well, nothing is "proven" in science..." I don't even want to get into the argument about logistics any more, because -- nothing is "proven" in science that's what is the refutation by some, and -- no one has seen evolution of a fish turning into oh, so slowly perhaps, a land animal who cannot breathe under water for a sustainably long tine. Or at all. And let me add that fish cannot live for long out of a water environment. Just so we don't hang too much on words.

You have to know how to see.

What you demand to see would refute the theory. It makes your request rather pointless.

Your claim is like someone saying that Christianity is not real because there are no videos of Jesus punching out Satan.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Odd that no one can see evolution of the Darwinian kind. They only surmise that's what happened, then, of course, the argument sets in that "Well, nothing is "proven" in science..." I don't even want to get into the argument about logistics any more, because -- nothing is "proven" in science that's what is the refutation by some, and -- no one has seen evolution of a fish turning into oh, so slowly perhaps, a land animal who cannot breathe under water for a sustainably long tine. Or at all. And let me add that fish cannot live for long out of a water environment. Just so we don't hang too much on words.

No one has observed biological evolution? Really?

No one has seen the straw man version of evolution that you post about. But no one really expects to see that anyway.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think you will never ever engage decently. Like some other atheists in this thread, you are just here to make an insult.

So, just like the conversation about fallacies where you couldn't back up what you said, you can't back up what you've said here either. I'm happy to talk about the subject but we can't do so if you won't even attempt to define your terms.

Read Penrose. Already told.

Penrose where? I'm pretty sure I've read all his books and I've never seen him connect cosmology to the Turing test - which is about testing a machine's ability to think by having a conversation in natural language (reference in previous post).

No. Its chapter 7, Cosmology and the arrow of time.

Cycles of Time doesn't have a chapter 7. After rummaging around a bit (I'm actually trying here, though I'm not sure why), you appear to be in The Emperor's New Mind. Chapter 7 says pretty much the same thing as I said too. Quote:

"But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint

WEYL = 0

(or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities - but not at final singularities and this seems to be what confines the Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space. The assumption that this constraint applies at any initial (but not final) space-time singularity, I have termed The Weyl Curvature Hypothesis."
​

The "very tiny region of phase space" being the aforementioned one part 10^10^123.

It should be noted that the The Emperor's New Mind does mention the Turing test (Chapter 2 Algorithms and Turing Machines) but not in direct connection with cosmology.

 

[firedragon]

So, just like the conversation about fallacies where you couldn't back up what you said, you can't back up what you've said here either. I'm happy to talk about the subject but we can't do so if you won't even attempt to define your terms.

Rhetoric.

Penrose where? I'm pretty sure I've read all his books and I've never seen him connect cosmology to the Turing test - which is about testing a machine's ability to think by having a conversation in natural language (reference in previous post).

Thats great. You read all his books but you didnt know what a radius and you could not even consider answering the question I asked about Penrose himself speaking about the critical expansion rate of the radius, among others I mentioned. Its very very strange.

Nevertheless, I did not say Penrose connected anything to Cosmology. So that's a strawman, and if you are looking for the definition of a strawman here is one.

And if you dont know how Penrose spoke of Turing your claim that "You have read all his books" is a bogus claim. I think this type of people should be addressed in the same manner they address others.

Cycles of Time doesn't have a chapter 7.

Who spoke of cycles of time? You spoke of cycles of time. Not me.

"But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint

Again, read the post that you originally responded to. It is not only about the Big Bang and the so called "precision of its organisation". This is why cherry picking for convenience of misrepresentation is absurd intellectually.

Nevertheless, tell me, what would be the case if the entropy maximised? Is it not that the entropy will be proportionate to the area?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Fair enough. If you wish to limit your experience of life and your perception of the world around (and within) you, to that which can be quantified and explained, that is your prerogative.

But I will leave you with the words of one of the great minds of the European Renaissance; “There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy”.

I don't see how I'm limiting my perceptions of life in any way. I simply recognize that the human brain is capable if imagining absolutely anything, but not everything we imagine comports with verifiable reality. Thus it's important that I have a method by which I can determine claims that are based purely on imagination and claims that are based on a common shared reality. Surely you have a similar method for distinguishing claims that are true from claims that are false.

 

[ratiocinator]

Rhetoric.

I could say the same about pretty much everything you've posted on this subject.

Thats great. You read all his books but you didnt know what a radius and you could not even consider answering the question I asked about Penrose himself speaking about the critical expansion rate of the radius, among others I mentioned. Its very very strange.

So give me a reference to what he said (or any other reference). I may have read his books but I haven't memorised every word and if you provide a reference I'm sure he will have been clear about what he is referring to.

This shouldn't be hard if you've actually got this from any sort of reputable source that you've understood properly. Yet again: talking of a centre and an edge is nonsensical in terms of the universe (it would make some sense for the observable universe) and radius is ambiguous.

Nevertheless, I did not say Penrose connected anything to Cosmology.

You connected the Turing test to cosmology in the confused mess of your original post.

And if you dont know how Penrose spoke of Turing your claim that "You have read all his books" is a bogus claim.

I do know how he spoke of it. I suspect that you don't but all you have to do (yet again) is give a reference. Let me remind you that I have given you references to what I've been talking about; I'm still waiting for you to do something remotely similar.

Who spoke of cycles of time? You spoke of cycles of time. Not me.

Yes I did - and in that context you referred to "Chapter 7" without mentioning that you were talking about another book entirely.

Again, read the post that you originally responded to.

It doesn't make sense. You need to define your terms for starters. As it stands it's just a confused jumble of words.

Nevertheless, tell me, what would be the case if the entropy maximised? Is it not that the entropy will be proportionate to the area?

Again you're missing out vital information. Area of what? I'm assuming that you're talking about black holes because they do represent a maxima of entropy and said entropy is proportional to the surface area. But can't you see the problem with being so ambiguous?

 

[F1fan]

All of that sounds great. Yet I think that is anthropomorphism of God. In reality I opine that we dont really know or can know if he thinks like a parent or beyond what we could comprehend.

Or if it's even a "he", or if it even exists outside of human imagination.

 

[firedragon]

I could say the same about pretty much everything you've posted on this subject.

Rhetoric.

So give me a reference to what he said (or any other reference). I may have read his books but I haven't memorised every word and if you provide a reference I'm sure he will have been clear about what he is referring to.

This shouldn't be hard if you've actually got this from any sort of reputable source that you've understood properly. Yet again: talking of a centre and an edge is nonsensical in terms of the universe (it would make some sense for the observable universe) and radius is ambiguous.

Read the same book again.

You connected the Turing test to cosmology in the confused mess of your original post.

Rhetoric. Typical.

And you didnt understand the post.

Yes I did - and in that context you referred to "Chapter 7" without mentioning that you were talking about another book entirely.

Yep.

It doesn't make sense. You need to define your terms for starters. As it stands it's just a confused jumble of words.

Rhetoric.

Again you're missing out vital information. Area of what?

Area within the cosmological horizon of the de sitter universe.

 

[firedragon]

Or if it's even a "he", or if it even exists outside of human imagination.

Are you saying "he" doesn't?

 

[KerimF]

Just believing in the existence of something is exactly like disbelieving its existence if one has no idea about this something.

[A] When an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in the existence of God, I ask him: "what do you mean by the word God". His reply would be something like: "How can I tell you what God is if I believe it doesn't exist?". Yes, anyone is free to disbelieve the existence of something while he has no definition of it; like saying "I don't know what Didadu is but I am sure that Didadu doesn't exist"

When a theist tells me he does believe in the existence of God, I ask him: "what do you mean by the word God because on the world's table many images of a God are offered to you". His reply would be something like: "I have to choose one of them with the hope, it is the image of the true God". Yes, anyone is free to believe the existence of something though he can't be sure how it is; like saying "I am not sure what Didadu is but I am sure that Didadu exists".

In brief, the starting point is how someone can define well the word 'God' before saying that such a God exists or not in his life (his reality).
For example, I searched the definition of God. I got for example:

God is the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.

Such a ruling God who has a law that should be imposed on humans cannot exist in my reality even if the entire world worshiped such gods.

The image of God that exists in my reality could be summarized as the followings:

[1] My Creator doesn't need imposing on humans any rules to obey and/or rituals to observe. The embedded human instincts are enough to guide every person and let his living flesh play its role(s) for which it is created. Thanks to these instincts, almost all humans in the world knew how to be gathered in various well-organized groups (controlled by rules; social, religious or political).

[2] My Creator (the Will/Energy behind my existence) cannot be a one-being only. Otherwise, this one being would have no other choice but to play the selfish powerful ruler/king over its creatures. And it happens that I personally can't be selfish even if I have all the means to impose my will on some others. So such a selfish Creator cannot be behind the existence of my non-selfish nature of which I am created.

[3] My Creator doesn't need my worship and praise in public. The relationship with my Creator is strictly a personal one.

So if one's God is not like the God I perceive in my reality, such a God just cannot exist to me.
To my big surprise, Jesus revealed the image of the God I perceive in me. Otherwise I would see my nature as a weird one, if not abnormal.

Now, let us have fun and keep discussing if God exists or not

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you calling him a liar? It doesn't seem that he could have missed it so you might have a point.

Subduction Zone said: To put it simply: If you can't show it you don't know it.
TB said: Who made that rule?
#278 Trailblazer, Yesterday at 9:21 PM

Trailblazer said: Who made that rule?
Subduction Zone said: Silly question.
#281 Subduction Zone, Yesterday at 9:44 PM

No, I was not calling him a liar. I was agreeing with him that he did not miss the answer to the question.

I asked you who made the rule.
You never told me who made that rule although you did explain why you thought it was a silly question (see post below).

Trailblazer said: Why is it silly? Even if I show what I know that does not mean people will see it or believe it, so why show it?
Do you see the problem?

Subduction Zone said: It is rather obvious. If people cannot defend their claims by "showing it" it is almost always because they do not really know it.

If a person is honest then supporting one's claims will convince them. The problem is that people are quite often not honest when it comes to beliefs that interfere with their religion. And quite often people do not understand what proper evidence is. But since this is a discussion forum there is no excuse to make claims and then refuse to support them.

The same applies in a court of law. The arguments of those that refuse to support their claims simply do not fly there and can have very negative consequences.
#299 Subduction Zone, Yesterday at 11:16 PM

 

[Trailblazer]

I still see no answer to the question, who made the rule? (if you can’t show it, you don’t know it).

You still see no answer because SZ never answered the question I asked, as I just explained to SZ in the post above:
#396 Trailblazer, 6 minutes ago

Unless you are saying that you made the rule? Then why not just say that?

Then why didn't SZ just say that he made the rule? That is a good question only SZ can answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still see no answer because SZ never answered the question I asked, as I just explained to SZ in the post above:
#396 Trailblazer, 6 minutes ago

Then why didn't SZ just say that he made the rule? That is a good question only SZ can answer.

Wait a second. I did answer your question. You may not have understood the answer or not have like the answer, but that does not mean that your question was not answered.

The fact is that you should not even need to ask such a question in the first place. That is why it was a silly question. Just a little bit of reasoning would have led you to the conclusion that a person claiming to "know" something has put a burden of proof upon himself.

 

[Trailblazer]

It appears that you ignored that part of the response. Read it again.

No, I did not ignore what you said:

Subduction Zone said:
It is rather obvious. If people cannot defend their claims by "showing it" it is almost always because they do not really know it.

That is what I was responding to when I said:

Trailblazer said:
How do you know that they don't know it? How do you think a believer could "show" someone else that their beliefs are true? When we do present the evidence we are told "that's not evidence" and it just goes round and round.

But you never answered my questions. Instead you came back with the following which is not related to what I asked.

I do assume the people that I am responding to are being honest. Far too often they are not. They know that they are wrong but think they can get away with their dishonesty with an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Otherwise one does support what one knows in a discussion.

But we do support what we believe; you just don’t accept what we say in support of our beliefs.

You are calling people dishonest. How do you know we know we are wrong? That does not even make any sense because if we knew we were wrong then we would not hold the belief.

No, you are not paying attention and are now making.false claims. Most of the time theists simply do not understand the concept of evidence. Or what they post is such poor quality evidence that people laugh at it. You appear to be blaming others for your shortcomings here. Did you ask those people why what you posted was not evidence?

I went through this rigmarole for years with atheists on other forums before I jointed this forum 3 ½ years ago. “It’s not evidence.” How do you think you would know what would be evidence for God’s existence better than a believer would know?

The problem is that it is evidence to other people; it just is not evidence to you. How anyone can call themselves logical and miss something that simple is beyond my comprehension.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is no such thing as universal evidence because what is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person. It might be evidence to another person if they both consider it evidence, or it might not be, if they don't both consider it evidence.

Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true.

Something will not be evidence to you unless it indicates to you that the beliefs are true.

Actually a judge will quite often cut someone off if what they are saying is not evidence. And please, once again, do not blame atheists for your shortcomings. If what you are posting is not evidence try to learn why.

Who made you the judge of what is evidence for God's existence? That is the one million dollar question.

That is a straw man because I never blamed atheists for anything. In fact it is not only a straw man but it is psychological projection on your part because you are the one who is blaming believers.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

What you are guilty of right now is attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is something that those in the wrong try to do far too often.

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you. It’s that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I did not ignore what you said:

Subduction Zone said:
It is rather obvious. If people cannot defend their claims by "showing it" it is almost always because they do not really know it.

That is what I was responding to when I said:

Trailblazer said:
How do you know that they don't know it? How do you think a believer could "show" someone else that their beliefs are true? When we do present the evidence we are told "that's not evidence" and it just goes round and round.

And your failure was explained to you. You did not give an example of what you thought was evidence or try to learn why it was not. You appear to have made a false and clearly unjustifiable claim.

But you never answered my questions. Instead you came back with the following which is not related to what I asked.

But we do support what we believe; you just don’t accept what we say in support of our beliefs.

You are calling people dishonest. How do you know we know we are wrong? That does not even make any sense because if we knew we were wrong then we would not hold the belief.

Once again, if you want to learn ask using specific examples. Who knows? You might have significant evidence. I sincerely doubt it though.

I went through this rigmarole for years with atheists on other forums before I jointed this forum 3 ½ years ago. “It’s not evidence.” How do you think you would know what would be evidence for God’s existence better than a believer would know?

Because many of us understand the concept of evidence. I have seen that the theists that claim to have evidence do not tend to understand the concept.

The problem is that it is evidence to other people; it just is not evidence to you. How anyone can call themselves logical and miss something that simple is beyond my comprehension.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

There is no such thing as universal evidence because what is evidence to one person is not evidence to another person. It might be evidence to another person if they both consider it evidence, or it might not be, if they don't both consider it evidence.

Something is evidence to me because it indicates to me that my beliefs are true.

Okay, I have to stop here. It sounds like what you are describing is confirmation bias. Evidence should have the ability to cut both ways. If your observation could not refute you it is likely not evidence.

Something will not be evidence to you unless it indicates to you that the beliefs are true.

Who made you the judge of what is evidence for God's existence? That is the one million dollar question.

That is a straw man because I never blamed atheists for anything. In fact it is not only a straw man but it is psychological projection on your part because you are the one who is blaming believers.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

I have no burden of proof because I am not trying to prove anything to you. It’s that simple.

Sorry, not going to read all of this post where it appears that you are only trying to defend confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is not evidence.

To have evidence you have to be willing to put your beliefs to the test. What reasonable possible observation could show your beliefs to be wrong? If you cannot think of one then it is a good bet that you do not have evidence.