Proving that God is Imaginary by Logic

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't show that the meaning of this sentence - "I am a materialist in the sense that "matter / the physical is all that seems to or can be shown to exist"" exists according to its own meaning. That is the problem.

That makes no sense at all. Especially not as a retort to what the sentence is saying.
This is a ridiculous non-argument.

You are using a "non-materiel" rule to claim that only matter/the physical exists.

No, I'm not.
You just like making bs semantic arguments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So imagination is not detectable according to you, yet you speak of it as real.

Another dishonest reply from you.

Obviously I meant "...indistinguishable from entities produced by sheer imagination, with no bearing on reality".

Entities like Harry Potter and Darth Vader and Captain Kirk.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure to prove the reliability of a claim. Usually my own. When I make a claim on the forums, it gives everybody a chance to disprove it. Also part of my IRL job. Often, in both cases, I get proven wrong. Which is ok because then I get to make corrections.

For example, you are providing great examples of the problems with what people call science. Forces me to refine my understanding of science and what I say about science.

Let me try to explain it. Imagine you waking up in the morning and for the rest of the day you are only allowed to use hard science. For everything you want to do, you need to employ science. You couldn't do that. So it leads to the difference between facts and opinion. Now come the fun part. Is it a fact, what the world is as such?
Or if someone says that the world is physical and objective, is that just an opinion just like someone who believes in a creator God?

In other words, science is a human behavior with limited usability and it can't be used on all aspects of the human life including what the world really is?!!

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is something by scientists:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
What science can't do:
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge (ChristineM uses useful and what matters)
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations(To debate the supernatural is not science)

Nobody is claiming otherwise.

You 2, use science in the end, where it doesn't apply and that includes materialism/physicalism

No, we don't. That's your strawman.

, what is real and what exists

Yes, science is quite usefull to inform us on what is real.
For example, through science we know that atoms exist. And the same goes for electro-magnetism, X-rays, quantum particles, black holes, etc etc.

Without science, we wouldn't know any of these things exist.

That science matters and is useful is not science and doesn't tell us, what reality really is.
As for science as methodological naturalism, it start with the follow assumptions:
Reality is natural.
Reality is fair, i.e. no Matrix and what not.
Reality is knowable.

False.
The basal assumptions made by science (and actually every living thing as it is required to function in reality....) are the following:
- Reality is actually real
- Reality is consistent enough so that you can learn about it
- Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't.

YOU make these assumptions every single day to do whatever you do.

When you make coffee, you assume that the coffee machine will still make coffee and not turn into an electro-magnetic bomb.
When you cross the street, you assume that the laws of motion are consistent and that being hit by a truck won't end well.
When you are at the top of a skyscraper and wish to go down, you take the elevator or stairs instead of jumping down, because you assume that gravity will make you plummet to your death and not suddenly stop working to ensure a safe landing.
When you turn on your internet device to post here, you assume it will work just like it did before.

Your entire life is based on these 3 assumptions. You actually require to make these assumptions even only to come out of bed in the morning.

They are reasonable assumptions, which continue to produce consistently succesfull results.

There are no evidence or proof possible for these 3 assumptions.

False. There is MUCH evidence for these assumptions. And that evidence is found in their usefullness as they continue to produce succesfull results.

You can't build the internet device you are using right now, unless you make these 3 assumptions.
You have to assume that what you learned yesterday, still applies today.
You have to assume that electro-magnetism works the same today as yesterday.
You have to assume chemistry and physics works the same today as it did yesterday.

That is why it is called methodological naturalism

Which is the best method of inquiry to produce succesfull results, as the track record of succesfully unraveling phenomenon in the universe using this method demonstrates every day.

You don't have to believe in God or religion. You just have to be honest and admit that it is a belief that reality is physical et all.

Science is a method of inquiry. A very succesfull one. Not a belief system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have made more claims. Can you provide any evidence for these claims?

Point one out without strawmanning and then we can talk about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you're saying a brain scan only proves that the brain reacts to information and is not proof of that thing existing? So when the person posted a brain scan of a brain thinking of love that does not prove love exists?

The scan shows that love is an emotion / brain activity. So it shows that it has material underpinnings and that it doesn't exist absent a material brain.

It's impossible to prove the non-existance of anything?

...that doesn't make testable predictions, isn't self contradicting (like married bachelors) or which is unfalsifiable (like gods and all other supernatural nonsense).

Curious (well, not really...) how you left that part out.

That is a typical atheist argument and it is incorrect

It's not.

If I say a box is empty all you have to do is look into the box

1. that's not a claim that says "x exists"
2. it's a claim that makes testable predictions. That prediction being: if you open the box, you shouldn't find any objects in it.

If you would have read / quoted the whole sentence instead of just a part of it (and misrepresenting it in the process), that would have been obvious.

Atheists don't want to wait for the afterlife to find out the truth. You think you should have it all now. That's not the way the universe works.

I don't even know how to respond to such drivel.

All atheists are simpletons who can't do logic? You think logic is a reasonable conclusion based upon facts but many facts have to fit in with a theory.

No, that's not what logic is, nore is it what I think logic is.

When a physicist does an equation that results in an infinity result, is that infinity an incorrect answer, or, is it proof of God?

I see no point in answering such vague unspecified questions.
It would entire depend on what the equation is, what the evidence is in support of it, and what the testable definition of god is.


However, I can safely say that it won't be "proof of god", because just about every definition of god(s) that were ever presented to me were untestable and unfalsifiable. Which essentially makes it impossible to have evidence, let alone proof, of said god.

You can't demonstrate the untestable and unfalsifiable.

Untestable and unfalsifiable claims are literally potentially infinite in number, only limited by ones imagination. Such claims are useless and meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but you can’t see gravity, you can’t hear it, you can’t touch it, you can’t smell it, you can’t taste it, so it must be not true.

Those aren't the only means of detection.

Unless we can accept that things can be real, even if we can’t see, hear, smell, touch…

That seems obvious.
Magnetic fields, for example.

As I said, those aren't the only means of detecting things.

I think the same is with God, He can be known by His influence.

You're wrong, as these things aren't objectively detectable, unlike things like magnetic fields or gravity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting thing is that in a way also God can be tested:

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

How does that make it objectively testable?


Also: considering the THOUSANDS of denominations, each claiming their own version of these "teachings", it's safe to say that this test failed miserably.

 

[firedragon]

How does that make it objectively testable?


Also: considering the THOUSANDS of denominations, each claiming their own version of these "teachings", it's safe to say that this test failed miserably.

With all due respect, in your statement you have not tested the existence of God, you have tested people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

...

...

Now I will start with a simple model of science.
It is based on this site written by scientist:
Understanding Science: An overview

If you read it, you will notice some key words: See, test, evidence, natural. Now I will look closer:
"In science, an observation or experiment that could provide evidence regarding the accuracy of a scientific idea. Testing involves figuring out what one would expect to observe if an idea were correct and comparing that expectation to what one actually observes."
"Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea."
"In everyday language, the word natural is often used to describe goods that are wholesome or not made by humans, but in the language of science, natural has a much broader meaning. Within science, the term natural refers to any element of the physical universe — whether made by humans or not. This includes matter, the forces that act on matter, energy, the constituents of the biological world, humans, human society, and the products of that society. So even though we might not think of them as "natural" (in the everyday sense of the word), science can study things like the human smile, human decision-making, artificial sweetener, and learning algorithms for robots because they are part of the physical universe around us."

So that tells us, what science is: You have to be able use observation as for whether you get one result or another, when you test. There is more, but that is a necessary part of science. For something to be science, you need to be able to observe it, whatever it is.

Now I am not nice, because I can do something. I can test using philosophy if there is a limit to science. How?
Well, science in one version assumes as back to the natural world that the physical universe is all as the natural world and you can test everything in the world.
What does that mean in practice? If you ask a question, you can get the answer by turning the question into a test, that
relies on observation. That is it. You have in effect done so with your use of "real".
Everything as all parts of the world can be made subject to observation, where you observe that X is Y OR X is not Y, X is Z.
So I am testing the limit of science, because I am asking something, which is testable, but not science. Can you do something, where you can't use observation to decide, whether X is Y OR X is Z?
That is it! If everything can be tested using science, then it can be tested if science can be used on all parts of the world. How? Because science itself is a part of the world. Science is a human behavior, the words "see", "test" and "experiment" are done by humans.
So if science is doing something, the test is if you can do everything humans can do, only by doing science as something specific that you do and not something else that you do otherwise.

So where is it, that you in effect cheat, as for the world, real and better? It is here:
"Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
So to pinpoint it. As X is Y, "testable predictions are better" is a variation of X is Y and "models that don't" are X is Z.
How in precise words is that so, that you are doing something that is not science. Because you can't see "better" or "not better as worse".

In effect you are doing something, which is not around us and not in us as all humans. It is in you as something subjective in you and other people who believe like you. Now I know that because I don't believe this: "Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
Here is what I believe about better. What is better, depends on the single individual or a limit group of humans, who believe in the same better. Not there is no scientifically better, because you can't use science on better, because it is not observable as neither "better" or "bad/worse/not good".

So as for better, I have it better as me, because I have learned that science, religion and philosophy are all limited human behavior and you can't do everything as a human only using one of them.
You use science as some people use religion or philosophy or other systems of claims about what the world really is. In effect you are not that special, because you are a member of limited group of humans - those, who believe, they have a universal method for better, which is in effect not subjective.
That is it. As for "real" better is not real, because you can't observe or test what is better using science for 2 different outcomes, where both are possible, but not at the same time and in the same sense.

Let me give you an example. Building a bridge. If you want to build a bridge, that works, you need to use in effect science as applied through engineering. But whether you should build the bridge or not, can't be answer with science as such.
So back to the OP and the video. God is subjective and it is delusional to claim that God is objective. As per the video, you can't see, hear, touch, smell or touch God. You can't use science to give evidence for God. It is the same for better. To claim that you can make better objective by using science, is delusional. In effect you either believe in one version of better or another.
So here is your belief:
"Models that make testable predictions are better then models that don't."
That is not science, because you can't use science on better. All the examples, you gave, are limited. So let me give you an example from the real world as I have learned it. You are now a solider and your NCO commands you to do a war crime. It is not a war crime according to science. It is an ethical, social construct and you can't obverse what makes a war crime a war crime. Further you can't use science to test the outcomes, because whether you do it or not, is not science. Both outcomes are possible. You can do as your NCO tells you or you can refuse. As for what is better, can't be answered using science, because what is better depends on what you believe.

So back to "real". Image you and I are looking at a stone. You know, a part of a rock. We can see it, we could throw it against a wall and observe what happens. There is a lot of things we could do with that rock in general that involves science.
So let us do the same with:
"Reality is real." What does that look like, can you throw that against a wall and so on? It is not a material claim like those involving e.g. a rock Let us look closer in combination with this: "...indistinguishable from entities produced by sheer imagination, with no bearing on reality".
As an entity "reality is real" is an form of imagination. It is only real, if you believe in it. But it has a bearing on reality just like God. Just like God, God and reality is real is only real if you believe in it. If you do, that can inform your further behavior and give rise to how you treat other humans.
What you believe in, is in part subjective as what you believe reality is and how you ought to behave and what you can do. That is not different that other humans. Where you fail, is where everybody else fails. In effect, you have tried to do all of reality objective. You can't, I can't, nobody can.

That is testable, because you can simply obverse that you believe that "reality is real" and I don't. You can observe that we both do reality differently in some cases, not all, and you can't use science to show that I can't do it differently, where it can be done differently.
That is the limit of science. It only work for outcomes where it is for all humans in principle EITHER X is Y OR X is not Y, but Z.
But that doesn't apply for all version of better or real. How? Because it is subjective , that it is better and real for me to believe in God. I don't claim that it has to be so for you. But I do claim that you can't use science on that for better. How? Because you can observe that I can do it differently, no matter how much you claim "reality", "real", "better" and what not.

See, I tested it. Because I tested if there are parts of reality, which are subjective and can't be turned in to science. There are.
Just as religion is limited and subjective, science is in effect subjective and limited in the following sense. Science is a human limited subjective behavior - see, test, experiment, better - and you can't do all human life only doing science. Just as you can't do all human life doing religion or philosophy or what not.

Hi TagliatelliMonster.
Don't play with a skeptic. I have learned to test the limits of all of these different claims of what reality really is. And that includes science. Religion and philosophy doesn't work on all of reality. But nor does science.
If you want to test something, you should be prepared for the fact, that you don't get the result you want. So if you test if science has a limit, then you should accept the result, if science has a limit. And it has. As limited as human subjective beliefs are, you can't do without them. And that includes you. You are not that special and nor am I.
So you can believe all you like that "reality is real". I don't believe in that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think this is a good video. Of course it is not a rigorous logical proof, but it is a good, commonsense video overall. I have no doubt that many religious people will not like it, but probably not be able to offer a sound refutation. Thoughts?

I made it to 17 seconds. I find it laughable that we start with an Abrahamic premise to 'prove' that God is imaginary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those aren't the only means of detection.



That seems obvious.
Magnetic fields, for example.

As I said, those aren't the only means of detecting things.



You're wrong, as these things aren't objectively detectable, unlike things like magnetic fields or gravity.

So how do you objectively detect if another humans is wrong? What do you objectively observe in the other human, which is evidence for the fact only using science, that the other human is wrong?
You don't. Because you are not doing science, when you claim that another humans is wrong. I don't mean morally wrong. I mean wrong as you use it. Wrong to you is a subjective rule, which evaluates human behavior based on a rule in you.

It is a fact and observable, that humans can believe in God. It is a much a fact as gravity is a fact. You can even test it. Can you observe that some humans believe in God? Yes, then it can't be wrong as based on observation. That wrong is another kind of wrong than based on observation.

 

[ChristineM]

You really don't get. I believe that facts matter. I have no proof, evidence or science for that. It is subjective and wouldn't be there without humans in general. You can't see hear, touch, taste, smell or taste it. It is not physical, you can't measure and there is no scientific theory for.
Indeed if there were no humans, there would be no facts, they wouldn't matter and there would be no science, objective, physical and all that.
Yet that I believe that fact matters. That is a part of the world despite being subjective, non-physical/material and not science.

Could you for once read this - all of the page?
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Regards
Mikkel

The discussion is not about your view of science

Yes we know science has limits, for example it does not deal in god magic

 

[ChristineM]

Could you start making a reason argument?

The definition is as reasoned as it gets.

 

[ChristineM]

I have worked for over 20 years in education. You are failed and haven't passed. Google is not a correct answer. It requires more than that. In the end it requires that you and I can use active critical thinking and check the sources. So no! Google is not the answer. If as you claim, that the world is objective yet there are parts of the world, which are subjective and you know in the general sense how the world works, it is upon you to explain it.
So how is it that the world is objective and imagination as a part of it is subjective. It follows that all parts of the world is objective, yet a part is subjective. That is a contradiction, because something can't be objective and subjective at the same time and in the same sense. It is false and it follows that you are wrong. You claim something of the world which can't be so, because it is illogical and a contradiction.

Just because it does not provide the answer that you want does not mean it is incorrect... Think on that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The discussion is not about your view of science

Yes we know science has limits, for example it does not deal in god magic

Correct, Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

In fact there is a lot of things humans do, that can't be done using science. So we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The definition is as reasoned as it gets.

That is not a reason argument. You are simply stating it is so. That is a believer tactics. I use believe tactics myself, in that I admit when I can't use science. Could you do the same?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just because it does not provide the answer that you want does not mean it is incorrect... Think on that

That also goes for you. The world is not objective, just because somebody says so and that includes you. You are a product of a certain belief system, but because it involves that it is not a belief system, you deny that, because you believe you don't have beliefs about what the world is. The difference is that I admit. As believers go, you are one of those, who believe you are special, because everybody different that you as for what the world is, have beliefs, but not you.

It is a form of special pleading. Everybody else have beliefs without evidence, proof and what not. Not me, I am special.

 

[ChristineM]

Correct, Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

In fact there is a lot of things humans do, that can't be done using science. So we agree.

I said that

Do we? We agree differently.

 

[ChristineM]

That is not a reason argument. You are simply stating it is so. That is a believer tactics. I use believe tactics myself, in that I admit when I can't use science. Could you do the same?

Its as reasonable as you get, to misrepresent the definition because you don't agree with it is what you are doing, that is not my problem