What would convince you of God's existence?

[PolyHedral]

But how does that indicate no cause for a thing popping into existence?

The uncertainty principle says that over very short timescales, the energy content of a given system becomes more and more uncertain. However, energy not only underlies everything, but is interchangeable with mass. Thus, over a very short time, it's possible for absolutely anything* to appear in the space we're measuring, so long as it disappears again by the time we can measure it.

However, what can occasionally happen is that an electron-antielectron pair*, for instance, can appear in very esoteric circumstances, e.g. the horizon of a black hole. In this case, the particles don't recombine and disappear, and so they can be detected.

*For very specific "anything." Among other things, charge must always be conserved, so charged particles always appear in pairs. It's the pair of particles that usually recombine and disappear.

 

[Orias]

What would you consider proof of God's existence?

Doubt

Do you believe that your "proof" would convince the majority of rational thinking people?

Of course not, humans are stupid (no offense to anyone).

 

[Willamena]

Well, I don't follow how this explanation indicates no cause for a thing popping into exisence. But nevermind.

 

[cottage]

The uncertainty principle says that over very short timescales, the energy content of a given system becomes more and more uncertain. However, energy not only underlies everything, but is interchangeable with mass. Thus, over a very short time, it's possible for absolutely anything* to appear in the space we're measuring, so long as it disappears again by the time we can measure it.

However, what can occasionally happen is that an electron-antielectron pair*, for instance, can appear in very esoteric circumstances, e.g. the horizon of a black hole. In this case, the particles don't recombine and disappear, and so they can be detected.

*For very specific "anything." Among other things, charge must always be conserved, so charged particles always appear in pairs. It's the pair of particles that usually recombine and disappear.

But of course we can’t argue against a law of causality and then say things like ‘charge must always be conserved, and particles always appear in pairs’, since that is to argue to cause and effect.

 

[PolyHedral]

How does conservation of charge have anything to do with cause and effect?

Well, I don't follow how this explanation indicates no cause for a thing popping into exisence. But nevermind.

Sorry, it's quite late, and I left out the actual point: stuff like the electron flying away don't have a cause. They simply pop into existence because the universe says they can.

 

[Thief]

How does conservation of charge have anything to do with cause and effect?


Sorry, it's quite late, and I left out the actual point: stuff like the electron flying away don't have a cause. They simply pop into existence because the universe says they can.

And the universe...the one word...'says it can'?

And the universe has a name?

And yeah I saw that note about me not having any math......

I happen to have done quite well in math...all the way through college....
thank you.

Math can't deal with all things.

 

[sublime001]

I'm short on time today, but I still want to start a new thread with these 2 questions:

What would you consider proof of God's existence?

And...

Do you believe that your "proof" would convince the majority of rational thinking people?

Thanks!

Proof would be difficult as everyones (or every religion) perception of god is different, so even if someone came across him/her, the next person would not be convinced as their god might be perceived to be different.

You cannot apply rational thinking to spirituality or religious studies, it just doesnt mix

 

[McBell]

You cannot apply rational thinking to spirituality or religious studies, it just doesnt mix

There is a reason why it is called "faith"...

 

[PolyHedral]

And the universe...the one word...'says it can'?

The laws of physics says it can.

Math can't deal with all things.

Math can deal with all consistent universes. Isn't that enough?

 

[Thief]

The laws of physics says it can.


Math can deal with all consistent universes. Isn't that enough?

At the point of singularity...your so-called laws are...intact?

And current day experiments are being done to discover what?...
why some things don't obey the 'rules'?

And no doubt all the 'if and's, but's and maybe's are resolved to your satisfaction and....

you have ruled out God?

 

[PolyHedral]

At the point of singularity...your so-called laws are...intact?

The singularity is an outdated concept. We got rid of it by altering the equations behind gravity. (but they still agree with experiment)

And current day experiments are being done to discover what?...
why some things don't obey the 'rules'?

To update the rules.

And no doubt all the 'if and's, but's and maybe's are resolved to your satisfaction and....

you have ruled out God?

Yes. There is no need for any sort of God.

 

[Willamena]

The singularity is an outdated concept. We got rid of it by altering the equations behind gravity.

So, at what point do equations become absolute, unchanging things?

 

[Orias]

So, at what point do equations become absolute, unchanging things?

They change to fit the medium, often misunderstood as being infallible.

 

[Orias]

The laws of physics says it can.

Perhaps the laws of man.

Physics are completely capable of being obscene in theorized multiverses.

Math can deal with all consistent universes. Isn't that enough?

As if the Universe truly were consistent, one would be able to assume such a standard.

People have been trying to figure this process out for some time, you should be one to know of the Pythagorean theorem.

If it were truly possible you think we would of figured a thing or two out, since from that time we have learned to fly, create telescopes that can observe the "edge" of the Universe, and send and receive delayed radio messages.

So, in order for an inconsistancy to be solved, the partaker must be consistent, and that is one thing that humans are not.

 

[PolyHedral]

So, at what point do equations become absolute, unchanging things?

The equations are always unchanging. We just don't know which ones describe this particular universe.

Perhaps the laws of man.

Physics are completely capable of being obscene in theorized multiverses.

But this universe's physics are quite sensible. (For an arguable value of "sensible") Besides, we've observed quantum randomness, and it happens literally without cause.

As if the Universe truly were consistent, one would be able to assume such a standard.

People have been trying to figure this process out for some time, you should be one to know of the Pythagorean theorem.

If the universe is not consistent, all bets are off. Seriously, a logically inconsistent universe means that any argument, belief, or even fact is invalid.

Once you've established that the universe is consistent, it logically follows that the universe can be dealt with by mathematics.

If it were truly possible you think we would of figured a thing or two out, since from that time we have learned to fly, create telescopes that can observe the "edge" of the Universe, and send and receive delayed radio messages.

Imagine that there is a sealed box in front of you, and you want to know what's in it. There are various things you can do to the box that give you hints about what's inside, despite the fact the box is sealed. You've narrowed down what could be in the box, to a small selection of possibilities, but you've ran into a problem: you can think of tests you can do to work what which item in particular is in the box, but you can't actually perform any of the tests for lack of technology. Until the technology comes along, you can't narrow down what's inside the box any further.

The box has the laws of physics in it, and the tests are scientific experiments. We have many correct answers to how the universe works, but no way to determine which is the answer.

So, in order for an inconsistancy to be solved, the partaker must be consistent, and that is one thing that humans are not.

Then we must have our machines do it for us.

 

[Orias]

The equations are always unchanging. We just don't know which ones describe this particular universe.

But this universe's physics are quite sensible. (For an arguable value of "sensible") Besides, we've observed quantum randomness, and it happens literally without cause.

Sensible to what we know and describe as sense, not necessarily beyond that then is it?

If the universe is not consistent, all bets are off. Seriously, a logically inconsistent universe means that any argument, belief, or even fact is invalid.

I think you finally understand where I am comming from . This is what separates you and I.

Once you've established that the universe is consistent, it logically follows that the universe can be dealt with by mathematics.

But even you don't know that. We only know what the sound is like once it bounces off our brains, even then what is thought to be harminous may actually be disharminous.

Imagine that there is a sealed box in front of you, and you want to know what's in it. There are various things you can do to the box that give you hints about what's inside, despite the fact the box is sealed. You've narrowed down what could be in the box, to a small selection of possibilities, but you've ran into a problem: you can think of tests you can do to work what which item in particular is in the box, but you can't actually perform any of the tests for lack of technology. Until the technology comes along, you can't narrow down what's inside the box any further.

Of course, and I agree 100%. But technology isn't 100% dependant on math.

The box has the laws of physics in it, and the tests are scientific experiments. We have many correct answers to how the universe works, but no way to determine which is the answer.
Then we must have our machines do it for us.

So instead of discarding single peices of the puzzle why not put it together?

We are machines

 

[Thief]

The equations are always unchanging. We just don't know which ones describe this particular universe.

The numbers change....of course they do.

People are still working numbers...and for some...it's all they've got.

But this universe's physics are quite sensible. (For an arguable value of "sensible") Besides, we've observed quantum randomness, and it happens literally without cause.
If the universe is not consistent, all bets are off. Seriously, a logically inconsistent universe means that any argument, belief, or even fact is invalid.

Chaos is a function of this reality.
Some things must be random...unpredictable.
But that doesn't take away God.

Once you've established that the universe is consistent, it logically follows that the universe can be dealt with by mathematics.

Einstein died knowing the work wasn't done.
And it never will be.

Imagine that there is a sealed box in front of you, and you want to know what's in it. There are various things you can do to the box that give you hints about what's inside, despite the fact the box is sealed. You've narrowed down what could be in the box, to a small selection of possibilities, but you've ran into a problem: you can think of tests you can do to work what which item in particular is in the box, but you can't actually perform any of the tests for lack of technology. Until the technology comes along, you can't narrow down what's inside the box any further.

And technology will delivery to you....a denial of God?

Here...you are on the verge of the correct perspective....
The box has the laws of physics in it, and the tests are scientific experiments. We have many correct answers to how the universe works, but no way to determine which is the answer.

That would be correct.....you have no way to determine what the answer is.

No math....no science....no lab experiment....

Then we must have our machines do it for us.

Nay....machines will never bestow faith.

Whatever your decisions about God may be....
it is unlikely to have equations or lab results.

You'll just have to think about it.