Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[ratiocinator]

You asked how faith works for people, so I gave you an example, and all you could do is respond with a petty, selfish whine.
we’re done here.

You made a claim about how faith working, here:

It means that when we act on an idea we hold about the truth of reality, the action bears results that afirm that view of truth and reality.

I asked for an example, and you said:

Choosing to trust that justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done, ourselves, and living accordingly (faith). By trusting in this hoped for truth about reality, we are then relieved of the burden of exactling justice for ourselves when it is not otherwise forthcoming. We can let go of the hurt and embarrassment and resentment caused us by the abuse of someone else, and be at peace in the idea that the offender(s) will be held accountable. Thus, this example of faith "works" for the person that chooses to engage in it.

Quite clearly, this does not "afirm that view of truth and reality" that "justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done". All it says is believing that is the case, might help some people psychologically.

That's comforting make-believe.

 

[ratiocinator]

You don’t have to add anything at all, probabilistically or methodologically, to attribute the inception of the Universe to the will of a Creator. You just need a mind open enough to consider the evidence in that light, and a willingness at least to suspend disbelief for a moment.

I rather suspect that you don't want to "add anything at all, probabilistically or methodologically, to attribute the inception of the Universe to the will of a Creator".

Once you've got to the conclusion you like (a 'Creator'), you just abandon the approach you've applied to the universe. This is a massive double-standard. Why should we ignore the basic maths of probabilities and not ask about the probability of this supposed 'Creator' (blind faith and wishful thinking aside)?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You made a claim about how faith working, here:

I asked for an example, and you said:

Quite clearly, this does not "afirm that view of truth and reality" that "justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done". All it says is believing that is the case, might help some people psychologically.

That's comforting make-believe.

Okay, here is a scientific principle, the cosmological principle:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3."

Now you in effect trust the the universe to play fair, in that you act as if we can do cosmology as knowable as science.
It is trust as per faith in this sense: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
That is the general version of faith and you will now declare that it is not relevant, because it is only about God and not also other world views.

Your world view is, as far as I can tell possible as, a comforting make-believe, because you in effect believe that assuming the universe is real means that it is a fact and can be used to show what is not a fact.
Whether is comforting is just a part of it, because it is make-believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I rather suspect that you don't want to "add anything at all, probabilistically or methodologically, to attribute the inception of the Universe to the will of a Creator".

Once you've got to the conclusion you like (a 'Creator'), you just abandon the approach you've applied to the universe. This is a massive double-standard. Why should we ignore the basic maths of probabilities and not ask about the probability of this supposed 'Creator' (blind faith and wishful thinking aside)?

Because there is no objective strong probality for what objective reality is as independent of the mind.
Any claim of that is blind faith and wishful thinking and not just for the supernatural.

Your double-standard is showing.

 

[ratiocinator]

In any event, odds of 1 in 10^10^123 are as close to a statistical impossibility as it’s possible to imagine, where probability is non zero.

But this based on there being nothing at all except random chance that is involved, which is a very dubious assumption, which Penrose (who came up with the figure) goes on to offer non-creator explanations for.

You also cannot say it's close to a "statistical impossibility" without context (which we don't have). If the number of opportunities is an even larger number, then it becomes very probable indeed. If the opportunities are infinite, it becomes a certainty.

Just throwing improbabilities around might impress some people, but it's not, by itself, some reason to think "it must be magic". If I were to tell you something happened today, on planet Earth, with a probability of 1 in 80 658 175 170 943 878 571 660 636 856 403 766 975 289 505 440 883 277 824 000 000 000 000, would you think that miraculous?

It happens every time somebody shuffles a deck of cards.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But this based on there being nothing at all except random chance that is involved, which is a very dubious assumption, which Penrose (who came up with the figure) goes on to offer non-creator explanations for.

You also cannot say it's close to a "statistical impossibility" without context (which we don't have). If the number of opportunities is an even larger number, then it becomes very probable indeed. If the opportunities are infinite, it becomes a certainty.

Just throwing improbabilities around might impress some people, but it's not, by itself, some reason to think "it must be magic". If I were to tell you something happened today, on planet Earth, with a probability of 1 in 80 658 175 170 943 878 571 660 636 856 403 766 975 289 505 440 883 277 824 000 000 000 000, would you think that miraculous?

It happens every time somebody shuffles a deck of cards.

If probability is spread evenly among any number of outcomes, there is nothing remarkable about any given outcome being randomly selected.

But it’s the specialness - what Penrose calls the enormity of the specialness - of the initial state of the universe, that makes it’s improbability significant. It’s as if someone took a deck of cards that had already been thoroughly shuffled, then shuffled them again until they were all in suit and numerical order.

Still, you’re right; we don’t know for sure whether God plays dice, or cards, or roulette…

 

[PureX]

Yes, I understand the game you are playing very well; issue irrelevant and unreasonable demands, then cry foul when they aren't met on the precise terms you stipulate. You'll have to find someone else to play with I'm afraid.

They only want you to respond so they have a target to shoot at. They have no interest at all in any actual conversation or exchange of information. It's all just an game of ego for them.

 

[YellowFeather]

What supports that God exist is YOU. You are evidence that God exist. Everything has a creator. nothing can create itself. Look at everything around you and think of one thing that created itself. Then take life all the way back to the beginning. A baby cannot create itself. There first had to be a Man created and a Women created from Man. God created Man from the dust of the Ground and then the Woman from the rib of the Man. Then Man was able to create babies that made more life. One person created the car. now there are billions of cars. Studing the Bible takes true will to want to know the truth of God.

 

[ratiocinator]

But it’s the specialness - what Penrose calls the enormity of the specialness - of the initial state of the universe, that makes it’s improbability significant. It’s as if someone took a deck of cards that had already been thoroughly shuffled, then shuffled them again until they were all in suit and numerical order.

The point about context is that if we shuffle (say) 10⁵⁰⁰ decks of cards, then the numerical ordering into suits, in at least one case, would become very probable.

It's also worth noting that the initial low entropy state (which is what makes the initial state of the universe so special) was, according to the Weyl curvature hypothesis, simply due to one tensor being zero.

The converse problem, that you are still studiously avoiding, is consideration of the improbability of a 'Creator' that wants to make this exact sort of universe, and the basic mathematical conjunction problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

What supports that God exist is YOU. You are evidence that God exist. Everything has a creator.

*** Infinite Regress Alert!! ***​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

*** Infinite Regress Alert!! ***​

Yes, but Agrippa's Trilemma also applies to other claims of how to justify beliefs in the end. But that is philosophy 101.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I understand the game you are playing very well; issue irrelevant and unreasonable demands, then cry foul when they aren't met on the precise terms you stipulate. You'll have to find someone else to play with I'm afraid.

Yes, because asking for someone making math claims to show the math is both irrelevant and unreasonable.

Your desperation is showing.

 

[McBell]

They only want you to respond so they have a target to shoot at. They have no interest at all in any actual conversation or exchange of information. It's all just an game of ego for them.

The fact that they can not show the math to support their math claims renders their math claims irrelevant.
At least, to those outside the choir.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fact that they can not show the math to support their math claims renders their math claims irrelevant.
At least, to those outside the choir.

Well, the math is in a sense simple as it is math. The trick is the assumptions for what numbers are used if it is a hypothesis and not a theory. At least how I understand it.

 

[McBell]

Well, the math is in a sense simple as it is math. The trick is the assumptions for what numbers are used if it is a hypothesis and not a theory. At least how I understand it.

Revealing the source of the numbers used is part of showing the math.
It is utterly amazing to me how little math is provided when showing the math in support of the claim.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, because asking for someone making math claims to show the math is both irrelevant and unreasonable.

Odd thing is, I don't really know why he didn't at least give a reference. It's from Roger Penrose's 1989 book The Emperor's New Mind. You can read the extract >here<. It is obviously riddled with assumptions and is only offered as a guesstimate.

Note that he uses the word 'Creator' metaphorically, he is not arguing that a creator is actually required, in fact the constraint he thinks applies is simply that the Weyl tensor was zero (the Weyl curvature hypothesis), for which he later suggested conformal cyclic cosmology as an explanation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Revealing the source of the numbers used is part of showing the math.
It is utterly amazing to me how little math is provided when showing the math in support of the claim.

Well, I really don't care for the actual math. Last time I tried to check was in regards to the probability of a Boltzmann Brain universe. I stopped when I realized that there is no single math-result as there are different assumptions that lead to different results.
So I assume that the actual math as the calculation is correct and simply check if it is theoretical physics/hypothesis or actual scientific theory.

 

[McBell]

Well, I really don't care for the actual math. Last time I tried to check was in regards to the probability of a Boltzmann Brain universe. I stopped when I realized that there is no single math-result as there are different assumptions that lead to different results.
So I assume that the actual math as the calculation is correct and simply check if it is theoretical physics/hypothesis or actual scientific theory.

When making a math claim, one should actually use math.
To make a math claim that does not use math to support the math claim made is, at best, dishonest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When making a math claim, one should actually use math.
To make a math claim that does not use math to support the math claim made is, at best, dishonest.

Well, yes, the math should be math. But for this, it is more than just math. That is my point.

 

[McBell]

Well, yes, the math should be math. But for this, it is more than just math. That is my point.

And my point is that without the math the rest is irrelevant.