What if the idea of God was proven?

[TremulousTetra]

mmm... no.
I didn't say it is irrelevant wether God exists or not.
I said that the argument mlade for God's non-existance is flawed because it entirely rests on and within the human's perspective of human reality.

no, I know you wasn't. My point was the logic in your arguments is sustainable regardless of God's existence or non-existence. I am agreeing with the logic in your arguments, not with the belief in god.

Of course you can project this argument back onto my conclusion that God exists when I say that gets entirely underscored by scientific reasearch and its findings.
The difference is that I do not rely on science to believe in God while those who do not believe stronly adhere to and rely on the argument "science can't prove it, hence God doesn't exist".

I've already said, I don't think the atheists do say "science can't prove it, hence God doesn't exist". What they say is there is insufficient, if any, evidence to prove scientifically there is God.

There is a point to make though about it being irrelevant to seek proof wether God yes or no exists since God shall always be beyond human comprehension.
Belief (no matter which type of) inevitably needs to accept to cross the edge outlined by human reason and logic into the mystery of what we can't explore and/or know.

salaam.

excuse me, I'm not really interested in this, in my opinion it detracts from the logic, let's say a secular logic of your argument.

Fraternal Greetings.

 

[Aldebaran]

no, I know you wasn't. My point was the logic in your arguments is sustainable regardless of God's existence or non-existence. I am agreeing with the logic in your arguments, not with the belief in god.

Of course it is sustainable regardless.

What they say is there is insufficient, if any, evidence to prove scientifically there is God.

Which doesn't exclude the possibility of God's existance or the possibility that indeed it shall ever be proved. Hence what is left is doubt. Like I said.

excuse me, I'm not really interested in this, in my opinion it detracts from the logic, let's say a secular logic of your argument.

No it doesn't. Everyone believes in something, the rule counts for every belief, as I pointed out, hence also for the belief that science delivers no proof of God's existance.

salaam.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Which doesn't exclude the possibility of God's existance or the possibility that indeed it shall ever be proved.

Precisely. It also doesn't exclude the possibility of existance of giant tortoise carries the earth around the sun (another mystic belief) or the possibility that indeed it shall ever be proved.

Hence what is left is doubt. Like I said.

No it doesn't. Everyone believes in something, the rule counts for every belief, as I pointed out, hence also for the belief that science delivers no proof of God's existance.

salaam.

200,000 years of experience brings us to the certainty that if the given natural laws proceed without natural disturbance, the sun will rise in the morning.it is quite possible that all natural laws will cease to exist tomorrow, but there is no evidence to suggest this will happen. In the end it is always a matter of assessing the odds like a bookie. I would prefer to bet you the sun will rise tomorrow, and you can bet me God will prove his existence tomorrow.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Everyone would be standing up and declaring themselves the messiah.

A whole bunch of shepherds but no sheep.

i think people misunderstand the sheep!

maybe when you think you are being shepherd like and standing up for what you believe in- it could be said that you were being humble to a higher cause.

like people say- 'follow your heart'

 

[Aldebaran]

the sun will rise in the morning.

The sun is a star and following the scientific explanations and predictions on stars, one day the sun shall not rise again. (most scientists I am aware of predict/assume that this planet shall not exist anymore at that time.)

If you believe God's existance depends on the rising of the sun above the earth's horizon, be my guest

salaam.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Nature is full proof of God for me.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The sun is a star and following the scientific explanations and predictions on stars, one day the sun shall not rise again. (most scientists I am aware of predict/assume that this planet shall not exist anymore at that time.)

If you believe God's existance depends on the rising of the sun above the earth's horizon, be my guest

salaam.

I said "200,000 years of experience brings us to the certainty that if the given natural laws proceed without natural disturbance, the sun will rise in the morning." WITHOUT NATURAL DISTURBANCE. One day the sun shall not rise again, and that would be perfectly natural, explainable without resorting to superstition.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

In answer to the original question.


The question is a bit mixed up so I will break the answer down:

scenario A: our observations don't change with respect religous claims of miracles/prayer etc and science charges forward for a few hundred (or thousand) years and we find a theory of everything.

If "God" were proven scientifically then for me that means the underlying nature of the universe is fully understood ("a theory of everything") and we simply name this nature "god".

But that's nothing more than hanging a name badge on (by definition) "THE fundamental science of the universe".

The problem of who made the framework of the fundamental science of the universe would probably remain and Religous folk would probably still hold their belief (even thought their own arguement falls down immediately becasue the answer to "who made the framework for the fundamental science" cannot stop (logically) at "God" he must be pretty complex himself and therefore who made him.

In summary - things probably carry on as they do now. Perhaps with some long term tendancy away from religous belief but in my opinion this depends more upon politics and social factors than science itself.


scenario B: our observations change with respect ot religous claims of miracles/prayer etc and as science charges forward it embraces these new observations of miracles actually happening and prayers really working. A theory of everything is found and incorporates the mechanism for the miracles and the prayers.

Once again the scientific proof means the underlying nature of the universe is fully understood ("a theory of everything"), this time it seems more reasonable to name this "god" although it does not really mean anything different scientifically.


In summary - things would change in some respects and a scientific understanding of how what is currently considered "physically impossible" would be pretty handy, this itself would have an impact of change with respect ot politics and social factrors, so change would be in preinciple possible. But I think a fanatical religious group would develop who would not be happy with "man" having this knowlegde which they consider should only be implemented by "god". e.g. if 100,000 people starve due to a drought there is a reason for this, "it's how God wants it". The other side would argue that we now "know" God so he wanted us to "know" him so he has effectively granted us with his power.

Even with this scenario there remains plenty of oportunities for conflict with regards to religious belief and interpretation of what it all means.


Conclusion. Things will change slowly no matter what happens.

 

[Demosthenes]

In my view the truth of Spinoza's view of God has already been proven:

It's been proven mathematically, by bell's theorem, which is a mathematical demonstration that by accepted truths of subatomic physics, any two particles that have interacted will continue to influence each other for ever at any distance, (both forwards and backwards in time apparently)

And it's been proven empirically in that there have been no experiments that have falsified the predictions of bell's theorem. On the contrary, the results of every such experiment have been just what would have been predicted if the absurd implications of bell's theorem hold true in the "real" world.

Since it is widely accepted that the universe was once a very small point which exploded, it follows that every particle in it has already interacted with every other particle, and therefore that they all remain connected, - at least if you hold scientific reasoning and logic to be at all truth preserving. So the universe is one great big thing, one substance, utterly indivisible, as Spinoza claimed to prove by reason.

So, I reckon those people who've claimed that it would make no difference at all if the idea of God were proven are proved quite right.

 

[fela fan]

There is a point to make though about it being irrelevant to seek proof wether God yes or no exists since God shall always be beyond human comprehension.
Belief (no matter which type of) inevitably needs to accept to cross the edge outlined by human reason and logic into the mystery of what we can't explore and/or know.

salaam.

I don't agree that God is always beyond human comprehension. For those that believe in the God that we've been told about in the religions, then yes i see where you're coming from.

But you're not talking for all human beings. There are many, although still in a huge minority, who know exactly who or what this God concept is. They have adamantly and totally discovered 'God'. Belief becomes redundant, and in fact it is one of the criteria in itself required to learn of 'God'.

Furthermore, once the discovery of this 'God' is made, and let's call this 'God' the non-religion God, then the discoverer can never live their lives again depending upon beliefs. Beliefs become redundant, just as redundant as the so-called God that the religions urge us to include in our lives.

By dropping all beliefs, the mystery of life and the world is itself dropped, it is no more.

Here aldebaran:

I am, God is not.

God is, I am not.

We cannot have both at the same time.

 

[gorski]

The Q is, FF, how can he know/claim that, unless he himself took a Godly position...???

 

[TremulousTetra]

In my view the truth of Spinoza's view of God has already been proven:

It's been proven mathematically, by bell's theorem, which is a mathematical demonstration that by accepted truths of subatomic physics, any two particles that have interacted will continue to influence each other for ever at any distance, (both forwards and backwards in time apparently)

And it's been proven empirically in that there have been no experiments that have falsified the predictions of bell's theorem. On the contrary, the results of every such experiment have been just what would have been predicted if the absurd implications of bell's theorem hold true in the "real" world.

Since it is widely accepted that the universe was once a very small point which exploded, it follows that every particle in it has already interacted with every other particle, and therefore that they all remain connected, - at least if you hold scientific reasoning and logic to be at all truth preserving. So the universe is one great big thing, one substance, utterly indivisible, as Spinoza claimed to prove by reason.

So, I reckon those people who've claimed that it would make no difference at all if the idea of God were proven are proved quite right.

Wow! Mind blowing. There is a point I don't understand.

Why would Bell's theorem say "any two particles that had interacted will continue to influence each other for ever at any distance", if they had already interacted with each other at the big crunch? There wouldn't be any opportunity for any two particles to have interacted, past tense, because they would have always have been "interacted".

It seems to me that the big crunch, all such laws breakdown, so at the big bang on particles will have not interacted and will only do so over time, with possibly the big crunch coming when all particles have interacted???? So this doesn't apply surely "Since it is widely accepted that the universe was once a very small point which exploded, it follows that every particle in it has already interacted with every other particle, and therefore that they all remain connected, - at least if you hold scientific reasoning and logic to be at all truth preserving. So the universe is one great big thing, one substance, utterly indivisible, as Spinoza claimed to prove by reason. "


having said that,your post went a bit above my head,fancy running through it again.

ps. the question I asked earlierabout it being impossible toprove a negative,is correct isn't it?it is impossible isn't it to prove a negative?

 

[Demosthenes]

Wow! Mind blowing. There is a point I don't understand.

Why would Bell's theorem say "any two particles that had interacted will continue to influence each other for ever at any distance", if they had already interacted with each other at the big crunch? There wouldn't be any opportunity for any two particles to have interacted, past tense, because they would have always have been "interacted".

I don't know why Bell's theorem says that. I just know that that's what it says.

It seems to me that the big crunch, all such laws breakdown, so at the big bang on particles will have not interacted and will only do so over time, with possibly the big crunch coming when all particles have interacted????

Well, I suppose it's possible that all such laws break down at the big crunch.

I can't deny the possibility of that; But the default position would be that laws of physics hold good always, and don't break down and don't change, - so the default position would be what I said, I reckon.

Is it impossible to prove a negative?
Standard argument,
1. If p then q,
2. Not q.
3. Therefore not p.

proposition 3 proves a negative. However, it does so by positing an unproved negative (2) How might you prove -not q- ? i've no idea.

As far as I know, proof is always relative to some assumptions that are ungrounded. You have to assume something in advance to get any kind of logical proof off the ground. It depends what assumptions you're willing to accept.

If you take a look at spinoza's proof that there's one substance, you'll see that it follows from his definitions and axioms, - the only way out of it is to question his definitions or his axioms, - and it's not so easy to find principled reasons for disagreeing with them. But the axioms and definitions themselves are never proved.

 

[Demosthenes]

Spinoza's definitions and axioms:

the rest of the text is at http://users.erols.com/nbeach/spinoza.html

I. BY THAT which is SELF-CAUSED, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

II. A thing is called FINITE AFTER ITS KIND, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

V. BY MODE, I mean the modifications ["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation.--I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

VII. That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.

VIII. By ETERNITY, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.
Explanation. --Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may be conceived without a beginning or end.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Axioms
I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.

IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.

V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.

VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.

 

[gorski]

You do realise that Spinoza's system doesn't allow for any freedom, even though every other sentence mentions it?

As in "one can't desire what one is not suppose to desire".

Determinism, pure and simple!

All more geometrico...

 

[fela fan]

The Q is, FF, how can he know/claim that, unless he himself took a Godly position...???

Sorry mate, i've tried and tried, but i don't get it. Can you explain more simply for me what you mean?!

 

[Demosthenes]

You do realise that Spinoza's system doesn't allow for any freedom, even though every other sentence mentions it?

As in "one can't desire what one is not suppose to desire".

Determinism, pure and simple!

All more geometrico...

Well, I'm not asking you to swallow Spinoza whole, - I just think his argument for one substance/God, at the beginning of Ethics is pretty good, maybe irrefutable.

And even if it is questionable, it's worth considering because it seems to tie in pretty well with much more recent scientific discoveries, and also, it shows to what an extent your conclusions can be driven by your conceptual framework, - Which in turn might make you wonder, - if you reject spinoza's conceptual framework, to what extent your own conclusions are driven by yours, and whether you've sufficiently questioned your own presuppositions.

 

[gorski]

Well, I'm not asking you to swallow Spinoza whole, - I just think his argument for one substance/God, at the beginning of Ethics is pretty good, maybe irrefutable.

I'm not that moved by him, I have to say. Moreover, it irritates the Hell outta me... And precisely because I disagree with his precepts most profoundly - I can't see it like you, at all!!

And even if it is questionable, it's worth considering because it seems to tie in pretty well with much more recent scientific discoveries...

Which discoveries might that be? I am not familiar of anything that would bring "determinism" home in a friendly package of "loving the inevitable", as "one is not supposed to want what one is not supposed to want, in the first place"?!?

...and also, it shows to what an extent your conclusions can be driven by your conceptual framework, - Which in turn might make you wonder, - if you reject spinoza's conceptual framework, to what extent your own conclusions are driven by yours, and whether you've sufficiently questioned your own presuppositions.

Indeed, no escaping being a Human Being, corporeal, a child of your time and place. The notion/realisation is actually liberating, not limiting or denying us "immortality" or summat...

 

[i-am-your-idea]

The Q is, FF, how can he know/claim that, unless he himself took a Godly position...???

wow, have you been there?

 

[gorski]

More sophistry, Vicar?

Whatever...

 

[Demosthenes]

I'm not that moved by him, I have to say. Moreover, it irritates the Hell outta me... And precisely because I disagree with his precepts most profoundly - I can't see it like you, at all!!

that's interesting, - I would really like to know which precepts(above) you disagree with and why, then.

Not because I think you ahve to accept them, btw, - but because I'm interested in seeing what you think they mean, and why you disagree with them, and what alternatives there might be.

I don't see why determinism should be such a problem, either, because I'm not sure what freedom really is, - I kind of like Spinoza's idea that all behaviour is caused, and freedom means being the cause of your own behaviour, - being your own programmer. ?

 

[gorski]

You kinda answered it.

[Sorry, can't go digging through Spinoza and my notes from 20 odd years ago now, as my MA is a priority - and I realised yesterday I spent way too much time on Urban {and not necessarily on the nicer and interested people like you!}].

The main problem is that of Freedom, as you put it. If one is not even supposed to be able to desire what one isn't supposed to desire, then we have a problem. If such cause is at the bottom of all Human actions... - can you see it as a problem, then?

 

[Demosthenes]

You kinda answered it.

[Sorry, can't go digging through Spinoza and my notes from 20 odd years ago now, as my MA is a priority - and I realised yesterday I spent way too much time on Urban {and not necessarily on the nicer and interested people like you!}].

The main problem is that of Freedom, as you put it. If one is not even supposed to be able to desire what one isn't supposed to desire, then we have a problem. If such cause is at the bottom of all Human actions... - can you see it as a problem, then?

Oh right, well, I didn't quite get what you're talking about. I ahven't even read the whole book. I was only really considering the argument for one substance, God.

So when you said you strongly disagreed with his precepts, - I thought you meant you strongly disagreed with one or several of his axioms and definitions that I quoted above, - (for ease of reference) And that's what I was hoping you were going to tell me about. But now I'm not sure, -do you disagree with any of those axioms and definitions?

 

[Meltingpot]

I read somewhere that a guy in the US who works as a nightclub bouncer claims to have found a proof of the existence of God. Trouble is, he has an IQ of 200+ and you apparently need to be another genius to understand it.

 

[gorski]

A few good ones, it seems, I found in speed...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-psychological/

or

http://books.google.com/books?id=LY...yku&sig=yUvbta-ZRU2ipMtAzMZ9YTIu5Ok#PPA100,M1 - page 100, par. 2, for instance

But now other things must be taken care of...

Later...

 

[TremulousTetra]

I read somewhere that a guy in the US who works as a nightclub bouncer claims to have found a proof of the existence of God. Trouble is, he has an IQ of 200+ and you apparently need to be another genius to understand it.

a bouncer in a nightclub with an IQ of 200 plus, there has to be a god!