Using science as a means to prove the existence of God. A little fruity, no?
Printable View
Using science as a means to prove the existence of God. A little fruity, no?
I had to break it up like this before being able to read it decently:
"If through the use of the scientific method humankind could, given enough time, come to understand and therefore control all aspects of physical reality,
and if modern physics is correct in that there is no inherent physical limitations for backwards (in time) causality,
then it stands to reason that humankind or another sentient race will eventually control all of physical existence
and when they do they already have done it at all points in history from end to end or throughout however time is structured,
therefore god."
Hence that I failed to understand how or where to put the last part in there. I'm not retarded as far as I know, but I fail to comprehend. Anyone help me out please..
I think you're confusing scientific theories with scientific facts.
You can't discuss an assertion, but you seem to already know the answer? I wouldn't use the word 'proof' either, but it is arguably a form of logic, to say (I quote again):
Xei: As to what 'causality' actually means, Hume pretty much cracked that one. It doesn't mean anything; it's a fictitious concept based on a baseless extrapolation from experience. A happens, and then B tends to happen after. There is no 'cause' in between; there's no 'therefore' either. It just is. It's a constant conjunction.
You can pick nearly any well received (widely agreed) characteristic of the monotheistic God, and you can support it from the above wisdom.
E.g. Timeless - if causality doesn't mean anything, time also fails to mean anything. As such, the further statement: "It just is" bears a lot of truth in the existence of eternity. A and B also disappear as fictional events or 'effects' of cause, if cause ceases to exist, further supporting the interplay of time as an artifact of perception and not reality.
I'm not fully sure what your stance is here, but it appears to be going against your OP, wouldn't you say?
Unfortunately not enough for a tomato.
I asked you to explain what you meant by 'logic' when you said that induction was a kind of logic. All you've done is repeated the term 'form of logic'... I still don't know what this means. Also I don't understand how what you quoted was relevant to the point you were supposed to be discussing about induction. That's what I asked you to clarify, I don't know what you're talking about now.
As to your claim that what I said implies all of the qualities of God, that clearly isn't true. For a start most people don't identify a monotheistic God with the universe itself as you are doing, they identify it as a creation of God, and God as something beyond this creation. So the properties of the universe are not identical with the properties of God. Even if we were to grant this, there are many canonical qualities of monotheistic God that my description of cause in the universe does not imply. For instance, omnipotence, and intention. If there is no such thing as a categorical cause, that clearly eliminates the idea that a universal force could act solely by its will upon matter in the universe, as such an action by definition requires cause to be a real entity. I also dispute the claim that my thoughts about causality imply 'timelessness' in the first place; at any rate this claim needs elucidation. I said that certain things 'just do' follow on from certain other things and we don't have access to any logical imperative: that doesn't mean that the concept of 'following on' is illegitimate... quite the opposite, it is essentially what I identified with cause.
It was more of a response to your second paragraph (quoted in my previous post), which is about God. I don't see any need to explain what I mean by logic, since in those instances I'm the one asking you the questions; based on the way you have worded your posts. If you agree or disagree, then explain; that is why I am asking.
"Form of logic", without being too difficult, is a phrase that indicates a kind or category of logic that you may be using; in this case, I imply that causality is a form of logic since you mention that it is based of observation that is concordant to all the different apparent conditions, which are supported by predictability. The obvious weakness is that 'cause' is still a mysterious label that has no actual external existence.
Why isn't induction a form of logic?
I'll rephrase my statement by adding that, the solution in some cases is recontextualized and interpreted better. For instance, not many people really consider that God being beyond Creation and God being one with Creation can be true simultaneously, however the latter statement must still take priority. That is because conceptually, something must be singular before you can divide it, and even if it is divided it is only so because of the way it is conceptualized. If there literally was a seperation between God and Creation, it is a much more naive concept that is not only harder to believe, but impossible to know.Quote:
As to your claim that what I said implies all of the qualities of God, that clearly isn't true. For a start most people don't identify a monotheistic God with the universe itself as you are doing, they identify it as a creation of God, and God as something beyond this creation. So the properties of the universe are not identical with the properties of God. Even if we were to grant this, there are many canonical qualities of monotheistic God that my description of cause in the universe does not imply. For instance, omnipotence, and intention. If there is no such thing as a categorical cause, that clearly eliminates the idea that a universal force could act solely by its will upon matter in the universe, as such an action by definition requires cause to be a real entity.
Also, as you already pointed out, it does not seem to work with Omnipotence. The solution to this is that the although the concept of Omnipotence was concerned with power and will, it doesn't require notions of 'action' and 'force', or any other term that indicates a separation; a division between God the and universe. Power and will exist in the totality of the universe as a singularity - which is supported by a causeless universe, and therefore a universe of Karma.
If you take a look at Universal Mind's signature, you'll see he quoted something from me, probably when I was arguing the same point. Omnipotence is all-powerful by virtue of being it; by virtue of being all power. That the Creator exists within Creation is true power; true power cannot be destroyed and cannot inflict total destruction. Even to suggest something like "The Big Crunch" on the universe is not total destruction, and I wouldn't be surprised if the laws of physics agreed.
However you stated that causality was both fictional and meaningless. And that there was no 'cause' and no 'therefore'. What is the necessity to apply "following on" between A and B? In that case, it must still mean something.Quote:
I also dispute the claim that my thoughts about causality imply 'timelessness' in the first place; at any rate this claim needs elucidation. I said that certain things 'just do' follow on from certain other things and we don't have access to any logical imperative: that doesn't mean that the concept of 'following on' is illegitimate... quite the opposite, it is essentially what I identified with cause.
Probably worthy of a merge, Logical Proof of God #½.
Phion, you are obviously interested in the thread since you continue to read it. Why don't you try to contribute instead of making useless smarmy little comments?
Really, if you didn't understand what I was getting at, how can you say it is a contradiction? I think it may seem like a contradiction because even when talking about an advanced race that can transcend space and time, I am forced to use references to time and causation in order to conform to normal english language even though they don't exactly apply anymore. Though I am arguing for a form of existence that is independent of time, I'm not sure how to communicate it exactly in a language that assumes its existence.
Alright. Judging from what our participants have been discussion so far, it looks as though we can't get past the initial step of finding a framework to begin making a connection between dichotomous subjects (logic, spirituality, physics, religion, spattering of philosophy). Bridging these concepts would be a huge feat, but in my opinion futile, but that may just be my tendency for categorization seeping over. These layers should probably be build from the ground up, starting with the most widely accepted, sturdiest form of thought all the way up to what your attempting to prove, ie. God. I think we're missing a few ingredients here, but what do I know? Makes me want to drink excessively to be honest.
Xei, it sounds like what really is trying to say is that even the notion that B follows A assumes a certain order of events. I can't be sure if he is saying that order is significant or purely subjective though. If it is significant and the perceived flow of time is an inherent part of the universe, then even if we can't say that a specific event like hitting a golf ball causes another event like the ball moving, we can still say that the entire universal state that contained the ball and club before impact caused the universal state that contained the ball and club after contact just based on a natural flow of continuity. Another example might be pages in a book in which page 5 may not expressly cause page 6 based on any physical laws but page 6's contents could not be what they are without page 5's contents being what they are.
Yeah I agree with that. It also suggests that causality is insignificant (as is order) and inaccurate when considering the entire universal state at once (since there are infinite conditions, excluding other conditions creates observational bias).
And, just to add to my rambling about Omnipotence - how it relates to what you (Xei) said about causality: A universe/reality that is dependent on nothing and caused by nothing must be absolutely powerful. That is self-explanatory, because there's nothing that could destroy it, since it is by identity, all that ever was and all that can be.
I guess that's better than being only ½ funny?
Kidding aside, why do you think you need so many ingredients? Maybe there is a way to look at only two fundamental variables: science and God (not religion), and see how they can co-exist by considering a major paradigm difference, but not considering a battle where one side has to lose. Having said that, any 'proof' is really indirect: a proof that follows from logic/reason's inherent limitations on reality, rather than tangible or experimental evidence.
Well it appeared that you were disagreeing or doubting what your OP stated about knowledge of the universe (causality, time/space) because it might only reflect that man can talk about or understand it thoroughly in one domain (post #47). Then again, you did prefix that it was all hypothetical, so I think I get it now.