The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Gary Childress]

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday.

And, just as one has 'religious faith and belief' in a particular theological community people like "will bouwman" have an, unshakable, 'religious faith' in scientific community, as well. And, it does not matter how Wrong what some say in any of all of those communities people like "will bouwman" will just follow and abide by what is said and claimed. Again, no matter how False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect what is said and claimed.

For example, it has already been proved absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct that the Universe is not expanding and did not begin. However, because people like "will bouwman" have chosen to follow, religiously, the 'teachings' of some within a particular community they will continue to believe, religiously, what they do, until 'the one/s' that they worship, say otherwise.

That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

The, laughably called, 'evidence' for the claim, and the story, that the Universe is expanding, and thus began, is actually a misinterpretation of data. But, instead of being open and curious anyway at all, again because of their 'current' belief, and story, they religiously, 'hold onto', and remain fixed on 'their current story'. Just like every other 'religious person' does.

Just imagine if 'the people', in the 'olden days', had not been holding onto their religious beliefs, and the story, that the earth is at the centre of the Universe, and how much quicker, simpler, and easier the actual irrefutable proof and Fact could have been explained, shown, seen, and recognized.

Well the exact same phenomena was happening in the 'olden days' when this was being written, as can be clearly seen from 'the likes' like "will bouwman" who religiously believe that the Universe began and is expanding. The irrefutable proof could not be seen and recognized because 'these people', religiously believed their 'current story'.

But, unlike previous 'believers', these ones would hold onto 'their stories' and beliefs much more religiously because they had and were deceiving, tricking, and fooling "themselves" more, because they believed that their chosen religious following was, laughably, more accurate and more.reliable. Which obviously is some thing all those with religious faith say and believe is true.

'These people' appear to never even consider that the very first, or following assumption/s, theories, or claimed facts from the outset onwards could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Again, from the very beginning, but which then the following assumptions, theories, or claimed facts are based on or upon. Which all could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

Another reason why none of these posters, here, had the courage to question and/or challenge me over my claims is because they were absolutely fearful that if I did end up proving my claims, which were in opposition to their chosen beliefs, or claims, then they would 'have to' retract and change their 'current' beliefs and stories, which they have been religiously holding onto and worshipping. And, acknowledging being Wrong, and changing, is some thing people who are 'followers', and not 'thinkers', do not want nor like to do. Unless, of course, those that they worship, and/or the community that they have a religious devotion to, changes 'their views', as well.

Why is it "irrefutable" that the "universe" did not begin and is not expanding?

[Age]

Is a theory based on principles of physics in the same or even a worse league credibility-wise with random dreams, illusions or guesses based on vague hunches that make us think something is the case? It seems like coming to the conclusion that there could be a multiverse based on logical, mathematical or theoretical implications of physics is qualitatively different from a scientific standpoint, than me concluding that I saw God in a patch of clouds in the sky that reminded me of a sculpture of Jesus I once saw or something.

The scientific perspective implies that with enough smarts and good enough experiments we might be able to learn the inner workings of reality itself someday. That seems to me to be somewhat on a better footing than one person having a lucid dream that he met aliens who told him about the nature of reality (If that's the sort of "proof" the OP is using).

I understand where you are coming from, Gary, and to a certain extent I agree with what you are getting at. Indeed, my own theory suggests the existence of a multiverse.

However, the implications of the type of multiverse that is derived from the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (MWI) are so utterly ridiculous that, again, they make Senad's wild "karmicons" theory sound reasonable.

And if you doubt that, then you just haven't given much (if any) thought to the difference between regular old "multiverse" theories and that of the "Many Worlds" theory.

As one of my perhaps overused examples of just how ridiculous the "Many Worlds" theory truly is, the theory allows for the possibility that all 8 billion humans presently alive on planet Earth, along with the Earth and the sun and the rest of the 2 trillion galaxies of our entire universe,...

...may have just now come into existence a mere 10 minutes ago as the result of a branching that occurred due to the interplay between the quantum particles of methane gas from a loud and stinking fart emitted from the anus of a bear in the woods of a parallel universe.

I call it the "Tiny Toot" theory as opposed to the "Big Bang" theory.

Is that ridiculous enough for you?

And that's not even the most absurd of the MWI's implications.

Yeah, yeah, I know, some will accuse me of relying on the ol' "reductio ad absurdum" method of argumentation to rail against what some (such as Carroll, Tegmark, and Deutsch) believe to be a plausible theory.

But that's okay, because according to the theory, I'm probably giving the MWI an enthusiastic thumbs-up in a parallel universe as I fart 3 million new universes into existence from that universe, and then 3 million copies of me in those parallel universes each fart 3 million new universes into existence from their universes, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.
_______

Well, if it strikes you as that absurd, then maybe it is. I don't know what Carroll, Tegmark, and Deutsch believe about a "multiverse" but I saw where Brian Greene tried to use an example of how "now" exists indefinitely as information travels at light speed transmitting what happened "now" over the expanse of the rest of the universe. Maybe it's something like telescopes right now looking at galaxies the way they existed billions of years ago. I suppose stuff that happened billions of years ago is happening in front of us right now in a strange sense. I've heard physicists claim that the quantum uncertainty principle "really" is the product of "randomness". I wouldn't know how to begin to challenge that belief. Apparently, math is on their side and not on mine. But it seems that if a planet full of living beings blew up 10 billion years ago and we're just now witnessing it happen, that what we are witnessing a kind of "fake" event, or "perceived" past that is not the case at this instant in time. But I've heard it claimed that that is the wrong way to look at the past. It's difficult for us laymen to keep up with what the latest theories are and their full implications. I've always had a suspicion that "quantum" randomness wouldn't be truly random if we knew all the variables at work in an event. I remember when "Chaos theory" was a new thing. I'm still not sure if "Chaos theory" truly means there is "chaos" or if it's just our perception due to having limited knowledge and understanding of what is going on. Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

Yes. And,

Yes

[Gary Childress]

I understand where you are coming from, Gary, and to a certain extent I agree with what you are getting at. Indeed, my own theory suggests the existence of a multiverse.

However, the implications of the type of multiverse that is derived from the "Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" (MWI) are so utterly ridiculous that, again, they make Senad's wild "karmicons" theory sound reasonable.

And if you doubt that, then you just haven't given much (if any) thought to the difference between regular old "multiverse" theories and that of the "Many Worlds" theory.

As one of my perhaps overused examples of just how ridiculous the "Many Worlds" theory truly is, the theory allows for the possibility that all 8 billion humans presently alive on planet Earth, along with the Earth and the sun and the rest of the 2 trillion galaxies of our entire universe,...

...may have just now come into existence a mere 10 minutes ago as the result of a branching that occurred due to the interplay between the quantum particles of methane gas from a loud and stinking fart emitted from the anus of a bear in the woods of a parallel universe.

I call it the "Tiny Toot" theory as opposed to the "Big Bang" theory.

Is that ridiculous enough for you?

And that's not even the most absurd of the MWI's implications.

Yeah, yeah, I know, some will accuse me of relying on the ol' "reductio ad absurdum" method of argumentation to rail against what some (such as Carroll, Tegmark, and Deutsch) believe to be a plausible theory.

But that's okay, because according to the theory, I'm probably giving the MWI an enthusiastic thumbs-up in a parallel universe as I fart 3 million new universes into existence from that universe, and then 3 million copies of me in those parallel universes each fart 3 million new universes into existence from their universes, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.
_______

Well, if it strikes you as that absurd, then maybe it is. I don't know what Carroll, Tegmark, and Deutsch believe about a "multiverse" but I saw where Brian Greene tried to use an example of how "now" exists indefinitely as information travels at light speed transmitting what happened "now" over the expanse of the rest of the universe. Maybe it's something like telescopes right now looking at galaxies the way they existed billions of years ago. I suppose stuff that happened billions of years ago is happening in front of us right now in a strange sense. I've heard physicists claim that the quantum uncertainty principle "really" is the product of "randomness". I wouldn't know how to begin to challenge that belief. Apparently, math is on their side and not on mine. But it seems that if a planet full of living beings blew up 10 billion years ago and we're just now witnessing it happen, that what we are witnessing a kind of "fake" event, or "perceived" past that is not the case at this instant in time. But I've heard it claimed that that is the wrong way to look at the past. It's difficult for us laymen to keep up with what the latest theories are and their full implications. I've always had a suspicion that "quantum" randomness wouldn't be truly random if we knew all the variables at work in an event. I remember when "Chaos theory" was a new thing. I'm still not sure if "Chaos theory" truly means there is "chaos" or if it's just our perception due to having limited knowledge and understanding of what is going on. Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing. And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"? Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

[Age]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

Ah, well the lunacy is not in the ideas, it is in the conviction with which they are held. I can't prove that the ideas of Mr Can, Senad Dizdarevic, Age or any of the other prima facie nutters are wrong. What would make any of them actual nutters would be their insistence that only their interpretation could be true. I think the tentative way you present your ideas excludes you from that.

Well considering the irrefutable Fact of what I actually insist, which you, still, have absolutely no idea nor clue about, then you could not be, once again, more further Wrong about 'me', here.

And lol, "seeds" is not open to any thing other than its own interpretation, here. As can be clearly seen by its beliefs, and by 'the way' it expresses those beliefs, here.

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church. In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas, and the working hypothesis of day to day physics is that the something is at least one quantum field. For practical purposes, a field is anywhere that a force can, at least in theory, be measured, generally by observing the effect on objects upon which the field has influence. Materialism is the belief that something other than ideas causes those effects, which seems entirely plausible, but no competent physicist will insist we really understand any of the mechanisms that result in fields such as electric, magnetic or gravitational, all of which we can measure very accurately without knowing what causes them.

Here, 'we' can clearly see another example of one 'trying to'' justify 'the community' that they have chosen to put their religious faith and belief in.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

LOL

Again, what 'we' have, here, is another clear case and example of how blinded people can become, and be, when having and holding a belief.

Contrary to 'this one's' belief, here, there is One 'Creation story' which is not just provable, but also irrefutable.

But, as will be be shown, and seen, even 'this claim' will, still, not pique any interest nor curiosity among the posters, here, in the day and age when this is being written.

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

For the same reason I didn't mention the ideas of Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel or any of the thousands of possibilities explored by scientists and philosophers over the ages - there's just too many of them. But since you bring it up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual?

Pre-existence. Or, pre-existing conditions if you like.

To put it another way, if you remove everything that exists, including any gods, have you eliminated possibility? I don't know the answer and while I understand Senad Dizdarevic argues that you can't create something out of nothing, and I suspect Mr Can would claim that without his god nothing is possible, my gut feeling, my aesthetic choice as I sometimes frame it, is that even if god is removed, or does't exist in the first place, possibility remains. Therefore there is something greater than any god and all versions of the ontological argument are unsound; unless possibility in some sense is god. Now, am I mad enough to think that is possible? Absolutely, but not so mad as to believe that because it is an irrefutable hypothesis, it is therefore true.

LOL If 'it' is a hypothesis, then 'it' is not irrefutable. A bit like a bachelor is not married. It is, logically and physically, impossible to have either an 'irrefutable hypothesis', and, a 'married bachelor'.

It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible?

Well with 'enough time' it is possible. But, considering your belief, and story, it is not possible. A beginning, and ending, Universe does not provide 'enough time'.

Is a god that does that not greater than a god that can only create one imperfect world? How might a god create every possible world, you say? Well, one way is to create a universe in which every possible quantum state is real - if a particle can go left, then in one corner of the universe, it does so; in another, it goes right and, here's the bit that really freaks you out, in every possible corner, the particle goes in every possible direction. If a god that could do that exists, why would it not do so?

Are you aware that there is actually no actual 'corners' in the Universe, Itself?

[Age]

I realize that you and I have covered this territory many times in the past,...

...but hey, if you're going to list the questionable creation stories of some of the more outspoken lunatics on this forum,...

(btw, thanks a heap, old bean, for lumping your old mucker in with the likes of Age)

Ah, well the lunacy is not in the ideas, it is in the conviction with which they are held. I can't prove that the ideas of Mr Can, Senad Dizdarevic, Age or any of the other prima facie nutters are wrong. What would make any of them actual nutters would be their insistence that only their interpretation could be true. I think the tentative way you present your ideas excludes you from that.

...then don't forget to include (in absentia) the millions of esteemed materialists who also offer-up highly questionable (and unprovable) creation stories.

Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church. In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas, and the working hypothesis of day to day physics is that the something is at least one quantum field. For practical purposes, a field is anywhere that a force can, at least in theory, be measured, generally by observing the effect on objects upon which the field has influence. Materialism is the belief that something other than ideas causes those effects, which seems entirely plausible, but no competent physicist will insist we really understand any of the mechanisms that result in fields such as electric, magnetic or gravitational, all of which we can measure very accurately without knowing what causes them.

I shan't bore you again with the details, but I am of course referring to the shallow thinkers who hold a religious-like "faith" in the notion that the unfathomable order of just our one little solar "system" alone...

(never mind the ordered status of the estimated two trillion galaxies of other solar "systems")

...can be attributed to the chance stumble-bumbling's of the blind and mindless meanderings of gravity and thermodynamics.

That's quite the unprovable "creation story," don't you think?

Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

Yet that is almost precisely what hardcore materialists must accept if they are going to profess their, again, "faith" in the creative abilities of blind and mindless materialism.

Oh, and don't forget to include the creation story of yet another "branch" of esteemed materialists...

(such as Sean Carroll, Max Tegmark, and David Deutsch, to name a few)

...who resolutely believe that millions of "copies" of you, and of me, and of all two trillion of the abovementioned galaxies, just now "sprang into existence"...

(as in "branched-off" of our universe)

...from the alleged interplay that took place between your eyes and that of the photons of light emitted from your computer screen in the time it took you to read this sentence.

Boy, that's a doozy, no?

Indeed, when it comes to "unprovable/utterly nonsensical" creation stories,...

...I suggest that my story, Age's story (whatever that is), the new guy's "karmicons" story, the Biblical story, the Koran story, the Hindu story, the Buddhist story, etc., etc.,...

...are all put to utter shame by the sheer outrageousness of the materialist's MWI story, yet you failed to mention it.

How come?
_______

For the same reason I didn't mention the ideas of Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel or any of the thousands of possibilities explored by scientists and philosophers over the ages - there's just too many of them. But since you bring it up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual? To put it another way, if you remove everything that exists, including any gods, have you eliminated possibility? I don't know the answer and while I understand Senad Dizdarevic argues that you can't create something out of nothing, and I suspect Mr Can would claim that without his god nothing is possible, my gut feeling, my aesthetic choice as I sometimes frame it, is that even if god is removed, or does't exist in the first place, possibility remains. Therefore there is something greater than any god and all versions of the ontological argument are unsound; unless possibility in some sense is god. Now, am I mad enough to think that is possible? Absolutely, but not so mad as to believe that because it is an irrefutable hypothesis, it is therefore true.
It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible? Is a god that does that not greater than a god that can only create one imperfect world? How might a god create every possible world, you say? Well, one way is to create a universe in which every possible quantum state is real - if a particle can go left, then in one corner of the universe, it does so; in another, it goes right and, here's the bit that really freaks you out, in every possible corner, the particle goes in every possible direction. If a god that could do that exists, why would it not do so?

Possibility is even more interesting than probability. The thing about God is that He can and does choose which possibility must be the case.What He chooses is what religionists call His "Word" . excuse the capital letter "He" ---it's convenient for marking the personal pronoun not as an honorific. God is the Measurer par excellence. Measuring is what He does for a living. Believers accept God's measurements as the only possibility to be actualised.

*Daoism paints a good allegorical picture:- the multitude of possibilities is female and the actualising event is male .

*Similarly God impregnated Mary.

*Similarly Zeus impregnated Leda and others.

Why do you 'try to' 'personify' what obviously could not be 'a person'?

[Age]

Well, if it strikes you as that absurd, then maybe it is. I don't know what Carroll, Tegmark, and Deutsch believe about a "multiverse" but I saw where Brian Greene tried to use an example of how "now" exists indefinitely as information travels at light speed transmitting what happened "now" over the expanse of the rest of the universe. Maybe it's something like telescopes right now looking at galaxies the way they existed billions of years ago. I suppose stuff that happened billions of years ago is happening in front of us right now in a strange sense. I've heard physicists claim that the quantum uncertainty principle "really" is the product of "randomness". I wouldn't know how to begin to challenge that belief. Apparently, math is on their side and not on mine. But it seems that if a planet full of living beings blew up 10 billion years ago and we're just now witnessing it happen, that what we are witnessing a kind of "fake" event, or "perceived" past that is not the case at this instant in time. But I've heard it claimed that that is the wrong way to look at the past. It's difficult for us laymen to keep up with what the latest theories are and their full implications. I've always had a suspicion that "quantum" randomness wouldn't be truly random if we knew all the variables at work in an event. I remember when "Chaos theory" was a new thing. I'm still not sure if "Chaos theory" truly means there is "chaos" or if it's just our perception due to having limited knowledge and understanding of what is going on. Is there such a thing as "perfect" knowledge? And if there is, could the one who had it predict EVERYTHING exactly as it will happen based on understanding all the possible variables that affect an event?

Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing.

What is 'going on' with you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written?

you only asked two questions, only.

And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"?

you only asked two questions, only.

How could the actual person who spoke and wrote, here, not even be aware of how many questions it actually asked?

Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

'you' asked 'me' two questions, only, which 'i', obviously, answered, both, with a, 'Yes'.

Can you, really, not see that 'you' only asked two questions, only?

[Age]

Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual?...

...Possibility is even more interesting than probability. The thing about God is that He can and does choose which possibility must be the case.

In which case god is either limited by some constraints on possibility, and therefore not omnipotent; or, as you suggest here:

What He chooses is what religionists call His "Word"...

Well then you get into the argument about free will. If god does all the choosing, what role do we play? See, one of the possibilities that make this bonkers idea sexy, is that it allows the possibility that a genuinely omnipotent and omnibenevolent god has created circumstances in which every soul has every possible choice available to them. Therefore, at least one iteration will make all the appropriate choices to please their god and make it through the Pearly Gates, if that is where you wish to go.
Think I'll pay a visit to the shrink now.

'you' certainly do need one.

[Age]

I submit that quantum physics has ousted the traditional transcendent, supernatural God and enthroned the totally immanent God---- who is of course a poetic way to describe Humanism.

Quite the contrary, Belinda.

Quantum physics (at least from my reading of it) has given credence to Bishop Berkeley's concept of the universe being the MIND of God.

And that's because if it is indeed true that the universe is the MIND of a higher consciousness, then the fundamental substance from which the phenomenal contents of that higher MIND is created should resemble "mind-stuff," in that it should be able to be formed into absolutely anything "IMAGINABLE."

And that is precisely what quantum physics (quantum mechanics) implies regarding the substance from which the stars, planets, and our bodies and brains are created.

And just to be clear, that discovery no more zeros-in on what God truly is than would an accurate (scientific assessment) of the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created would provide us with a clear understanding of what the "thinker" of thoughts, and the "dreamer" of dreams truly is,...

...for in both cases, the actual ontological status of what both we and God truly are,...

(as in what our "I Am-nesses"/"souls" truly are)

..."transcends" the substance that the "I Am-nesses" use to create what we call "reality."
_______

What are 'you' even on about, here, exactly?

These things are already known, and known in 'a way' that 'you' certainly could not refute, I will add.

[Age]

All I pointed out was that one can claim different kinds of "experience." I didn't say I don't have one, or that you don't, perhaps -- how would I know about you, just as you wouldn't know about me? But not all "experiences" are equal. That much is for sure.

All experiences are equal in that they are experiences.

That's like saying, "All dogs are equal, in that they are dogs." Even if true, it misses a whole lot. There are chihuahuas, and there are great danes. There are small experiences, and there are profound ones.

But, which are all, 'experiences', obviously.

It really takes very little effort to accept that there are different potential causes for precisely the same experience; certainly less than it takes to restrict the possibilities to one.

Causes are always limited to what is both available to and capable of causing the phenomenon in the first place. Sometimes, that's only one thing. Sometimes it's a couple. Usually, there's a balance of probabilities that makes one much more probable than the other. But all empirical knowing, being a matter of data+faith, involves a potential margin of indecision -- but often, that margin is not very large.

It's hard to discuss in vague terms, as you are now doing. In specific cases, it's usually easy to see which is which.

As 'the devil' is known for, 'you', "immanuel can", have the art of deception 'down pat', as some would say.

But, essentially, the 'only one' 'you' are, really, fooling and deceiving, here, is 'you'.

I wasn't making an argument based on proportion of numbers, so no ad populum. I was just pointing out that the claim of the plausiblity of the existence of God is not at all a rare phenomenon, so the contrary argument -- say, that 'your experience doesn't count for most people,' or 'not enough people' have one or another kind of awareness of God doesn't really get much traction with reality.

I disagree.

I'm not sure you really can, with a 92% statistic going the other way, and another 4% uncertain. It leaves you only a 4% margin with which to ground your "disagreeing." It seems that quite a lot of people have a belief that their experiences do warrant at least a basic conviction that a God or gods do exist.

It could now be said, and argued, that even when only ine human being was 'against' 'everyone else', when claiming that the earth is not at the center of the Universe nor what the sun revolves around, who was 'the one' who as actually Correct and Right.

So, it does not matter if everyone thinks, believes, or follows some thing, just one only could be 'the one' who has and is holding the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

Atheists are a statistically rare breed, actually; and their lack of experience would not tell against the experiences of others, because the fact that one man says "I never experienced that" doesn't imply somebody else didn't.

Once again you have failed, absolutely, to present a logically followed argument for why you hold as the absolute truth if things.

The reality is that even among people who profess to be Christians, the plausiblity of the existence of your god is a rare phenomenon.

I don't think it is. But if you do, I'd be interested in the evidence that you use to prove to yourself that you know what they experience.

LOL 'your God' has gonads and a penis. The plausibility of 'this' is at absolute zero. For stop.

[Belinda]

Ah, well the lunacy is not in the ideas, it is in the conviction with which they are held. I can't prove that the ideas of Mr Can, Senad Dizdarevic, Age or any of the other prima facie nutters are wrong. What would make any of them actual nutters would be their insistence that only their interpretation could be true. I think the tentative way you present your ideas excludes you from that.



Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church. In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas, and the working hypothesis of day to day physics is that the something is at least one quantum field. For practical purposes, a field is anywhere that a force can, at least in theory, be measured, generally by observing the effect on objects upon which the field has influence. Materialism is the belief that something other than ideas causes those effects, which seems entirely plausible, but no competent physicist will insist we really understand any of the mechanisms that result in fields such as electric, magnetic or gravitational, all of which we can measure very accurately without knowing what causes them.



Yup. But then all creation stories are unprovable.

For the same reason I didn't mention the ideas of Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Hegel or any of the thousands of possibilities explored by scientists and philosophers over the ages - there's just too many of them. But since you bring it up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual? To put it another way, if you remove everything that exists, including any gods, have you eliminated possibility? I don't know the answer and while I understand Senad Dizdarevic argues that you can't create something out of nothing, and I suspect Mr Can would claim that without his god nothing is possible, my gut feeling, my aesthetic choice as I sometimes frame it, is that even if god is removed, or does't exist in the first place, possibility remains. Therefore there is something greater than any god and all versions of the ontological argument are unsound; unless possibility in some sense is god. Now, am I mad enough to think that is possible? Absolutely, but not so mad as to believe that because it is an irrefutable hypothesis, it is therefore true.
It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible? Is a god that does that not greater than a god that can only create one imperfect world? How might a god create every possible world, you say? Well, one way is to create a universe in which every possible quantum state is real - if a particle can go left, then in one corner of the universe, it does so; in another, it goes right and, here's the bit that really freaks you out, in every possible corner, the particle goes in every possible direction. If a god that could do that exists, why would it not do so?

Possibility is even more interesting than probability. The thing about God is that He can and does choose which possibility must be the case.What He chooses is what religionists call His "Word" . excuse the capital letter "He" ---it's convenient for marking the personal pronoun not as an honorific. God is the Measurer par excellence. Measuring is what He does for a living. Believers accept God's measurements as the only possibility to be actualised.

*Daoism paints a good allegorical picture:- the multitude of possibilities is female and the actualising event is male .

*Similarly God impregnated Mary.

*Similarly Zeus impregnated Leda and others.

Why do you 'try to' 'personify' what obviously could not be 'a person'?

The God of Abraham is a person (a personal god) because that particular deity experiences feelings and intentions as a person does . In other words God/Allah/Jahweh is not simply an abstract idea.

Age had replied to Immanuel Can:-

LOL 'your God' has gonads and a penis. The plausibility of 'this' is at absolute zero.

No ,Age , it is not implausible. The invisible God the Father incarnated as a human man called Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God in human form.
The above applies to Christianity, Islam holds that the invisible Allah was revealed via the Koran. Allah, unlike the Christian God, did not become incarnate .

Judaism holds that God is present in the world in the Shekinah. That is, God dwelling in the world. Shekinah is often understood as feminine.

[Gary Childress]

Yes. And,

Yes

Are the answers to all my questions above, "yes" or are there specifically two that you are addressing.

What is 'going on' with you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written?

you only asked two questions, only.

And if it is specifically two that you are addressing, which two are you addressing with the answer "yes" and "yes"?

you only asked two questions, only.

How could the actual person who spoke and wrote, here, not even be aware of how many questions it actually asked?

Or what does "Yes. And, Yes" mean or refer to?

'you' asked 'me' two questions, only, which 'i', obviously, answered, both, with a, 'Yes'.

Can you, really, not see that 'you' only asked two questions, only?

Fair enough. I thought you were maybe saying, "yes" to some of the points I was making and not necessarily to the questions.

So there is such a thing as perfect knowledge and knowing it would allow someone to predict the future, effectively nullifying quantum uncertainty as interpreted by some?

[Belinda]

Will Bouwman wrote:_

Well then you get into the argument about free will. If god does all the choosing, what role do we play? See, one of the possibilities that make this bonkers idea sexy, is that it allows the possibility that a genuinely omnipotent and omnibenevolent god has created circumstances in which every soul has every possible choice available to them. Therefore, at least one iteration will make all the appropriate choices to please their god and make it through the Pearly Gates, if that is where you wish to go.

The Christian idea of “free will” began around 400 AD (so well after the advent of Jesus) as a limited, grace-bound power — and only by 1300–1700 AD did it grow into the modern notion of an absolute, self-causing, libertarian will.
I include the above info because absolute, self-causing, libertarian Free Will is not necessary for Christianity. For most of the past two centuries, living in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ was seen as enough to meet one’s personal moral responsibilities.
(Dates with help from ChatGPT.)

[Age]

Ya gotta understand that materialism is a very broad church.

As is spirituality.

What's your point?

In its simplest form, it is just the belief that there is something other than ideas,...

No, old bean, in its simplest form...

(at least in regard to the "hardcore" version of materialism)

...it (materialism) is a faith-based belief system...

(if not overtly professed, then it must be acknowledged as such by sheer default)

...whose popes, and ministers and deacons all believe that the unthinkable order of the universe, which led to the manifestation of life, mind, and consciousness on what seems to be a perfect and impossibly stable and well-equipped setting,...

...a setting (the Earth) that is powered by a perfect (almost inexhaustible) source of heat, light, and DNA-driving energy,...

...was somehow achieved by, again, the blind and mindless stumble-bumbling's of an unconscious substance that could not possibly have had the slightest clue as to what it was creating until...

"...lo and behold..."

...consciousness emerged from what the mindless substance had "accidently formed itself into" during the billions of years leading up to that miraculous (unplanned) moment when "something" that could consciously assess the remarkable status of the setting from which the conscious "something" emerged --> emerged.

Now ^^^that^^^ (in my humble opinion) is the "simplest form" of what the belief in materialism actually entails.

But since you bring it [MWI] up, yeah it's a doozy. Here's the thing I'm struggling with at the moment: if something is possible, what is there to stop it being actual?...

...It's a fun idea though and it is a context that can make sense of the many worlds interpretation. If it is possible that possibility is in some sense 'god' and can create anything, what prevents 'god' from creating every world that is possible?

Hmm, let me think for a second. Oh, I know, how about practicality? Or logic? Or common sense?

(Oh dear, I feel a rant coming on. I'll try to keep it short.)

I mean, we can't even begin to fathom how just this one unthinkably vast and complex universe came into being, but we nevertheless estimate that it took at least 13.8 billion years to reach its present state.

'you' might not be able to fathom how this One and only Universe 'came into being', but 'we' already actually know.

Yet here you are seeming to defend the "possibility" of it being "possible" that trillions of almost precise copies of it (and of you and me) - "instantly" spring into existence (fully-formed) every second of every minute of every hour of every day, etc., etc.,...

...all for the sake of fulfilling the outcome of each and every "possibility" implicit in the quantum wavefunction, of which there could be a near infinity of possibilities looming in the workings of the quantum underpinning of just our little everyday reality here on just this one planet alone.

And that's not even taking into consideration how many subsequent, fully-formed copies of you and me and this universe that, again, "instantly" spring into existence from the near infinity of universes that branched-off of our universe.

Anyway, the whole point of me sidetracking off into this rant about the MWI was to highlight the fact that it's not just us religious nutjobs and space cadets who come up with (and believe in) some pretty wild "creation stories."
_______

[Belinda]

Seeds, think it was ,who wrote:-

Anyway, the whole point of me sidetracking off into this rant about the MWI was to highlight the fact that it's not just us religious nutjobs and space cadets who come up with (and believe in) some pretty wild "creation stories."

If a man can understand creation stories only literally and not as allegories then it''s not surprising they seem to the man to be nonsense.
Americans still understand allegory, but no longer by instinct — it now requires education, reflection, and shared context, not inherited belief.

[Age]

All experiences are equal in that they are experiences.

That's like saying, "All dogs are equal, in that they are dogs." Even if true, it misses a whole lot. There are chihuahuas, and there are great danes. There are small experiences, and there are profound ones.

What is more profound about a great dane than a chihuahua? It seems to me that it isn't the experience that is profound, rather the response.

It really takes very little effort to accept that there are different potential causes for precisely the same experience; certainly less than it takes to restrict the possibilities to one.

Causes are always limited to what is both available to and capable of causing the phenomenon in the first place. Sometimes, that's only one thing.

Well, if that one thing is a god that can do anything, there is no limit to what that one possibility can do.

Sometimes it's a couple. Usually, there's a balance of probabilities that makes one much more probable than the other. But all empirical knowing, being a matter of data+faith, involves a potential margin of indecision -- but often, that margin is not very large.

Ok, so let's look at some empirical facts.

It is an empirical fact that people across the world have experiences that they attribute to some god..

'This' is not necessarily an 'empirical fact' at all. And, the obviousness of this some can see, but which you obviously can not, yet.

It is also a fact that most will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage.

In each case there is plenty of data to support the fact; I don't need any faith to empirically know that. .

Considering that it is you who claims that the only thing that can be known is 'awareness' what you say and write, here, appears contradictory

So no, all empirical knowing is not "a matter of data+faith". The faith is in the interpretation of the facts. How then are we to interpret the above two facts? Well, there are no limits to how they might be interpreted, but let's look at two: yours and mine. As I understand, you believe that people's cultural heritage blinds them to the accurate interpretation, the result being that the vast majority of people who have ever lived will spend eternity separated from your god, and that is a very bad thing. I, on the other hand, look at those two facts and interpret them as meaning people will attribute their experience to a god that features in their cultural heritage, because that god features in their cultural heritage.

It's hard to discuss in vague terms, as you are now doing. In specific cases, it's usually easy to see which is which.

Too vague, eh? Ok, so you assert that:

You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody.

and:

All men know He exists, that Creation displays his handiwork, that morality is real, and so forth.

According to which there are no special experiences that are necessary to believe in the same god as you. However, you also say:

So an Atheist can only insist there's no God by also insisting nobody has ever had any genuine experience of God -- never anyone, in any religion or by any miracle, and never in history, even once.

Which implies there are special "genuine" experiences that only some people have. So which is more probable: that your god reveals itself in day to day experiences, or that some small fraction of humanity is privileged with "genuine" experiences?

Atheists are a statistically rare breed, actually; and their lack of experience would not tell against the experiences of others, because the fact that one man says "I never experienced that" doesn't imply somebody else didn't.

If an atheist is so because of "their lack of experience", why does your god favour some humans over others?