What would count as proof of God

[atrib]

You can hold up any positive and say "see this thing" just as I can hold up an example of a universe that does have a creator god that interacts with it outside it's physics so I can absolutely say that is a relationship that can apply to a universe.

No, you can't. The universe is the set of all things that exist. There can be only one universe, by definition, which is the universe we inhabit, and it includes everything that exists. And in the universe we inhabit, there is zero evidence to support the existence of creator gods that can create and interact with universes, which means you have zero examples of universes with creator gods that interact with their creation.

Moreover, if a creator god did exist, it would necessarily be a part of the universe we inhabit, because a god would be a member of the set of all things that exist. Which would then require the universe to exist in order for the creator god to create the universe, which would be illogical. Thus a creator god that can create the universe and interact with it is logically impossible.

Assuming we are all using the same definition of the word universe. Because it appears that we are not.

 

[atrib]

That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

A simulation running on a machine within the universe is a part of the universe, it is not the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

I do not understand either, please explain wit evidence what the universe is.

 

[Jarhyn]

That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

A simulation running on a machine within the universe is a part of the universe, it is not the universe.

If you want to play that game, you are just faffing about with definitions, and stamping your feet with a "no true Scotsman".

It doesn't need to have created "the whole universe", something that is in fact nonsensical to reference in this way, to have created our entire causal determinism and the state field on which it cogitated.

You can call it whatever you like, and we can even agree it is not a seemingly necessary element for this all to exist.

I don't really discuss what "the universe" is, I discuss what "a universe" is: a causally deterministic set of operations on some base field, given some initial field state.

Talking about "THE universe" ends up in a deep realm of conflation the way you assemble it together. Ours clearly can contain other models of physics which our "universe" is not itself entirely beholden to at it's own apparent base layers.

This may describe "everything that will happen" but it is a fair shade from "everything that has a description of how it happens."

In short, a simulation running on a machine can be running a "universe" while being contained in a "universe", and this absurdity is observed reality.

You can call the creator of a simulation any thing you want but normally, the term for such a thing is "creator god", and I have proposed a few ways to look for such, a few ways such could reveal their existence while revealing more of our fundamental reality's nature, if there's anything to reveal.

Causal adjacencies of ridiculous form, for example, such as pigeons shitting in prominent dictator's eyes such that the dictator dies would be a way someone could, for example, prove they are such a thing. Otherwise, a demonstration of an "uncaused" event directly, or perhaps a complete description of a "superphysical" architecture in it's hosting physics which perfectly explains observed physics.

There are lots of ways, but it all requires revealing beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are in hosted physics rather than a top level host physics, and then showing us about that physics.

And yet that still does not get "the believer" to "we ought worship it".

 

[steve_bank]

Ok. I am slow and thickheaded.

What is 'a universe'. Please use simple words and phrases so I can understand it.

 

[bilby]

And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural.

This is why I have never understood the insistence of atheists that miracles are somehow important. The "Laws of the Universe" should be purely descriptive from an atheist's point of view. There's nothing to "break".

A rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg would impress, don't you think?

Not really. If Axolotls can do it, it's not very miraculous.

Humans grow limbs all the time. That they can only do it once, in utero, tells us that there are some highly complex biochemical switches to throw, and environments to replicate, in order to re-do the process in adults, but that just makes it a hard problem to solve, not one whose solution would require the supernatural.

If our technological civilisation survives another century, I would be a little surprised if limb regeneration therapy for amputees were not available by 2122. But perhaps it's a more difficult problem than I imagine, and the technology won't be fit for human trials until as late as 2522. It's not prohibited by physical law, it doesn't require exotic materials, and it's obviously highly desirable, so it's going to happen eventually.

 

[atrib]

That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

A simulation running on a machine within the universe is a part of the universe, it is not the universe.

If you want to play that game, you are just faffing about with definitions, and stamping your feet with a "no true Scotsman".

Definitions are important. I am defining the universe as the set of everything that exists, which is the way it is conventionally used. The universe consists of everything we can see, which is a sphere roughly 90 billion light years across, and everything we cannot see beyond the boundary of this sphere.

It doesn't need to have created "the whole universe", something that is in fact nonsensical to reference in this way, to have created our entire causal determinism and the state field on which it cogitated.

You can call it whatever you like, and we can even agree it is not a seemingly necessary element for this all to exist.

I don't really discuss what "the universe" is, I discuss what "a universe" is: a causally deterministic set of operations on some base field, given some initial field state.

Why would you choose to define the word universe in this way when a perfectly valid definition of the word already exists?

Second, your definition is ambiguous. What is a base field? How is it quantified? It the field continuous or discrete? What are the physics of this base field? Why does the behavior of this field have to be deterministic? And most importantly, how is this concept relevant to the discussion of the universe we observe?

Talking about "THE universe" ends up in a deep realm of conflation the way you assemble it together. Ours clearly can contain other models of physics which our "universe" is not itself entirely beholden to at it's own apparent base layers.

This may describe "everything that will happen" but it is a fair shade from "everything that has a description of how it happens."

In short, a simulation running on a machine can be running a "universe" while being contained in a "universe", and this absurdity is observed reality.

No it cannot. Not using the conventional definition of the word universe. Perhaps you need to make up another word for purposes of disambiguation. Otherwise all you are doing is muddying the waters.

You can call the creator of a simulation any thing you want but normally, the term for such a thing is "creator god", and I have proposed a few ways to look for such, a few ways such could reveal their existence while revealing more of our fundamental reality's nature, if there's anything to reveal.

Where have you proposed these ways? Can these techniques be used to test whether the universe is a creation by a creator god that interacts with it? Write out your methodology so we can test this methodology.

Causal adjacencies of ridiculous form, for example, such as pigeons shitting in prominent dictator's eyes such that the dictator dies would be a way someone could, for example, prove they are such a thing. Otherwise, a demonstration of an "uncaused" event directly, or perhaps a complete description of a "superphysical" architecture in it's hosting physics which perfectly explains observed physics.

There is no causality in physics. Only patterns of interactions. What we refer to as causality is an emergent property of the way the state of the universe evolves over time, which we call the arrow of time. And we do not yet know if the underlying physics is deterministic or nondeterministic.

There are lots of ways, but it all requires revealing beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are in hosted physics rather than a top level host physics, and then showing us about that physics.

And yet that still does not get "the believer" to "we ought worship it".

Finally something that I can understand and agree with.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok. I am slow and thickheaded.

What is 'a universe'. Please use simple words and phrases so I can understand it.

I the context of the discussion, a closed process of fixed deterministic physical interactions upon a given initial field configuration.

So, "the laws of general quantum mechanics upon a given base field" which yield... Well, all this to happen.

Or "the laws of x86 processor mechanics upon a given initial bit field".

This is satisfied by any of a variety of "groups" upon a field with a persistent state without necessary apparent external interaction.

A universe has A set of laws of physics acting on A set of fields.

Our universe is A universe, whether it composes ALL such universes, by this definition, or is hosted in some other universe is quite the open question here.

I don't pose that it must be, only that it probably is "host" rather than "hosted"

 

[steve_bank]

Or gobbledygook. My fist and remaining impression.

The questin for me is whether or not you actualy take all that seriously or you are just goofing.

 

[Hermit]

And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural.

This is why I have never understood the insistence of atheists that miracles are somehow important. The "Laws of the Universe" should be purely descriptive from an atheist's point of view. There's nothing to "break".

A rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg would impress, don't you think?

In the past, maybe. The Star Wars Universe has turned it into a rather mundane event with their bacta tanks, which were used extensively in the Clone Wars. It's true that they had a kind of divine "Force" thing going, but the bacta tanks had nothing to do with it. You need to have more faith in science.

Arguments from Lucasfilm are not as convincing as you might think.

And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural.

This is why I have never understood the insistence of atheists that miracles are somehow important. The "Laws of the Universe" should be purely descriptive from an atheist's point of view. There's nothing to "break".

A rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg would impress, don't you think?

Not really. If Axolotls can do it, it's not very miraculous.

Humans grow limbs all the time. That they can only do it once, in utero, tells us that there are some highly complex biochemical switches to throw, and environments to replicate, in order to re-do the process in adults, but that just makes it a hard problem to solve, not one whose solution would require the supernatural.

If our technological civilisation survives another century, I would be a little surprised if limb regeneration therapy for amputees were not available by 2122. But perhaps it's a more difficult problem than I imagine, and the technology won't be fit for human trials until as late as 2522. It's not prohibited by physical law, it doesn't require exotic materials, and it's obviously highly desirable, so it's going to happen eventually.

Correct in so far as the regrowth of limbs in axolotls is no miraculous, but we are not axolotls.

Some time in the future, provided we will survive long enough as a species, we will very likely have developed science to the point that amputated limbs will be regrown. Speaking of today or tomorrow, I will regard rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg as impressive, especially if the regrowth is caused abracadabra style by a sole individual who is said to be God.

 

[bilby]

And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural.

This is why I have never understood the insistence of atheists that miracles are somehow important. The "Laws of the Universe" should be purely descriptive from an atheist's point of view. There's nothing to "break".

A rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg would impress, don't you think?

In the past, maybe. The Star Wars Universe has turned it into a rather mundane event with their bacta tanks, which were used extensively in the Clone Wars. It's true that they had a kind of divine "Force" thing going, but the bacta tanks had nothing to do with it. You need to have more faith in science.

Arguments from Lucasfilm are not as convincing as you might think.

And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural.

This is why I have never understood the insistence of atheists that miracles are somehow important. The "Laws of the Universe" should be purely descriptive from an atheist's point of view. There's nothing to "break".

A rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg would impress, don't you think?

Not really. If Axolotls can do it, it's not very miraculous.

Humans grow limbs all the time. That they can only do it once, in utero, tells us that there are some highly complex biochemical switches to throw, and environments to replicate, in order to re-do the process in adults, but that just makes it a hard problem to solve, not one whose solution would require the supernatural.

If our technological civilisation survives another century, I would be a little surprised if limb regeneration therapy for amputees were not available by 2122. But perhaps it's a more difficult problem than I imagine, and the technology won't be fit for human trials until as late as 2522. It's not prohibited by physical law, it doesn't require exotic materials, and it's obviously highly desirable, so it's going to happen eventually.

Correct in so far as the regrowth of limbs in axolotls is no miraculous, but we are not axolotls.

Some time in the future, provided we will survive long enough as a species, we will very likely have developed science to the point that amputated limbs will be regrown. Speaking of today or tomorrow, I will regard rapid regrowth of uncle Ernie's amputated leg as impressive, especially if the regrowth is caused abracadabra style by a sole individual who is said to be God.

Impressive isn't the same as miraculous, though.

The unlikely event you describe could be the work of a god.

But it could also be the work of a stage conjuror, or a person with access to groundbreaking technology of which you are unaware. Or there could be orher explanations that don't involve gods. Perhaps Ernie has a rare genetic condition that allows his limbs to regrow.

The point is that no matter how strange, unusual, or inexplicable and event is, there are always going to be explanations other than 'god did it' that are equally well, or better, supported than 'god did it'.

So miracles (or seeming miracles) cannot prove the existence of gods; They can only prove at best the existence of very rare phenomena that might have divine intervention as one of the possible hypotheses for their observed occurence.

 

[Hermit]

Impressive isn't the same as miraculous, though.

My choice of the word "impressive" is very deliberate.

The unlikely event you describe could be the work of a god.

But it could also be the work of a stage conjuror, or a person with access to groundbreaking technology of which you are unaware. Or there could be orher explanations that don't involve gods. Perhaps Ernie has a rare genetic condition that allows his limbs to regrow.

The point is that no matter how strange, unusual, or inexplicable and event is, there are always going to be explanations other than 'god did it' that are equally well, or better, supported than 'god did it'.

So miracles (or seeming miracles) cannot prove the existence of gods; They can only prove at best the existence of very rare phenomena that might have divine intervention as one of the possible hypotheses for their observed occurence.

You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

 

[Copernicus]

...You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

The point is that you are assuming the regrowth of the limb would be done by miraculous means rather than just be an event that would appear to be evidence for a supernatural cause. The former begs the question and the latter is what people were discussing. That is, what would count as evidence for the existence of God? How would one verify that the alleged supernatural event was indeed supernatural?

My "bacta tank" example was tongue in cheek, but we really are down in the hypothetical weeds with this argument. Anything that appears to be a miracle could, in fact, have natural causes, and a miracle would not actually be hard proof of the existence of deities. Perhaps it would just be proof that magic works, and the magician was messing with us.

 

[Hermit]

...You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

The point is that you are assuming the regrowth of the limb would be done by miraculous means rather than just be an event that would appear to be evidence for a supernatural cause.

Again, my choice of the word "impressive" is very deliberate. I simply lack the belief that miracles have occurred or will occur. Ever. But if one did occur it would be a manifestation of a god's existence. By definition.

 

[Copernicus]

...You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

The point is that you are assuming the regrowth of the limb would be done by miraculous means rather than just be an event that would appear to be evidence for a supernatural cause.

Again, my choice of the word "impressive" is very deliberate. I simply lack the belief that miracles have occurred or will occur. Ever. But if one did occur it would be a manifestation of a god's existence. By definition.

I understand, but I cannot imagine an apparent miracle so impressive that I couldn't attribute it to a godless cause, and part of the problem is that the meaning of "god" is so ambiguous and vague. One would need to narrow down the definition to the point where one could provide a provable theory of godhood. That would make the proposition "God exists" defeasible. When pressed, believers often retreat into an ineffability defense in order to avoid being caught in a logic trap.

 

[steve_bank]

God only knows.

 

[Politesse]

...You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

The point is that you are assuming the regrowth of the limb would be done by miraculous means rather than just be an event that would appear to be evidence for a supernatural cause.

Again, my choice of the word "impressive" is very deliberate. I simply lack the belief that miracles have occurred or will occur. Ever. But if one did occur it would be a manifestation of a god's existence. By definition.

I understand, but I cannot imagine an apparent miracle so impressive that I couldn't attribute it to a godless cause, and part of the problem is that the meaning of "god" is so ambiguous and vague. One would need to narrow down the definition to the point where one could provide a provable theory of godhood. That would make the proposition "God exists" defeasible. When pressed, believers often retreat into an ineffability defense in order to avoid being caught in a logic trap.

This is not an exclusively theist trait. No one seems to actually know what a god is, for all the millennia of conversation about them. They certainly don't all agree on what a god is. People demand that I take a stance on whether or not god exists, but they can't even tell me what exactly it is I'm supposed to be expressing certainty about.

I do not see the assertion of divine ineffability in and of itself as an irrational conclusion. Our universe is not fully effable to us (or easily defined as anything but a tautological abstraction); if one is a theist, why would one expect the creator of the universe to be any more effable than the cosmos She birthed?

 

[Copernicus]

...You and I are pretty bloody certain that miracles don't exist, but that is irrelevant. A miracle is proof of the existence of gods by definition.

The point is that you are assuming the regrowth of the limb would be done by miraculous means rather than just be an event that would appear to be evidence for a supernatural cause.

Again, my choice of the word "impressive" is very deliberate. I simply lack the belief that miracles have occurred or will occur. Ever. But if one did occur it would be a manifestation of a god's existence. By definition.

I understand, but I cannot imagine an apparent miracle so impressive that I couldn't attribute it to a godless cause, and part of the problem is that the meaning of "god" is so ambiguous and vague. One would need to narrow down the definition to the point where one could provide a provable theory of godhood. That would make the proposition "God exists" defeasible. When pressed, believers often retreat into an ineffability defense in order to avoid being caught in a logic trap.

This is not an exclusively theist trait. No one seems to actually know what a god is, for all the millennia of conversation about them. They certainly don't all agree on what a god is. People demand that I take a stance on whether or not god exists, but they can't even tell me what exactly it is I'm supposed to be expressing certainty about.

This is not exclusively a lexical trait of the word 'god'. Every word in a language is ambiguous to some degree and has vague semantic edges. Your demand for some clarification on the meaning of 'god' in a conversational context is reasonable, but it is also reasonable for other words. Meanings shift, grow appendages, split into new words, expand, and diminish. Theistic religions are ubiquitous, so the usage of words like 'god' and 'prayer' can vary considerably. However, it is a complete dodge to insist that meanings can't be agreed on or pinned down. There are commonalities to usage that can be expressed, and that is why every dictionary provides definitions of 'god' and encyclopedias provide rich descriptions of how various religious groups use the word. You can certainly use the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in words to obfuscate their meaning, but you don't get a pass for retreating into ineffability when it is obviously just a tactic to avoid admitting the obvious--that a concept is logically and empirically indefensible.

I do not see the assertion of divine ineffability in and of itself as an irrational conclusion. Our universe is not fully effable to us (or easily defined as anything but a tautological abstraction); if one is a theist, why would one expect the creator of the universe to be any more effable than the cosmos She birthed?

Any thought, emotion, or feeling that we have can be named and discussed linguistically. Even the concept of an inexpressible thought, emotion, or feeling is itself expressible, but that doesn't mean that it exists any more than a god does. If you cannot express what it is you are talking about, then you literally do not know what you are talking about. You might as well fall back on the sophistry that you have proven that God exists because you have defined God as a being that necessarily exists.

 

[Politesse]

This is not exclusively a lexical trait of the word 'god'. Every word in a language is ambiguous to some degree and has vague semantic edges. Your demand for some clarification on the meaning of 'god' in a conversational context is reasonable, but it is also reasonable for other words. Meanings shift, grow appendages, split into new words, expand, and diminish.

I am more than aware of this, and I do not think that it contradicts my point. Indeed, I think it is funny that you are accusing another person of rhetorical dodging, while yourself engaging in a canard as ancient as "well, what does anything mean, really?..."

Any thought, emotion, or feeling that we have can be named and discussed linguistically.

You are confused about effability if you think it means the ability to attach words to something at all. Of course one can attempt to describe a complex topic in words; the question is whether, say, the phrase "it's because of muons" fully captures the notion you're trying to get across. If the question is merely "can one describe something with a word", there is no such thing as an ineffable perception of God, as your very low bar is met the second one says "it is God".

 

[bilby]

As a wiser man than I once remarked:

"F*** the ineffable".

If the sole defining characteristic of something is that it's not possible to define what it is, then that thing is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

As soon as you can distinguish your concept from a description of something that doesn't exist, there's necessarily some testable description that we can compare against what we have observed of reality.

Every such description of a god that I have yet encountered then turns out to either be impossible, or trivial and unworthy of the label 'god', or an established and well understood natural phenomenon.