Does Gravity Disprove God?

[GenesisNemesis]

Humans are controlled by their brains, and by their endocrine systems.

Brains are autonomous massively parallel processors. They control themselves - and it can be easily demonstrated that external influences on the brain are limited to easily detected sensory inputs; there cannot be any unknown external influence, as there is no force that could propagate such an influence without destroying the brain.

Souls are not possible, other than as a metaphorical description of self-reference and feedback within the brain.

The 'brain' is made of molecules just like the rock.
Yet the brain can freely 'decide' to pick up the rock, lifting it in the opposite direction of gravity.

When was the last time gravity 'decided' to move a rock?

When was the last time you made sense?

 

[Lion IRC]

Um, I never said I don't know.
And there's nothing science has discovered which belittles or encroaches on God.

- quite the opposite is true.

No you said that science doesn't know which, to you, proves what you do KNOW.

Nope. I did not say "science doesn't know".
Please don't verbal me.
I plainly said there is nothing science has discovered which detracts from God.
In fact, I argue it's the other way around.

...The "We" in that was science. Your argument implies "Science don't know, therefore god

No. It does not 'imply' that.
Whatever placeholder words science (or atheism) want to use as jargon instead of the word 'soul' is their business.

 

[Lion IRC]

The 'brain' is made of molecules just like the rock.
Yet the brain can freely 'decide' to pick up the rock, lifting it in the opposite direction of gravity.

When was the last time gravity 'decided' to move a rock?

When was the last time you made sense?

which
part
did
you
not
un-der-stand
?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

When was the last time you made sense?

which
part
did
you
not
un-der-stand
?

The part where gravity and organic molecules were the same thing.

 

[Lion IRC]

You're imagining stuff I never said.
Those words which don't make sense are your own.
You're confusing yourself.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You're imagining stuff I never said.
Those words which don't make sense are your own.
You're confusing yourself.

"Same thing" is a figure of speech, in case you don't know. Anyway, what I mean is that gravity and organic molecules do not have the same properties whatsoever, so there is no reason to expect organic molecules to behave the same way gravity does. It does not make sense to say that because gravity can't decide anything, then organic molecules can't assemble into something which has the ability to decide something. It's just a blanket statement. What's your basis for your supposed implication that gravity would have the same properties, and we should expect gravity to behave in the same way?

 

[Lion IRC]

You're imagining stuff I never said.
Those words which don't make sense are your own.
You're confusing yourself.

"Same thing" is a figure of speech, in case you don't know.

Yeah, I know. Bats and birds both have wings. So they are the same.
It's a figure of speech in the bible too!
Are you OK with that?

...Anyway, what I mean is that gravity and organic molecules do not have the same properties whatsoever, so there is no reason to expect organic molecules to behave the same way gravity does.

You say that as if someone was arguing otherwise.
Not me.
Use the quote function more often instead of imagining stuff I never said.

...It does not make sense to say that because gravity can't decide anything, then organic molecules can't assemble into something which has the ability to decide something.

I never said that.
You really are having a conversation with a strawman.

...
What's your basis for your supposed implication that gravity would have the same properties, and we should expect gravity to behave in the same way?

I have no basis for that BECAUSE I DONT MAKE THAT CLAIM!

 

[atrib]

Take a rock and drop it. Physics can predict quite accurately exactly what will happen to the rock.

The rock will obey gravity, land on the floor and remain there until……………

Until what?

Until I walk over and pick it up. I can lift the rock using my own free will/volition.

Physics cannot predict when or EVEN IF I will pick up the rock.

Physics has no name for the unpredictable and VERY REAL force acting upon the matter of my shoulder, my arm, my hand, the rock in the EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION of gravity.

It is not hormones – hormones are matter.
It is not brain – brain cells are matter. Matter has no free will.

So what exactly is the name of the force (which acts in a way science cannot predict) that lifts the rock doing the opposite of what gravity intended?

Free will, or the illusion thereof, is an emergent property of the human nervous system. There is nothing magical about our ability to control our bodies, it is simply the interaction of matter and energy within a complex network of nerve cells that has developed naturally over billions of years through the process of biological evolution. The workings of our bodies and our brains at the macro level are fairly well understood at the current time, and no soul implanted by a supernatural entity is necessary as an explanation.

The behavior of human individuals are difficult to predict because the nervous system that controls our thoughts and actions is immensely complex and hard to describe using mathematical models. This is a shortcoming of our state of knowledge and computational ability, not something mysterious and supernatural. "We don't know how many times Joe will pick his nose during dinner, therefore Goddidit" is a poor argument based on an appeal to ignorance.

 

[skepticalbip]

No you said that science doesn't know which, to you, proves what you do KNOW.

Nope. I did not say "science doesn't know".
Please don't verbal me.
I plainly said there is nothing science has discovered which detracts from God.
In fact, I argue it's the other way around.

...The "We" in that was science. Your argument implies "Science don't know, therefore god

No. It does not 'imply' that.
Whatever placeholder words science (or atheism) want to use as jargon instead of the word 'soul' is their business.

True. You didn't use those exact words. What you said was:

............. snip ...................
So what exactly is the name of the force (which acts in a way science cannot predict) that lifts the rock doing the opposite of what gravity intended?

You said that science cannot predict which to my reading means that "science does not know"

What then is the purpose of that sentence if not to imply that although science cannot predict it that you know what that "force" is?

Although the sentence makes a false claim. Science does understand the forces that move that rock. What they can't predict is whether or not you will decide to pick the rock up. You are apparently confusing "forces" and "mental decisions".

 

[atrib]

...It does not make sense to say that because gravity can't decide anything, then organic molecules can't assemble into something which has the ability to decide something.

I never said that.
You really are having a conversation with a strawman.

Yes you did. Quoting an earlier post you made:

The 'brain' is made of molecules just like the rock.
Yet the brain can freely 'decide' to pick up the rock, lifting it in the opposite direction of gravity.

When was the last time gravity 'decided' to move a rock?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Nope. I did not say "science doesn't know".
Please don't verbal me.
I plainly said there is nothing science has discovered which detracts from God.
In fact, I argue it's the other way around.

...The "We" in that was science. Your argument implies "Science don't know, therefore god

No. It does not 'imply' that.
Whatever placeholder words science (or atheism) want to use as jargon instead of the word 'soul' is their business.

True. You didn't use those exact words. What you said was:

............. snip ...................
So what exactly is the name of the force (which acts in a way science cannot predict) that lifts the rock doing the opposite of what gravity intended?

You said that science cannot predict which to my reading means that "science does not know"

What then is the purpose of that sentence if not to imply that although science cannot predict it that you know what that "force" is?

Although the sentence makes a false claim. Science does understand the forces that move that rock. What they can't predict is whether or not you will decide to pick the rock up. You are apparently confusing "forces" and "mental decisions".

Apparently he doesn't understand what an "implication" is.

 

[bilby]

Humans are controlled by their brains, and by their endocrine systems.

Brains are autonomous massively parallel processors. They control themselves - and it can be easily demonstrated that external influences on the brain are limited to easily detected sensory inputs; there cannot be any unknown external influence, as there is no force that could propagate such an influence without destroying the brain.

Souls are not possible, other than as a metaphorical description of self-reference and feedback within the brain.

The 'brain' is made of molecules just like the rock.
Yet the brain can freely 'decide' to pick up the rock, lifting it in the opposite direction of gravity.

When was the last time gravity 'decided' to move a rock?

Your error here is to assume that if two things are both made of molecules, that must imply that they share other characteristics. However that assumption is very obviously false.

Table Sugar and Potassium Cyanide are both made of molecules. But you would not be wise to put the latter into your coffee.

Atoms and molecules interact in accordance with the principles discovered by Chemistry; and these principles can be shown to derive from the Physical law described by Quantum Electrodynamics; specifically, all chemistry derives from electron/photon interactions at the periphery of atoms, as atoms cannot approach each other arbitrarily closely, due to the inability of electrons to occupy the same space.

Most chemical reactions have a significant energy balance - when you combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water, a lot of excess energy is released, and to split water back into hydrogen and oxygen therefore requires a lot of energy - so it rarely happens spontaneously.

A few reactions have much closer starting and finishing energies, and these tend to settle into equilibrium states with the proportions of the various molecules determined by the energy available. However this can be a very slow process, because there is still an 'activation energy' required to get things started - which is why hydrogen and oxygen can be mixed together without reacting, until a spark provides the initial 'push'.

The activation energies of many reactions can be significantly reduced by the presence of catalysts - molecules whose shape encourages other molecules to react.

As it turns out, because the properties of carbon allow it to link with up to four other carbon atoms, that element can form structures of a huge variety of shapes and sizes, and can act as a framework on which other structures and groups of atoms can be supported. This allows cyclic chemical reactions to take place, that can move energy from one area to another, and can store energy in chemical bonds. A system that is able to perform such cyclic energy transfers, and which by so doing is able to build more copies of itself, is quite possible; however such systems are able to generate increasing complexity, through the simple survival of those structures that are most effective at using the ambient energy and available chemicals. We call these highly complex systems of interacting chemicals 'life'.

The idea that a complex system of interacting dynamic equilibria between trillions of large and complex self-catalysing carbon-based molecules, and a simple lump of slightly impure silicate, should be similar in their behaviour because they are both 'just molecules' reveals, once again, a mind-boggling level of ignorance on your part.

You are not only unqualified to engage in debate on this topic; you are unqualified to determine your level of qualifications in this field of knowledge.

You need to stop talking, and start learning. Come back and talk when you know enough not to make a complete clown of yourself. This stuff isn't that hard to learn; but you can't just assume that you can understand it without learning it, anymore than you can just pick up a violin for the first time, and play like a maestro.

Learn some physics, and some chemistry first - then you can talk about molecules without coming across as a complete mong.

 

[ryan]

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

Why would anyone waste time attempting to disprove god? Silly ideas don't need to be disproved. If a gnorphlix exterminator claims there is gnorphlix under my house then it is their onus to prove to me that there is. I'm not about to pay that gnorphlix exterminator to get rid of it for me unless he can demonstrate that there is one to get rid of.

There is more to god than just a silly idea. It is an interesting and philosophical question. We are intelligent beings that can design things. It is not totally absurd that we were designed or that this universe was designed. I don't even know how one could estimate the probability of such an unknown question.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

That's horseshit.

Any adequately defined God, like any hypothetical entity, can be falsified. A God that cannot be disproven is indestinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

And it's also indistinguishable from a god that does not want to be known with certainty.

 

[bilby]

Why would anyone waste time attempting to disprove god? Silly ideas don't need to be disproved. If a gnorphlix exterminator claims there is gnorphlix under my house then it is their onus to prove to me that there is. I'm not about to pay that gnorphlix exterminator to get rid of it for me unless he can demonstrate that there is one to get rid of.

There is more to god than just a silly idea. It is an interesting and philosophical question. We are intelligent beings that can design things. It is not totally absurd that we were designed or that this universe was designed. I don't even know how one could estimate the probability of such an unknown question.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

That's horseshit.

Any adequately defined God, like any hypothetical entity, can be falsified. A God that cannot be disproven is indestinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

And it's also indistinguishable from a god that does not want to be known with certainty.

Or from the invisible ninjas that are hiding in your garbage can.

Do you entertain the idea that those invisible ninjas exist? Do you do anything at all based on your belief in their existence?

Why not?

How do you know that they didn't build your house?

Why do you not accept that they cannot be ruled out as possibly existing?

There are, in fact, an infinite number of possible entities that are as likely as (or more likely than) any Gods. Why would anyone entertain the idea of the reality of the Gods, and not of all these other fictions?

There isn't anything more to God than just a silly idea.

Garbage bin ninjas are the exact same thing, only less popular.

 

[ryan]

There is more to god than just a silly idea. It is an interesting and philosophical question. We are intelligent beings that can design things. It is not totally absurd that we were designed or that this universe was designed. I don't even know how one could estimate the probability of such an unknown question.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

That's horseshit.

Any adequately defined God, like any hypothetical entity, can be falsified. A God that cannot be disproven is indestinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

And it's also indistinguishable from a god that does not want to be known with certainty.

Or from the invisible ninjas that are hiding in your garbage can.

Do you entertain the idea that those invisible ninjas exist? Do you do anything at all based on your belief in their existence?

Why not?

How do you know that they didn't build your house?

Why do you not accept that they cannot be ruled out as possibly existing?

There are, in fact, an infinite number of possible entities that are as likely as (or more likely than) any Gods. Why would anyone entertain the idea of the reality of the Gods, and not of all these other fictions?

There isn't anything more to God than just a silly idea.

Garbage bin ninjas are the exact same thing, only less popular.

Think about it mathematically. There could be an infinite number of universes with a god, but there could also be an infinite number of universes without a god. The probability is indeterminate. Same goes for the ninjas. There may be an infinite number of universes with those ninjas and an infinite without.

However, we know about what is going on right now in this universe to rule out the ninjas, but we don't know anything about the origin of the universe, and we never will. We will never know if the beginning we think is the beginning is actually the beginning or how the beginning came to be.

 

[bilby]

There is more to god than just a silly idea. It is an interesting and philosophical question. We are intelligent beings that can design things. It is not totally absurd that we were designed or that this universe was designed. I don't even know how one could estimate the probability of such an unknown question.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no thinking, hoping, wishing, debating, your way out of the possibility that God exists. Unless you are as wise as the god you are arguing against, how could you ever do it?

Sorry, but there is no disproving god without complete knowledge of everything.

That's horseshit.

Any adequately defined God, like any hypothetical entity, can be falsified. A God that cannot be disproven is indestinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

And it's also indistinguishable from a god that does not want to be known with certainty.

Or from the invisible ninjas that are hiding in your garbage can.

Do you entertain the idea that those invisible ninjas exist? Do you do anything at all based on your belief in their existence?

Why not?

How do you know that they didn't build your house?

Why do you not accept that they cannot be ruled out as possibly existing?

There are, in fact, an infinite number of possible entities that are as likely as (or more likely than) any Gods. Why would anyone entertain the idea of the reality of the Gods, and not of all these other fictions?

There isn't anything more to God than just a silly idea.

Garbage bin ninjas are the exact same thing, only less popular.

Think about it mathematically. There could be an infinite number of universes with a god, but there could also be an infinite number of universes without a god. The probability is indeterminate. Same goes for the ninjas. There may be an infinite number of universes with those ninjas and an infinite without.

However, we know about what is going on right now in this universe to rule out the ninjas, but we don't know anything about the origin of the universe, and we never will. We will never know if the beginning we think is the beginning is actually the beginning or how the beginning came to be.

Whether or not we know anything about the origin of the universe is irrelevant; We can rule out the ninjas because we know that they are just a made up story with no foundation other than human imagination; And we can rule out Gods for that exact same reason.

It is exactly equally reasonable to say that the ninjas started the universe as it is to assign that role to a God. Actually, it's more reasonable to assign the task to the ninjas, because we know that ninjas are real (even if the invisible garbage can ones are not), while we don't have an single shred of evidence for any real Gods.

There really isn't anything more to gods than a bunch of silly ideas. There is no justification for taking any particular crazy notion and pasting it over the sign at the beginning of our knowledge that says: "What happened before this is unknown".

How do you justify putting any particular God of the thousands that have been posited; or any new God you can dream up, in that spot, while also justifying discarding every other notion - space weevils, garbage pail ninjas, colliding n-dimensional branes, etc.?

 

[ryan]

Whether or not we know anything about the origin of the universe is irrelevant;

It is very relevant. My argument is about the possibility of a creator/designer.

 

[bilby]

Whether or not we know anything about the origin of the universe is irrelevant;

It is very relevant. My argument is about the possibility of a creator/designer.

And my argument is that Gods are no more suited to that role than garbage bin ninjas - so if you can rule out the latter, you also rule out the former.

If you are talking about a creator, then talk about a creator; but a creator is not necessarily a God.

We can, of course, rule out an intelligent creator that survived the act of creation on purely observational grounds - intelligence simply is not a characteristic of the things that existed in the early universe, so if a creator made our universe, it didn't survive the exercise.

A non intelligent creator is not ruled out; but it is about as useful to say 'non intelligent creator' as it is to say 'thingy'.

What is wrong with simply saying "We don't know how the universe started"?

Why mention Gods in this context at all? Nobody says "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out garbage bin ninjas"; but that sentence is EXACTLY as reasonable as "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out a God".

 

[ryan]

It is very relevant. My argument is about the possibility of a creator/designer.

And my argument is that Gods are no more suited to that role than garbage bin ninjas - so if you can rule out the latter, you also rule out the former.

If you are talking about a creator, then talk about a creator; but a creator is not necessarily a God.

We were talking about god; a god is, in most common religions, necessarily a creator. I assumed we were talking about the usual definition of god.

We can, of course, rule out an intelligent creator that survived the act of creation on purely observational grounds - intelligence simply is not a characteristic of the things that existed in the early universe, so if a creator made our universe, it didn't survive the exercise.

You know, like everyone else knows, that astrophysics and fundamental physics is a very soft science.

What is wrong with simply saying "We don't know how the universe started"?

I am saying that. I am simply saying that with the knowledge we have, we cannot rule god out. We may never be able to rule it out. And I am even willing to say, unless someone can convince me otherwise, that the probability of god is indeterminate.

Why mention Gods in this context at all? Nobody says "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out garbage bin ninjas"; but that sentence is EXACTLY as reasonable as "We don't know how the universe started, so we can't rule out a God".

If it created the universe, then it is not really a ninja. And if a "thingy" created the universe, then it would just be another name for something with god-like abilities.

 

[ryan]

We are in an existence where there are creators. Humans can create things for animals that are so far beyond the animals' comprehension that they cannot even know the creator when they see it.

All I am saying is that god is indeterminate. I don't know anymore than that.