What would count as proof of God

[bilby]

He is saying that

1. There are only a limited number of ways in which a god can intervene in human affairs. Four to be exact.

On the basis of what information?

That there are exactly four possible interactions between humans and the rest of reality.

This isn't how gods are normally discussed,

No shit. This has nothing particularly to do with gods. It's about the physics of humans and their environment.

and I presume he didn't test this experimentally.

My budget won't stand it. But those who have particle accelerators have tested it experimentally.

Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something?

Nope, quite the reverse. I am saying that humans cannot be interacted with by gods that are not existent within the observed universe. That's because humans ARE existent within the observed universe.

Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?

It's not. But humans are. And a god that can't interact with reality is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

I am not quite sure how to get across to you that insisting something is so is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

I am not quite sure how to get across to you that ignoring the fact that physicists at CERN and elsewhere have demonstrated something, and demanding that a private individual with neither the resources, the time, nor the inclination to repeat their work do so for your private benefit, is not the same thing as saying 'it has not been demonstrated'.

The information is all in the public domain. Your failure to learn physics is neither a denial of its existence, nor my responsibility to correct.

 

[bilby]

Given their stance, it's unlikely that they would want the support of your 'proof' that you are a god, because they are convinced that there's only one god, and that it ain't you

It's not a proof that I am a god. I mean it is that... But moreover that proof that I am a god also happens to be proof that their assumptions are false. In fact that most people's assumptions about it are just sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Your whole schtick here misses the point. The very idea of gods is solely a result of historical theistic claims. To propose a "possible god" that doesn't fit those claims is to redefine what "god" even means.

No, it really does not. My concept of gods is entirely informed by an actual set of observations.

I find it silly you want to discuss things nonsense and then claim the nonsense does it exist. Of course the nonsense does not exist except as such.

I do not deal in nonsense. Adjacent to all that nonsense is a concept of 'god' that is not, in fact, nonsensical.

I am not the one who makes those claims so conveniently, I do not have to defend them.

I have to defend my claims.

About a model of god that I have defined well and clearly. If you wish to discuss other models of God, there are another few that exist but again, not the way you would expect.

Your idiosyncratic god concept isn't disproven; But neither is it accepted by any religions not invented within our lifetimes. So it's not a god at all, as far as any non-trivial sect of any faith is concerned

Who gives a duck? I certainly don't.

It doesn't have to be known or believed to be possible, nor does it have to be known nor believed to be real.

I started out on this road by asking "what are gods, exactly? What thing can this idea really map to?"

But it's all completely irrelevant to the actual positions of theists, so in this context it's just pointless noise, that serves more to confuse than to clarify.

See that's where you are wrong. It serves one very important relevancy: it show that they are not only likely wrong (their mythology does not have a necessity of truth behind it), and that their assumptions of what to do with omniscient, omnipotent creator entities are really, really bad.

It's the compromise that everyone hates.

It is proof that "there are zero or more gods", and disproof of "there are exactly zero gods" and disproof of "YHWH is god" and even "god is necessarily omnibenevolent".

Now throw all the tantrums you want or whatever that I've stepped in and made a lot of Atheists and Christians alike very uncomfortable.

You may not like it but the reality is that "is this a simulation, and how do we prove it" is the exact same question as "is there a god and how would we prove it".

Exactly. The. Same. Question.

Cry, weep, gnash your teeth, but it's right there in all it's splendiferous glory.

If they are the same question, then both are stupid questions to which the answer is "no, don't be so fucking stupid, why would we even suggest such nonsense as a possibility?".

 

[bilby]

If they are mythical, why are you considering material phenomena to be the validation or proof of their existence? Myths aren't really in the same class of things as scientific hypotheses, nor are they really meant to be.

That sounds like the no true god fallacy to me.

I am baffled as to why you would think so.

Do you think I am arguing that the gods of myth must exist?

You appear to argue that you don't know that they don't exist.

Which is exactly as reasonable and sane as arguing that you don't know that Superman doesn't exist.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given their stance, it's unlikely that they would want the support of your 'proof' that you are a god, because they are convinced that there's only one god, and that it ain't you

It's not a proof that I am a god. I mean it is that... But moreover that proof that I am a god also happens to be proof that their assumptions are false. In fact that most people's assumptions about it are just sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Your whole schtick here misses the point. The very idea of gods is solely a result of historical theistic claims. To propose a "possible god" that doesn't fit those claims is to redefine what "god" even means.

No, it really does not. My concept of gods is entirely informed by an actual set of observations.

I find it silly you want to discuss things nonsense and then claim the nonsense does it exist. Of course the nonsense does not exist except as such.

I do not deal in nonsense. Adjacent to all that nonsense is a concept of 'god' that is not, in fact, nonsensical.

I am not the one who makes those claims so conveniently, I do not have to defend them.

I have to defend my claims.

About a model of god that I have defined well and clearly. If you wish to discuss other models of God, there are another few that exist but again, not the way you would expect.

Your idiosyncratic god concept isn't disproven; But neither is it accepted by any religions not invented within our lifetimes. So it's not a god at all, as far as any non-trivial sect of any faith is concerned

Who gives a duck? I certainly don't.

It doesn't have to be known or believed to be possible, nor does it have to be known nor believed to be real.

I started out on this road by asking "what are gods, exactly? What thing can this idea really map to?"

But it's all completely irrelevant to the actual positions of theists, so in this context it's just pointless noise, that serves more to confuse than to clarify.

See that's where you are wrong. It serves one very important relevancy: it show that they are not only likely wrong (their mythology does not have a necessity of truth behind it), and that their assumptions of what to do with omniscient, omnipotent creator entities are really, really bad.

It's the compromise that everyone hates.

It is proof that "there are zero or more gods", and disproof of "there are exactly zero gods" and disproof of "YHWH is god" and even "god is necessarily omnibenevolent".

Now throw all the tantrums you want or whatever that I've stepped in and made a lot of Atheists and Christians alike very uncomfortable.

You may not like it but the reality is that "is this a simulation, and how do we prove it" is the exact same question as "is there a god and how would we prove it".

Exactly. The. Same. Question.

Cry, weep, gnash your teeth, but it's right there in all it's splendiferous glory.

If they are the same question, then both are stupid questions to which the answer is "no, don't be so fucking stupid, why would we even suggest such nonsense as a possibility?".

LOL! So, your last recourse is to call an observable property of metaphysics "nonsense".

They aren't stupid questions.

Some people may call them stupid. I have a word for that. May they hear it in their own echo.

Some people gin up stupid answers to the question without anywhere near the context of what it may actually take to discuss it.

The difference here is that I don't discount the possibility of things that are entirely possible within observed metaphysics. I just file them away for "if it ever turns out...," and then eventually, after looking at the idea enough times, I look on the idea and I have a well fleshed out map for what to do then. And perhaps even an indicator as to the physical and metaphysical properties as to the path to the nearest crossroads to there: the test of reality to determine which ideas are over the horizon in pure imagination.

What else am I going to do? Rub my dick all hours? Play video games until they rot my mind? I mean shit I haven't even picked up my universe for a good couple years!

Instead, I look out on the infinite possibilities of the future and look at my carefully drawn maps, pick a destination I like, and hike in that direction across the planes of probability.

I find that being creative in my explorations and mappings makes it much easier, at any rate, to handle situations I don't exactly plan for and allows me to think with more agility.

You don't like it so you call it nonsense?

Sounds like another format of user who tends to post to these shit shows.

 

[Politesse]

If they are mythical, why are you considering material phenomena to be the validation or proof of their existence? Myths aren't really in the same class of things as scientific hypotheses, nor are they really meant to be.

That sounds like the no true god fallacy to me.

I am baffled as to why you would think so.

Do you think I am arguing that the gods of myth must exist?

You appear to argue that you don't know that they don't exist.

Which is exactly as reasonable and sane as arguing that you don't know that Superman doesn't exist.

Superman is also, fundamentally, a mythical character. There are different kinds and scales of truth in the world.

 

[Politesse]

He is saying that

1. There are only a limited number of ways in which a god can intervene in human affairs. Four to be exact.

On the basis of what information?

That there are exactly four possible interactions between humans and the rest of reality.

This isn't how gods are normally discussed,

No shit. This has nothing particularly to do with gods. It's about the physics of humans and their environment.

and I presume he didn't test this experimentally.

My budget won't stand it. But those who have particle accelerators have tested it experimentally.

Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something?

Nope, quite the reverse. I am saying that humans cannot be interacted with by gods that are not existent within the observed universe. That's because humans ARE existent within the observed universe.

Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?

It's not. But humans are. And a god that can't interact with reality is indistinguishable from nonexistent.

I am not quite sure how to get across to you that insisting something is so is not the same thing as demonstrating it.

I am not quite sure how to get across to you that ignoring the fact that physicists at CERN and elsewhere have demonstrated something, and demanding that a private individual with neither the resources, the time, nor the inclination to repeat their work do so for your private benefit, is not the same thing as saying 'it has not been demonstrated'.

The information is all in the public domain. Your failure to learn physics is neither a denial of its existence, nor my responsibility to correct.

This isn't a problem, as long as you don't expect your argument to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with its conclusions.

 

[bilby]

If they are mythical, why are you considering material phenomena to be the validation or proof of their existence? Myths aren't really in the same class of things as scientific hypotheses, nor are they really meant to be.

That sounds like the no true god fallacy to me.

I am baffled as to why you would think so.

Do you think I am arguing that the gods of myth must exist?

You appear to argue that you don't know that they don't exist.

Which is exactly as reasonable and sane as arguing that you don't know that Superman doesn't exist.

Superman is also, fundamentally, a mythical character. There are different kinds and scales of truth in the world.

No reasonable person considers Superman's real existence to be any kind of, or scale of, truth.

Myths exist; Their subjects do not.

Superman, Jesus, and every one of the hundreds of gods gound in human history are fundamentally the same kind of character - fictional.

It's not sane to withold judgement on whether you know that mythical characters are real. They are, by definition, not real.

Even those mythical characters based on real people are not real people. The George Washington who became the first president of the United States was real; The George Washington who threw a silver dollar across the Potomac is fictional.

Agnosticism isn't a sensible position to take on the later Washington, nor on the former. We know that myths are not truths, and that truths are not myths.

 

[Politesse]

If they are mythical, why are you considering material phenomena to be the validation or proof of their existence? Myths aren't really in the same class of things as scientific hypotheses, nor are they really meant to be.

That sounds like the no true god fallacy to me.

I am baffled as to why you would think so.

Do you think I am arguing that the gods of myth must exist?

You appear to argue that you don't know that they don't exist.

Which is exactly as reasonable and sane as arguing that you don't know that Superman doesn't exist.

Superman is also, fundamentally, a mythical character. There are different kinds and scales of truth in the world.

No reasonable person considers Superman's real existence to be any kind of, or scale of, truth.

Myths exist; Their subjects do not.

Superman, Jesus, and every one of the hundreds of gods gound in human history are fundamentally the same kind of character - fictional.

It's not sane to withold judgement on whether you know that mythical characters are real. They are, by definition, not real.

Even those mythical characters based on real people are not real people. The George Washington who became the first president of the United States was real; The George Washington who threw a silver dollar across the Potomac is fictional.

Agnosticism isn't a sensible position to take on the later Washington, nor on the former. We know that myths are not truths, and that truths are not myths.

Who is "we"? Mythos is as old as human culture.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This isn't a problem, as long as you don't expect your argument to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with its conclusions.

There's more than a bit of pot/kettle there don't you think?

When it comes to gods or just about anything I think we can separate how people perceive reality into two camps. I would call those two camps the believer camp and the observer camp.

The believer camp has a bias because they believe that what they see is supposed to be a certain way. They see a lot of things that are broken and attempt explanations as to how things came to be this way based on their perceived normal. This camp certainly includes the religious and the religiously inclined.

The observer camp doesn't have a prejudiced perception. They attempt to make reasoned judgements about reality based on observation, and their conclusions are based on observation, not the reverse as happens with believers.

So to an observer a god, being a wholly fictional construct, can be anything because it isn't anything, it is never observed and therefore no conclusions can be made of it's constitution. For purposes of conversation and communication the subject can be discussed but it is seen as wholly subjective, no rules.

 

[Politesse]

There's more than a bit of pot/kettle there don't you think?

I'd like to think not, I am not in the habit of claiming special knowledge where no human has any.

I am doubtful of your proposed categories, as both observation and belief form fundamental aspects of any rational being. Neither are inherently good or bad, but neitger are fundamentally trustworthy mechanisms either. Ironically, those whose beliefs have steeply carried them off from the perceptive norm are often those most fervently concinced of their own objectivity. Surely you have been "witnessed" to a time or two by a religious person? Did that person think they were choosing belief over observation?

 

[pood]

This isn't a problem, as long as you don't expect your argument to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with its conclusions.

There's more than a bit of pot/kettle there don't you think?

When it comes to gods or just about anything I think we can separate how people perceive reality into two camps. I would call those two camps the believer camp and the observer camp.

The believer camp has a bias because they believe that what they see is supposed to be a certain way. They see a lot of things that are broken and attempt explanations as to how things came to be this way based on their perceived normal. This camp certainly includes the religious and the religiously inclined.

The observer camp doesn't have a prejudiced perception. They attempt to make reasoned judgements about reality based on observation, and their conclusions are based on observation, not the reverse as happens with believers.

So to an observer a god, being a wholly fictional construct, can be anything because it isn't anything, it is never observed and therefore no conclusions can be made of it's constitution. For purposes of conversation and communication the subject can be discussed but it is seen as wholly subjective, no rules.

I agree with much of what you say in this thread, and you make a powerful case, but I don’t think this sort of distinction is very accurate or useful.

All observers have built-in biases, predilections, points of view. Science tries to compensate for these but not always successfully and arguably never completely successfully. I agree with Rorty who denied there can be any “viewpoint from nowhere,” a standpoint of objective truth. That in itself would be godlike, while you properly deny any reason to believe in gods.

All theories are underdetermined. The pessimistic meta-induction counsels us to be skeptical that ourt current theories are correct because all our past theories, strictly, are false, or radically incomplete. General relativity and quantum theory do not fundamentally agree. Hence our two most successful theories about physics must be false or incomplete at some level of description.

Even beyond that, we do not know, and probably cannot know, how much our theories, no matter how good, really say about objective reality, or even if there is such a thing. Kant long ago posited that space and time were intuitions driven by human brain structure and that the phenomenal cannot penetrate the noumenal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suppose that an alien intelligence, with very different senses and cognitive structures than our own, would come up with theories about the universe that would be unrecognizable to us, but would suit them well.

I classify myself as an agnostic, but really it should be philosophical skeptic, in the sense that we cannot know and our best knowledge is always defeasible or represents at least in part a structure we impose on reality, a model that is not reality itself.

 

[Rhea]

The believer camp has a bias because they believe that what they see is supposed to be a certain way. They see a lot of things that are broken and attempt explanations as to how things came to be this way based on their perceived normal. This camp certainly includes the religious and the religiously inclined.

The observer camp doesn't have a prejudiced perception. They attempt to make reasoned judgements about reality based on observation, and their conclusions are based on observation, not the reverse as happens with believers.

That’s an interesting and useful point. The believers operate as if there are rules for gods. The agnostic or atheistic has no rules. However incomplete this division, it definitely shows up in discussions where the atheist will propose, “but what about this?” And the theist will simply discard the idea as impossible or irrelevant because it does not fit their preconceived (and utterly arbitrary) rules.

All observers have built-in biases, predilections, points of view. Science tries to compensate for these but not always successfully and arguably never completely successfully. I agree with Rorty who denied there can be any “viewpoint from nowhere,” a standpoint of objective truth. That in itself would be godlike, while you properly deny any reason to believe in gods.

All theories are underdetermined.

Yes, they are, and that’s what is important about TGG’s observation; science sees that coming, but belief is blind-sided by it. Science steps back and says, “okay, I see what your argument is, let’s try to validate or verify.” Belief says, “I am self-validated. I have Truth. I do’t need your stinkin’ verification.”

Belief is nonplussed by discarding good questions as “out-of-scope,” and remaining unaware and ignorant of the observations.

 

[Learner]

No.

Bilby is claiming that any god that interacts with humanity in any way would only be able to do so using one of the four known forces that are the only things that can possibly interact with humans.

I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request.

And that therefore god's interactions with us would have been detected, easily.

When you look for something, knowing exactly what you are looking for and how to see it, and you never find it, then (if you are sane) you conclude that it's not there.

I was wondering what one would actually be looking for. What type of disturbances in the field, so to speak, would be noticeable and expected? Sounds like you have a "text-book" expectation for any creator of a universe to be noticed.

I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication? God would have included automation in my view, in concept.

If I claimed that there is an invisible creature living in my attic, that this creature has the ability to break the laws of nature and interfere in our lives, and that this creature never, ever does anything that could be detected by humans, would a reasonable person believe this claim? The answer is obviously "NO". How is an alleged god any different from the alleged creature in my story?

Never ever detected, or perhaps at least, not catching God doing it in the act. Is the claimer of "no gods possible" 100% very sure his cameras cover all bases?

As I previously posted:

"I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request."

I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (if considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication?

How is this god any different from a god that does not exist? How could you possibly differentiate between the two?

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

How are they different? Maybe the only difference is that you think there is a difference. I honestly see all the stuff as being the same. If your observations were not prejudiced by prior belief you'd see them all being the same as well.

 

[blastula]

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

If you mean the 4 (not thousands of) gospels, there are no eyewitness reports in them. And eyewitness reports of ghosts are the same as any reports of undead Jesus appearances or miracles.

 

[Rhea]

Never ever detected, or perhaps at least, not catching God doing it in the act. Is the claimer of "no gods possible" 100% very sure his cameras cover all bases?

If you are claiming that God put a nail in my wall, and your “proof” includes the fact that I didn’t personally witness the god putting the nail in the wall, why would I not prevail when I ask you to show me the nail.

It doesn’t matter if my camera wasn’t on the alleged hammer if you can’t even produce the nail.

No god thing has happened.
No god thing has happened that was not better explained by the four forces.

If you claim god put a nail in my wall, you must show me the nail in order for me to even entertain the issue of the camera not being on at the right time.

Moreover,

If you’re going to claim that it was god’s hand that kept me from being stung by bees, or that it was god’s hand that kept uncle Jim from dying in open heart surgery, or… and, god’s hand that won the football game for Tim Tebow’s team…. Then you are claiming there are millions of opportunities to observe forces that are not currently known. The cameras are on.

Name the miracle. Describe what what done outside of the four forces. Let’s see if a detector was on.

 

[bilby]

"I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request."

People regularly die in hospitals and facilities with well controlled conditions, and they often do so fairly predictably.

This has provided plenty of opportunity to test for the departure of a hypothesised 'soul' from a living body at the time of death, and such studies have been done repeatedly, mostly by religious people seeking to demonstrate that 'souls' are real.

No souls have been found.

Your desire driven hope that the tests you are frightened of might have proven impossible to configure is noted, and duly dashed on the rocks of reality.

 

[Learner]

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

If you mean the 4 (not thousands of) gospels, there are no eyewitness reports in them. And eyewitness reports of ghosts are the same as any reports of undead Jesus appearances or miracles.

Hey, you know? I have come across 3 atheists that have said they've seen and heard ghosts, being quite sure they've not imagined it.. Of course they still think there's an explanation somewhere, within the parameters of human comprehension, and the realm of the four forces apparently, but we've not found it yet, but there is hope.

 

[Learner]

"I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request."

People regularly die in hospitals and facilities with well controlled conditions, and they often do so fairly predictably.

This has provided plenty of opportunity to test for the departure of a hypothesised 'soul' from a living body at the time of death, and such studies have been done repeatedly, mostly by religious people seeking to demonstrate that 'souls' are real.

No souls have been found.

Your desire driven hope that the tests you are frightened of might have proven impossible to configure is noted, and duly dashed on the rocks of reality.

What God would make souls detectable? Think about it, I think God has indeed! IF you can detect it, then you can interfere with it. Are we trust worthy, not to be playing with serious fire? Hmmm yes, I can imagine the curiosity being so great, that moral ethics would be in the way, for such a project; the testing and developement of "soul grabber machines," where a person in an experiment could get his or her soul sucked out - perhaps replaced by a another, who's soul was held in some four forces chamber or circuit, I'd dread the idea of a "welcome back mein Fuhrer" scenario, if you know what I mean.

It's such a bad idea, and concept (your god definition) for any god to create souls in the realm of four forces, which could easily be affected, just by the mere processes of the four forces. Like, "Oops my souls has just left my body because I'm trapped in some sort of electrical field I've stumbled upon," so to speak.

 

[Rhea]

Again you misunderstand the concept. But it is a really interesting one, so I’ll try again helping you understand.

If the soul interacted in any way with us consciously, we’d detect it.
If the soul exists exclusively in non-detectable realms, then it is not a thing that affects humans.

Perhaps you are trying to present the idea that the soul exists, but has no influence whatsover at any time on humans, it exists only in the afterlife realm compeltely apart from us…. and somehow you know about it!. Oops, now it has interacted with humans, in order for you to know about it. Great. Demonstrate that.