What would count as proof of God

[skepticalbip]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality. You need to learn that the map is not the territory. Drawing a line on a map to represent a road so you will have a shortcut does not mean that there is a road you can use.

 

[bilby]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality.

Your continuing problem seems to be an inability to look across different contexts.

You have to pay attention to what is meant here by "a universe".

It is merely any self-contained or apparently self-contained system of operational principles.

I am pointing out a GENERAL truth about UNIVERSES, all of them, plural: that all universes are indistinguishable, from the inside, as to whether they are simulated right up until a determinism is observed as being broken.

Imagine for a moment you are a dwarf. You are bound to certain physics which, for the sake of this discussion we will pretend are a little more "rich" than they actually are so as to allow you a great enough complexity of thought to process such ideas as "physics".

You, as a dwarf can map the laws of physics all you want. You can say "nothing in the universe can modify it in such a way as to make me stronger without me doing work!"

And you would be right.

You cannot say "there is no Armok; there is no way Armok could exist in our world of it's stuff and do the things attributed to Armok. Nothing in our world allows such a thing to exist." Mostly on account of the fact that Armok absolutely exists, just not within the bounds of the limitations of their universe.

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

Prove it.

 

[bilby]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality.

Your continuing problem seems to be an inability to look across different contexts.

You have to pay attention to what is meant here by "a universe".

It is merely any self-contained or apparently self-contained system of operational principles.

I am pointing out a GENERAL truth about UNIVERSES, all of them, plural: that all universes are indistinguishable, from the inside, as to whether they are simulated right up until a determinism is observed as being broken.

Imagine for a moment you are a dwarf. You are bound to certain physics which, for the sake of this discussion we will pretend are a little more "rich" than they actually are so as to allow you a great enough complexity of thought to process such ideas as "physics".

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

Prove it.

I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage either.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality.

Your continuing problem seems to be an inability to look across different contexts.

You have to pay attention to what is meant here by "a universe".

It is merely any self-contained or apparently self-contained system of operational principles.

I am pointing out a GENERAL truth about UNIVERSES, all of them, plural: that all universes are indistinguishable, from the inside, as to whether they are simulated right up until a determinism is observed as being broken.

Imagine for a moment you are a dwarf. You are bound to certain physics which, for the sake of this discussion we will pretend are a little more "rich" than they actually are so as to allow you a great enough complexity of thought to process such ideas as "physics".

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

Prove it.

I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage either.

See, this is the failing of the hard atheist.

They make declarative statements about the absolute existence of unknowns rather than saying "there are zero or more invisible dragons in my garage" they say "there are zero".

You can't prove a negative. At best you can explain how the continued possibility of the negative invalidates any argument based on a positive.

"Because the evidence is consistent with zero invisible dragons, I will behave as if there are zero until the evidence says otherwise."

 

[bilby]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality.

Your continuing problem seems to be an inability to look across different contexts.

You have to pay attention to what is meant here by "a universe".

It is merely any self-contained or apparently self-contained system of operational principles.

I am pointing out a GENERAL truth about UNIVERSES, all of them, plural: that all universes are indistinguishable, from the inside, as to whether they are simulated right up until a determinism is observed as being broken.

Imagine for a moment you are a dwarf. You are bound to certain physics which, for the sake of this discussion we will pretend are a little more "rich" than they actually are so as to allow you a great enough complexity of thought to process such ideas as "physics".

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

Prove it.

I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage either.

See, this is the failing of the hard atheist.

They make declarative statements about the absolute existence of unknowns rather than saying "there are zero or more invisible dragons in my garage" they say "there are zero".

You can't prove a negative. At best you can explain how the continued possibility of the negative invalidates any argument based on a positive.

See, this is the failing of the hard philosopher.

They know nothing, they know that they know nothing, and yet they still imagine that they have something useful to say.

Proof is for mathematics and alcoholics.

Reality remains real, even if philosophers refuse to believe it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

If you have access to the simulation you could but it would no longer be a representation of the universe so no longer useful.

The simulation is "a universe", here. Not "a representation of" but "a genuine article".

That seems to by your continuing problem. You consistently confuse models for reality.

Your continuing problem seems to be an inability to look across different contexts.

You have to pay attention to what is meant here by "a universe".

It is merely any self-contained or apparently self-contained system of operational principles.

I am pointing out a GENERAL truth about UNIVERSES, all of them, plural: that all universes are indistinguishable, from the inside, as to whether they are simulated right up until a determinism is observed as being broken.

Imagine for a moment you are a dwarf. You are bound to certain physics which, for the sake of this discussion we will pretend are a little more "rich" than they actually are so as to allow you a great enough complexity of thought to process such ideas as "physics".

Does it have to obey such laws for it to work?

Yep.

It takes two to tango. Not only must a hypothetical unknown influence be able to affect particles; Particles also need to ba able to be affected by unknown influences. And we now know they cannot be.

Except it really doesn't.

I can crack open any universal simulation and just go about changing numbers on the fields.

No "internal physics" necessary there.

The laws of the physics only control things bound by the physical process. Not bound within the physics? Then you can do "whatever", which is only bound by host physics not client physics.

We do not live in a simulation.

Your argument by analogy depends upon your personal mythology, to which nobody has any reason to subscribe - your objection is indistinguishable from a religious objection.

Prove it.

I do not have an invisible dragon in my garage either.

See, this is the failing of the hard atheist.

They make declarative statements about the absolute existence of unknowns rather than saying "there are zero or more invisible dragons in my garage" they say "there are zero".

You can't prove a negative. At best you can explain how the continued possibility of the negative invalidates any argument based on a positive.

See, this is the failing of the hard philosopher.

They know nothing, they know that they know nothing, and yet they still imagine that they have something useful to say.

Proof is for mathematics and alcoholics.

Reality remains real, even if philosophers refuse to believe it.

So, your religion says there are zero gods.

My reason says there are zero or more.

Surety of such is for the religious, who "know" that their doctrines are true and imagine that this is something useful to say.

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.

I can hold up a pen to say "see, proof pens are a thing".

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing. And I would assume that universes without creator gods can be a thing too.

Now, the real question is "is this such a universe" to which the answer is "doesn't seem like it".

You are the one assuming here that it does not, and stamping your feet like a petulant child every time someone points out that it may.

 

[skepticalbip]

See, this is the failing of the hard philosopher.

They know nothing, they know that they know nothing, and yet they still imagine that they have something useful to say.

And worse, they have an urge to explain how little they know in minute detail to anyone they can corner.

 

[Elixir]

They know nothing, they know that they know nothing, and yet they still imagine that they have something useful to say.

And worse, they have an urge to explain how little they know in minute detail to anyone they can corner.

... all of which is consistent with the thesis that existence is just something made up by philosophers to sell more philosophy.

BTW Bilby is right about "Universes". The one that encompasses all we can detect is "the universe". Colloquially you can have "a universe" such as a gaming universe, or the universe of female shoe fashion accessories, but "universe" has a different meaning in those contexts, and the behavior of those subsets of our universe is not at all analogous to that of the universe.

 

[Jarhyn]

They know nothing, they know that they know nothing, and yet they still imagine that they have something useful to say.

And worse, they have an urge to explain how little they know in minute detail to anyone they can corner.

... all of which is consistent with the thesis that existence is just something made up by philosophers to sell more philosophy.

The fact is that there are zero or more gods is the only reasonable position to take on the matter, until either someone inverts the concepts of "our universe" and "math" successfully, such that we show that our universe is really just an implication of math, or until we show our "universe" is contained within some host system

At any rate, it yields much more usefulness than certainty, on account of being able to be less wrong rather than merely "knowing you are 'right'".

 

[Elixir]

Oh... I was going to philosophize here a little, now that I've done my penance.
It is axiomatic that all models are wrong, and unarguable that some models are useful.
If our existence is a model, how would we go about figuring out where it is wrong or what it is wrong about? What is the reality that our reality distorts and misrepresents? Within that reality, how is our reality useful? This is where gods come in handy. But I don't know shinola about gods, so ... thanks for listening.
/philosophy

 

[bilby]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware, and it cannot have a creator because that's logically impossible; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

 

[Jarhyn]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

I have no pet mythology. I hold there are zero or more gods. Zero as a possibility demands that there can be no valid mythology.

 

[bilby]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

You can call anything a universe, but declaring subsets of THE Universe to be universes, and then claiming that their characteristics are necessarily analogous to characteristics of THE Universe is just equivocation.

Simulations may be universes, but that doesn't imply that THE Universe is a simulation, or is anything like a simulation.

Muddying the waters by using the sane word with two very different meanings is not clever, it's just confusing.

I understand what a universe is, and how it differs from THE Universe. You appear not to.

 

[skepticalbip]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

You can call anything a universe, but declaring subsets of THE Universe to be universes, and then claiming that their characteristics are necessarily analogous to characteristics of THE Universe is just equivocation.

That is the "arguing" style of internet poser "philosophers". They redefine a word so that it has nothing to do with the statements they are pretending to rebut.

Simulations may be universes, but that doesn't imply that THE Universe is a simulation, or is anything like a simulation.

Muddying the waters by using the sane word with two very different meanings is not clever, it's just confusing.

It's worse than confusing. It is sophism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

You can call anything a universe, but declaring subsets of THE Universe to be universes, and then claiming that their characteristics are necessarily analogous to characteristics of THE Universe is just equivocation.

Simulations may be universes, but that doesn't imply that THE Universe is a simulation, or is anything like a simulation.

Muddying the waters by using the sane word with two very different meanings is not clever, it's just confusing.

I understand what a universe is, and how it differs from THE Universe. You appear not to.

A universe. Subsets of A universe, universe being a class of thing.

I do not accept your dogma that this is not merely A universe rather than "The" universe. "The" as applied to universe is provably an incoherent idea under all constructions under which the concept of "set" has ever been show to have meaning.

Claiming the muddy waters are clear is where you fall down.

We are discussing what cosmological relationships may happen with regards to universes in general, of which ours is one of that class of thing.

 

[bilby]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

You can call anything a universe, but declaring subsets of THE Universe to be universes, and then claiming that their characteristics are necessarily analogous to characteristics of THE Universe is just equivocation.

Simulations may be universes, but that doesn't imply that THE Universe is a simulation, or is anything like a simulation.

Muddying the waters by using the sane word with two very different meanings is not clever, it's just confusing.

I understand what a universe is, and how it differs from THE Universe. You appear not to.

A universe. Subsets of A universe, universe being a class of thing.

I do not accept your dogma that this is not merely A universe rather than "The" universe. "The" as applied to universe is provably an incoherent idea under all constructions under which the concept of "set" has ever been show to have meaning.

Claiming the muddy waters are clear is where you fall down.

We are discussing what cosmological relationships may happen with regards to universes in general, of which ours is one of that class of thing.

A class with a single instance cannot be examined by comparing instances of that class.

"Universes in general" is oxymoronic where the definition of "universe" is "everything that exists".

How do you propose to examine more than one of the everythings? How can the everything possibly be plural?

 

[Jarhyn]

Universes with "creator gods" are a thing.

No, they aren't.

There is exactly one universe of which we are aware; Your redefining of non-universe entities as 'universes' is invalid, unjustified, and adds nothing to the discussion except your pet mythology.

Yes they are. I can hold one up right now if you would like. That you don't acknowledge simulations as valid universes is a failure of your understanding of what a universe is.

You can call anything a universe, but declaring subsets of THE Universe to be universes, and then claiming that their characteristics are necessarily analogous to characteristics of THE Universe is just equivocation.

Simulations may be universes, but that doesn't imply that THE Universe is a simulation, or is anything like a simulation.

Muddying the waters by using the sane word with two very different meanings is not clever, it's just confusing.

I understand what a universe is, and how it differs from THE Universe. You appear not to.

A universe. Subsets of A universe, universe being a class of thing.

I do not accept your dogma that this is not merely A universe rather than "The" universe. "The" as applied to universe is provably an incoherent idea under all constructions under which the concept of "set" has ever been show to have meaning.

Claiming the muddy waters are clear is where you fall down.

We are discussing what cosmological relationships may happen with regards to universes in general, of which ours is one of that class of thing.

A class with a single instance cannot be examined by comparing instances of that class.

"Universes in general" is oxymoronic where the definition of "universe" is "everything that exists".

How do you propose to examine more than one of the everythings? How can the everything possibly be plural?

It's not a class with a single instance, is the thing. You just ignore other instances and handwave them away because they happen to be nested in another object of the class "universe".

Universe here in this usage, which you conflate and I do not, is "everything that exists within an instance of a system of existence".

A system of existence can be contained in another system of existence just fine.

In the same way A physics is A system of existence.

 

[steve_bank]

I philosophize therefore I am.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I philosophize therefore I am.

I philosophize therefore I am god.

Is it rational to ponder the existence of something that is undefined, undetectable by scientific methods, etc.? As neural exercise I suppose it is.