The Rational Proof of God's Existence

[gurrier]

Just checking in.

Have we proved God's existence yet?

Have we passed the semantic navel-gazing stage?

I'm on the edge of my seat here and the Matrix is on in a bit. . .

No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.

 

[Aldebaran]

Now, if there is no need for the hypothesis that there is a Deity, then it cannot be proven that there is a Deity.

Necessity is not required for a hypothesis to give it ability to lead to a proof considering its subject.

You still didn't reply on my post 2366

And yes, it is sometimes a bit difficult to be and dyslexic and to debate in a language you have no clue about
(If I wouldn't risk to be painted these days as "typical Muslim" by saying this, I would say it is a bit suicidal, if I come to think of it.)

salaam.

 

[8ball]

No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.

Haha - the angels are still maintaining their usual level of organisation and punctuality, then

 

[Jonti]

Necessity is not required for a hypothesis to give it ability to lead to a proof considering its subject...

If an uncertain hypothesis yielded a proof, you would regard the hypothesis as corroborated, I'm sure.

from post 2366
There is as much rational for that thesis then there is for the thesis proposing that God does not exist.
...

I didn't say God does not exist.

What science does hold as a central premise -- and it seems a reasonable one -- is that simple lack of evidence either way (or lack of knowledge) is not a valid reason for presupposing anything's existence.

And it's a principle of reason I hold dear

 

[8ball]

No, just sitting around sharpening our sticks and giving phil the odd poke while we await the coming of the angels, when the poking can begin in earnest.

Cool, see you in another six months

 

[gurrier]

I didn't say God does not exist.

What science does hold as a central premise -- and it seems a reasonable one -- is that simple lack of evidence either way (or lack of knowledge) is not a valid reason for presupposing anything's existence.

And it's a principle of reason I hold dear

But it further says that, while not presupposing the non-existance of any entity, we adopt a working assumption that things for which we have no evidence and for which we have no need in terms of explanatory power, do not exist. When we encounter something that contradicts our assumption we re-visit it.

Which is a principle of science I hold dear and which is why occam shaves away god in our working assumption.

 

[phildwyer]

Anyway, I'm more than happy to accept that ideas and material things are seperate for the purposes of this debate. After all, if we're going to have a metaphysical debate, we'd better use the socially accepted language and terms. Just as it would be *foolish* to talk of cosmological distances in terms of "about 50,000,000 times the distance to the shops and back" - the ideas/material world split you talk of has useful conversational applications. Pray continue.

Very well. I must inform you, however, that I shall be travelling for the next month, and so will not be posting quite as regularly as is my wont. But anyway, we have established--for the sake of argument at least--that ideas and physical things are different entities. Now I will show that ideas *determine* physical things for us.

(Of course physical things *also* determine ideas, but that is not the relevant factor for this argument. All that is necesary for my case is to prove that non-material ideas determine our experience of physical things to any degree at all.)

Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts. Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree." We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree." So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept. And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.* Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality. We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical. Are you with me so far?

 

[Fruitloop]

Nope, this is nonsense.

 

[Crispy]

Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts. Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree." We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree." So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept. And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.* Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality. We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical. Are you with me so far?

I reckon so. I wouldn't go so far as to say that ideas determine reality - that tree is the same arragement of carbon atoms (and makes a sound when it falls in the forest - arf) quite independant of the human idea of the tree. Bear in mind also, that under the influence of psychedelics, we can see the tree as the dog sees it. I would also suggest that animals can have a concept of 'treeness' - for example a fir tree looks quite diferent to a deciduous tree, yet I suspect an animal would treat it in a similar way.

However, I think this is just because you're using a narrower, human-centric, definition of the word reality. So that's ok. This is philosophy and it's all about human perception. I will accept that it is possible for people to have different internalised 'treeness' ideas, and therefore for their 'realities' to be different.

 

[gurrier]

Now, I put it to you that the definitive charcteristic of the human mind is its ability to subsume particular phenomena beneath general concepts. Where a dog only sees a big brown thing with leaves, we humans recognize it as a particular instance of the general concept "tree." We cannot see this big brown thing without refracting it through the concept "tree." So the way in which this thing appears to us is determined by this concept. And yet this concept has no physical existence whatsoever: it is an *idea.* Thus we see that, for human beings, ideas determine reality. We have previously seen that ideas are not themselves physical. Are you with me so far?

Brains are ontologically wired. Dogs' brains too. The categories in our ontologies are dynamically formed. That is to say that the tree category is formed from our brains repeatedly coming across similar collections of associated stimuli (ie leaves, big brown things) and creating a category node in our symbolic ontology which collects the associated stimuli together. But you are categorically wrong in claiming that there is some basic distinction between human brains and the brains of other animals in this respect.

It also most certainly does have a physical existence - in many cases the category is encoded as a single neuron.

 

[phildwyer]

Brains are ontologically wired. Dogs' brains too. The categories in our ontologies are dynamically formed. That is to say that the tree category is formed from our brains repeatedly coming across similar collections of associated stimuli (ie leaves, big brown things) and creating a category node in our symbolic ontology which collects the associated stimuli together.

Rubbish. Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example. Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract. And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means. I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so. It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it. This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us. Am I right or wrong?

 

[gurrier]

Rubbish. Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example. Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract. And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means. I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so. It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it. This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us. Am I right or wrong?

Wrong! As usual!

Beauty - in anything - can be shown to be strongly correlated with the physical characteristics of the object. The translation of the physical attributes into the sense of beauty is just another matter of wiring - what connections there are between neurons in the visual areas and those in the emotional areas. Besides, many studies have shown that the concept of beauty in women, for example, is significantly hard-wired. The ratios of hip-size, buttock-size and breat-size can be calculated to give a fairly accurate cross-cultural beauty estimate.

 

[Crispy]

Rubbish. Let us now take a further step into abstraction and consider the category of ideas that have *no* physical correspondence at all: beauty, for example. Certainly none of us have ever "come across" beauty, in the abstract. And certainly each of us may have different understandings of what beauty means. I may find Jennifer Lopez beautiful, while you may judge Anne Widdecombe so. It matters not: we both recognize the *entirely* abstract concept of beauty when we see it. This *entirely* abstract concept--which has neither a physical existence nor a physical referent-- determines the way the physical world appears to us. Am I right or wrong?

Well, I'd clarify that by saying that beauty does have physical referents, but they vary depending on the individual and societal norms. eg. the 75th percentile in society A find Jennifer Lopez attractive, and can therefore agree on at least that aspect of beauty. It's statistical, innit.

Also, not all our knowledge of the physical world is mediated through such abstract ideas. Red light has a wavelength of 650 nm (or 6.5e28 times the smallest distance you can ever move something) no matter what condition your colour vision is in.

However, for certain physical things, most of their meaning to humans is determined by abstract ideas, yes.

 

[phildwyer]

Wrong! As usual!

Beauty - in anything - can be shown to be strongly correlated with the physical characteristics of the object. The translation of the physical attributes into the sense of beauty is just another matter of wiring - what connections there are between neurons in the visual areas and those in the emotional areas. Besides, many studies have shown that the concept of beauty in women, for example, is significantly hard-wired. The ratios of hip-size, buttock-size and breat-size can be calculated to give a fairly accurate cross-cultural beauty estimate.

Rubbish. The concept of female beauty varies very widely indeed across cultures and historical periods. Look at Rubens's nudes. Look at Victorian pin-ups. Look at Marilyn Monroe. Look at the differences even within a single nation--white America (generally) values narrow hips, while black America (generally) values big ones. And that is not even to mention the differences in *individual* taste. The *one* thing that all people have in common is the *abstract* concept of beauty. We conclude that this concept is constant and stable--*real* in fact--while its various manifestations are various and mutable. You are merely spouting pseudo-Darwisnist claptrap, if you don't mind my saying so.

Anyway, I have to catch a plane to London this afternoon. I will respond when I can, but my communication may be intermittent.

 

[Fruitloop]

Just because the symbolic order has abstract categories in it doesn't mean that it doesn't live entirely in people's heads. In any case beauty is a property of actual things not a thing per se, so there's no conceptual problem with it not itself being physically instantiated.

Animals probably recognise functional rather than ontological categories as well, like notions of social precedence for example.

 

[gurrier]

Rubbish. The concept of female beauty varies very widely indeed across cultures and historical periods. Look at Rubens's nudes. Look at Victorian pin-ups. Look at Marilyn Monroe. Look at the differences even within a single nation--white America (generally) values narrow hips, while black America (generally) values big ones. And that is not even to mention the differences in *individual* taste. The *one* thing that all people have in common is the *abstract* concept of beauty. We conclude that this concept is constant and stable--*real* in fact--while its various manifestations are various and mutable. You are merely spouting pseudo-Darwisnist claptrap, if you don't mind my saying so.

Studies show that the ratio of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).

 

[phildwyer]

Studies show that the ratio of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).

These "studies" are pseudo-scientific, transparently ideological, socio-Darwinist nonsense. They are designed to show that the desire to reproduce our genes determines our sexual preferences. Not only is this garbage, it is pernicious garbage. How for example do these "studies" account for *homosexual* desire? Or, come to that, for the preference of the Karen people of northern Thailand for women with foot-long necks?

 

[Crispy]

Studies show that the ratio of the measurements regarded as beautiful in a woman are remarkably constant across cultures and times and *shock horror* they generally correspond with underlying attributes such as the lack of disease (symetrical features, good skin, etc) and the ability to give birth and rear healthy children (hips vs waist vs breasts).

Exactly. It's crazy to admit sexual selection in animals and then deny that it has happened in humans. There's plenty of evidence for certain animal behaviours to be 'hard-wired' as well. Anyway, perhaps beauty was a bad choice of abstract idea to make. I see where you're going Phil, so don't let's get distracted by definitions of beauty

 

[Fruitloop]

I have a feeling that the 'proof' of angels is just going to highlight the folly of thinking that ideas exist elsewhere than in people's brains.

 

[Santino]

I have not accepted that material things and ideas are separate things.

 

[Jonti]

I didn't say God does not exist.

What science does hold as a central premise -- and it seems a reasonable one -- is that simple lack of evidence either way (or lack of knowledge) is not a valid reason for presupposing anything's existence.

And it's a principle of reason I hold dear

But it further says that, while not presupposing the non-existance of any entity, we adopt a working assumption that things for which we have no evidence and for which we have no need in terms of explanatory power, do not exist. When we encounter something that contradicts our assumption we re-visit it.

Which is a principle of science I hold dear and which is why occam shaves away god in our working assumption.

Yes.

This is what is meant when one says that science offers rational proof of the non-existence of God. It's a rather technical meaning of proof but, to be fair, pretty much the operational definition that applies in all practical matters. Great insight can be encapsulated by the definitions used in science.

Yet an eminent scientist like Polkinghorne can still believe in God. He talks about it in this video. I've a feeling that Alde will agree with Polkinghorne that there is a style to Nature that is suggestive of the Divine.

Of course, Polkinghorne does not hold that one can prove the existence of God. That would be silly

 

[gurrier]

Of course, Polkinghorne does not hold that one can prove the existence of God. That would be silly

supernaturally silly

 

[joffle]

i was talking shit *edit*

 

[Jo/Joe]

These "studies" are pseudo-scientific, transparently ideological, socio-Darwinist nonsense. They are designed to show that the desire to reproduce our genes determines our sexual preferences. Not only is this garbage, it is pernicious garbage. How for example do these "studies" account for *homosexual* desire? Or, come to that, for the preference of the Karen people of northern Thailand for women with foot-long necks?

Are you saying sexual desire is completely random? If not, what drives it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Temptation!

 

[phildwyer]

Are you saying sexual desire is completely random? If not, what drives it?

No of course its not random, its socially conditioned. If you deny this, you are forced to regard heterosexuality as somehow more "natural" than other forms of sexuality. Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects. It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world. So we see that ideas create the material world for us. Can we move on now?

 

[Crispy]

Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects. It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world. So we see that ideas create the material world for us. Can we move on now?

As long as you also admit that ideas are dependant on the material world for their existence. How can you have a concept of beauty without having a beautiful thing to say "this is beautiful" ? The material world exists outside and independant of us, it is only mediated by ideas, not created by them.

I'm saying this because I think that you're about to assign an equal 'amount' of 'existence' to ideas and the material world, when it is obvious that the material world will carry on existing even in the complete abscence of ideas. Whereas ideas will most certainly come to an end at the same time as the material world.

BUT, we're dealing, as far as I can tell, with the insides of people's heads, where ideas are as important and 'real' as you say they are. So yes, I follow.

 

[xenon]

Been following this for a bit. I've a sour notion that as Crispy has pointed out above. We're going to get this proof based on the philosophical belief that ideas or abstracts can exist externally to the onlooker.

AH well if nothing else. It's going to be one very big and possibly record breaking thread.

 

[Jo/Joe]

No of course its not random, its socially conditioned. If you deny this, you are forced to regard heterosexuality as somehow more "natural" than other forms of sexuality. Anyway, the point is that beauty as an abstract concept transcends its physical objects. It is an idea with *no* material existence and yet it determines everyone's experience of the material world. So we see that ideas create the material world for us. Can we move on now?

Why is it socially conditioned the way it is then? Do you really believe men are only attracted to hourglass figures because they are conditioned to?

 

[118118]

Been following this for a bit. I've a sour notion that as Crispy has pointed out above. We're going to get this proof based on the philosophical belief that ideas or abstracts can exist externally to the onlooker.

AH well if nothing else. It's going to be one very big and possibly record breaking thread.

Well situated cognition, of cognitive science, says that parts of mental states exist external to ourselves - coded into the landscape or something. This is quite scientific. BUT THEY ARE NOT COMPOSED OF A UNIQUE IMMUTIBLE SUBSTANCE.
why don't you use your powers for good phildwyer