Does God Exist?

In a certain sense, the uncertainty principle, aka quantic hazard, aka Fortuna, is God. God is what we can't (yet... or perhaps never) explain.

Uh... sorry to burst your bubble, but HUP is very explainable and to a mathmetical certainty.
delta x times delta p is equal/greater than h-bar over 2

Are you saying it is unlikely to be both a believer and a member of Mensa?
I know of others than myself.

neologist wrote:

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

Some can be proved...in the sense that anything can be proved.

This one can't!

Actually, to be truly rigorous, one cannot provide evidence that an entity does not exist in the real world, at least, not directly. One can provide an indirect inference that an entity does not exist, by deducing that the existence of a particular entity would have specific, well-defined observable consequences, and then demonstrate that those consequences are not observed, but that inference is merely provisional, and could, in theory at least, be overturned by the sudden appearance of those observable consequences of the existence of said entity. However, if the entity in question would have observable consequences right across the entire observational spectrum of phenomena, and none of those consequences are observed, this gives us considerable confidence that said entity does not indeed exist.

In the world of mathematics, however, it IS possible to prove that an entity, or a class of entities, does not exist. For example, it is possible to prove that there does not exist a rational number r such that r2=2. Indeed, the proof of this is a classic example of proof by contradiction. Allow me to illustrate.

We begin, by asserting the hypothesis that a rational number r exists, such that r2=2. This is known in mathematical parlance as 'assuming by contradiction', for we intend to refute the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that there exists a rational number r such that r2=2 is refuted as follows.

A rational number, by definition, is a number of the form a/b, where a and b are integers. We require for the purposes of rigour, that our rational number is represented in the simplest possible terms, so that a and b share no common divisors. If they did, say for example that a=a1q, and b=b1q, then we would cancel out the common divisor q, and rewrite the rational number as a1/b1. Our hypothesis therefore consists of:

"There exists a number a/b such that (a/b)2=2, and a and b have no common divisors."

If this hypothesis is true, then a2/b2=2. Therefore a2=2b2. Therefore a2 is even. Since a2 is even, a must be even, because no odd number, when squared, produces an even number. To see this, recall that all odd numbers can be represented in the form 2k+1, where k is any integer. Then note that (2k+1)2 = 4k2+4k+1, which is also odd, because 4k2 is even, 4k is even, their sum is therefore even, but becomes odd when we add 1. Therefore, if a2 is even, a must be even. Therefore a is a number of the form 2c, where c is some other integer. Therefore we have that (2c)2 = 2b2, or 4c2=2b2, or, finally, 2c2=b2. This latter expression means that b2 is even, which in turn means that b must also be even, as seen earlier. However, if a and b are both even, this contradicts the assertion of the hypothesis that a and b share no common divisors, because they are both even, and therefore share 2 as a common divisor. Therefore no two integers a and b, not sharing a common divisor, can exist such that (a/b)2=2. Therefore the square root of 2 is not a rational number.

Consequently, I have just proven that there does not exist a rational number r such that r2=2.

This is yet another reason why proof (which applies to formal axiomatic systems, such as those extant in mathematics) and evidential support are distinct, and why it is apposite to enforce the distinction rigorously.

Quote:

You seem to feel very comfortable simply stating as fact anything you want to be fact...and not providing actual proof, John.

So if I understand you, in order to prove gravity to you I would have to actually drop somthing heavy on your head?

Quote:

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

Not being able to prove a negative is a fallacy. Its done all the time.

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

Such is the futility of attempting to prove a negative.

Some can be proved...in the sense that anything can be proved.

This one can't!

It seems to me that "You can't prove a negative" is a negative. If so, it can't be proved and presents its own conundrum.

Aside from that, here's something from an online friend of mine on another forum:

Quote:

Actually, to be truly rigorous, one cannot provide evidence that an entity does not exist in the real world, at least, not directly. One can provide an indirect inference that an entity does not exist, by deducing that the existence of a particular entity would have specific, well-defined observable consequences, and then demonstrate that those consequences are not observed, but that inference is merely provisional, and could, in theory at least, be overturned by the sudden appearance of those observable consequences of the existence of said entity. However, if the entity in question would have observable consequences right across the entire observational spectrum of phenomena, and none of those consequences are observed, this gives us considerable confidence that said entity does not indeed exist.

In the world of mathematics, however, it IS possible to prove that an entity, or a class of entities, does not exist. For example, it is possible to prove that there does not exist a rational number r such that r2=2. Indeed, the proof of this is a classic example of proof by contradiction. Allow me to illustrate.

We begin, by asserting the hypothesis that a rational number r exists, such that r2=2. This is known in mathematical parlance as 'assuming by contradiction', for we intend to refute the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that there exists a rational number r such that r2=2 is refuted as follows.

A rational number, by definition, is a number of the form a/b, where a and b are integers. We require for the purposes of rigour, that our rational number is represented in the simplest possible terms, so that a and b share no common divisors. If they did, say for example that a=a1q, and b=b1q, then we would cancel out the common divisor q, and rewrite the rational number as a1/b1. Our hypothesis therefore consists of:

"There exists a number a/b such that (a/b)2=2, and a and b have no common divisors."

If this hypothesis is true, then a2/b2=2. Therefore a2=2b2. Therefore a2 is even. Since a2 is even, a must be even, because no odd number, when squared, produces an even number. To see this, recall that all odd numbers can be represented in the form 2k+1, where k is any integer. Then note that (2k+1)2 = 4k2+4k+1, which is also odd, because 4k2 is even, 4k is even, their sum is therefore even, but becomes odd when we add 1. Therefore, if a2 is even, a must be even. Therefore a is a number of the form 2c, where c is some other integer. Therefore we have that (2c)2 = 2b2, or 4c2=2b2, or, finally, 2c2=b2. This latter expression means that b2 is even, which in turn means that b must also be even, as seen earlier. However, if a and b are both even, this contradicts the assertion of the hypothesis that a and b share no common divisors, because they are both even, and therefore share 2 as a common divisor. Therefore no two integers a and b, not sharing a common divisor, can exist such that (a/b)2=2. Therefore the square root of 2 is not a rational number.

Consequently, I have just proven that there does not exist a rational number r such that r2=2.

This is yet another reason why proof (which applies to formal axiomatic systems, such as those extant in mathematics) and evidential support are distinct, and why it is apposite to enforce the distinction rigorously.

"You can't prove a negative" seems to be a favorite fallback of believers, but it seems they haven't investigated the claim very rigorously.

Actually, to be truly rigorous, one cannot provide evidence that an entity does not exist in the real world, at least, not directly. One can provide an indirect inference that an entity does not exist, by deducing that the existence of a particular entity would have specific, well-defined observable consequences, and then demonstrate that those consequences are not observed, but that inference is merely provisional, and could, in theory at least, be overturned by the sudden appearance of those observable consequences of the existence of said entity. However, if the entity in question would have observable consequences right across the entire observational spectrum of phenomena, and none of those consequences are observed, this gives us considerable confidence that said entity does not indeed exist.

I did not say it was impossible to prove a negative, only that attempts to do so are futile in that they lead to convoluted word smorgasbords.

In the case of assigning certain qualities or conditions which must exist to demonstrate the existence of God, a similar conundrum exists. One example is the aforementioned quality of omniscience which, in essence places restriction by definition on an entity having no limitations. It's not unlike the absurdity of asking whether God can create an immovable object,

I am familar with this article.
And thank you for posting it
More simply put: I can prove that 4 is not greater than 5
1+1+1+1=4+1=5

Quote:

Actually, to be truly rigorous, one cannot provide evidence that an entity does not exist in the real world, at least, not directly. One can provide an indirect inference that an entity does not exist, by deducing that the existence of a particular entity would have specific, well-defined observable consequences, and then demonstrate that those consequences are not observed, but that inference is merely provisional, and could, in theory at least, be overturned by the sudden appearance of those observable consequences of the existence of said entity. However, if the entity in question would have observable consequences right across the entire observational spectrum of phenomena, and none of those consequences are observed, this gives us considerable confidence that said entity does not indeed exist.

[/b]

The judeo-christian god, by definition is assigned with omniscient. The 2 slit experiment and HUP proves that no omniscient entity exists in that if it did, we wouldnt.
Ergo there is no god. 1+1=2 anywhere in this universe...that cant be changed.

Live with, "I do not know."

I did not say it was impossible to prove a negative,

...only that attempts to do so are futile in that they lead to convoluted word smorgasbords.

In the case of assigning certain qualities or conditions which must exist to demonstrate the existence of God, a similar conundrum exists. One example is the aforementioned quality of omniscience which, in essence places restriction by definition on an entity having no limitations. It's not unlike the absurdity of asking whether God can create an immovable object,

the "uncertainty" or undeterminacy refers to the posittion of a SAP at an exact position/velocity-time/energy BECAUSE THEY DONT possess those classical attributes. The formula states the PROBABILITY of finding the SAP in a certain area only.

And yes, the formula is a mathmetical certainty.

The range of potential positions is finite, within a certain margin. But there is still an infinite number of potential combinations of position and speed within that margin.

The True God, whose name literally means "He who causes to Become" can be subject to no necessity, for whatever his purpose, he provides what is necessary.

...
The ONLY "evidence" of the judeo-christian god is the torah/bible/quran.
...

This is purported tgo be the literal word of god written by man through the jand of god and man is instructed to niether add nor detract from the word of god ie., no interpretation necessary.

This divinely inspired document...

Quote:

Yep. I've noticed that many theists have to be taught what "begging the question" means.

Quote:

...clearly states that god knows the hairs on your head, the falling of a saprrow. your heart and mind and what you will do before you do it. He wrote your plan before he even created you.

Job 42:2
No thought can be withholden from thee.

Psalm 44:21
For he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

Psalm 139:7-8
Whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place.

Jeremiah 16:17
For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.

Jeremiah 23:24
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?

Acts 1:24
Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men.

1 John 3:20
God ... knoweth all things.


God is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 21:6).

God is the only One who can stand at the beginning and accurately declare the end.

Again, that's the claim, not the evidence. It would be a good idea if they could distinguish the two.