Part of the reason god must exist is because if nothing existed then we would have a contradiction because if "nothing is true" were true then that would be true! =P
The other half of the reason is we have to trace things back to a beginning of the cause and effect chain because the first thing exists only because without it there would be a contradiction.. at least in a sense. Now lets look mathmaticly at the possible things this could be. We could say it is random because random things don't have a cause.. But if we try to make an equation R+A=U (Random number R plus a number a equals the a number that we think of as representing the universe) Even if we know what A is sense it is imposible to mathmaticly calculate a random number (R) then U is not a number, it is undefined.
The other way we can have something that doesn't need a cause is if a choice happens. If we put ourselves in the position of the choice in this equation then we *can* calculate it. C+A=U (C is our choice) If we know A to be 0 then sense C is our choice the number that we use to represent the universe in this equation is whatever we choose. Because of this we have a proof by contradiction that shows us the universe must have been someones choice if you accept the fact that we can calculate what our choices are somehow even if it is not based on an algorith because we are the ones doing the math... or we could say God is the one doing the math...
So in conclusion it is a contradiction not to have anything in the universe, and it is a contradiction to exist in a cause and effect state of the universe unless the first cause is god which does not need a cause and simply is the Alpha... and I guess we can say the Omega.
Also a note sense this first cause led to everything it is all powerfull and sense it had a hand in everything that happened anywhere it is everywhere, and sense it choose to create the whole universe it is all knowing... that much I can say but I don't know anything more about this "God".
I await your critical remarks that have as much basis in a religious forum as this post does in a science forum.. although I do feel this has reason to be in a science forum... chuckles. If you do feel the need to critisize please be logical and explain your reasoning so we can decide for ourselves if you are wrong or not.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
Part of the reason god must exist is because if nothing existed then we would have a contradiction because if "nothing is true" were true then that would be true! =P

hehe - would you say that if "nothing is true" that it would mean that "everything else must be untrue", so that God does not exist? Or would "everything else also be true"?

I suppose that your would need a 'something' to balance out the 'nothing' - but would that 'something' really have to be God.

I've no idea - I think i need to read back your post again lol as I got confused while typing my reply heh http://smilies.crowd9.com/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Purhaps I was not clear enough.
If "nothing were true" then we would have a contradiction because the idea itself would be true... and to try and respond to your thoughts, if that contradiction were true anyway which btw is logicly impossible then *everything* would be true.
Because we have just proved true=false
Which means all false things can be true and false
And all true things can be true and false
Impossible of course but we are just following through with the thought.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
Purhaps I was not clear enough.

You were not clear at all

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
If "nothing were true" then we would have a contradiction because the idea itself would be true... and to try and respond to your thoughts, if that contradiction were true anyway which btw is logicly impossible then *everything* would be true.

Explain what the "nothing were true" basis of this equation is.
Are you talking about nihilism? existentialism? what?

All in all your "mathematics" are vague, irrational, and unmathematical. Your grasp of algebra is a little off also, but as mine is not hot-shot 100%, I'm going to leave that part alone.

ZERO MASS

Ok so..... how did god get there?

If he was 'just there' why couldn't everything else be 'just there' without the need for a god to have started it all?

The "nothing is true" argument is not something I invinted so I can't take credit for it. It is a fundemental part of understanding logic and why there has to be some truth. If we didn't have this proof people could ask silly questions like "well how do we know it all isn't just an illusion and logic isn't valid." Or things to that effect.
I think I did a good job of explaining why nothing but a choice can exist at the start. I am just using the word "god" to indicate the understanding of the choice being made. People ascribe all sorts of personality to God and give him a name, but isn't what makes a man up not the ideas that we have but the choices that we make. A choice is the only thing that could exist because choices don't need to have a cause and it is impossible for the universes first cause to have been random which is the other (potentialy) way for something to exist without a cause... If we are going to have a choice be the first thing that ever existed we also need a choice maker.. so therefore we must have a god as well.. unless you want to see really deep and say choices can be independent of choosers.. but that isn't too logical. So this choice and therefore a chooser have been around forever and ever before time and the first thing that happened in the chain of cause and effect that is a cause is the choice because it is the only way for the universe to have formed.

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
Most all of us have heard this before, it usually gets shot down in detail... but you seem to post stuff in a way that makes reading/commenting it difficult.

Part of the reason god must exist is because if nothing existed then we would have a contradiction because if "nothing is true" were true then that would be true!
There is no reason to say that god is the original cause.

The other half of the reason is we have to trace things back to a beginning of the cause and effect chain because the first thing exists only because without it there would be a contradiction
We may reach a point at which we can not examine earlier, but this does not mean it was the first event.

Now lets look mathmaticly at the possible things this could be. We could say it is random because random things don't have a cause.. But if we try to make an equation R+A=U (Random number R plus a number a equals the a number that we think of as representing the universe) Even if we know what A is sense it is imposible to mathmaticly calculate a random number (R) then U is not a number, it is undefined.
Or you could just put a limit on R, and then you can calculate the limit of U.

The other way we can have something that doesn't need a cause is if a choice happens.
The other side of this argument is that the choice has a cause, and there is no reason to look at it apart from other actions.

Because of this we have a proof by contradiction that shows us the universe must have been someones choice if you accept the fact that we can calculate what our choices are somehow even if it is not based on an algorith because we are the ones doing the math... or we could say God is the one doing the math...
You could run through your entire argument with aliens, and just say that they (and the entire universe) have always existed.

...unless the first cause is god which does not need a cause and simply is the Alpha... and I guess we can say the Omega.
Why not just settle on the Big Bang as the 'first cause' 'which does not need a cause and simply is the Alpha'.

Also a note sense this first cause led to everything it is all powerfull and sense it had a hand in everything that happened anywhere it is everywhere, and sense it choose to create the whole universe it is all knowing... that much I can say but I don't know anything more about this "God".
Just because you create something, doesn't mean you know everything about it.

Cybermorphic:

<i>Part of the reason god must exist is because if nothing existed then we would have a contradiction because if "nothing is true" were true then that would be true!</i>

Let's break this one down.

Consider the statement "Nothing is true." Either the statement is true or it is false.

If it is false, then something is true. That something cannot be the statement itself, but could be lots of other things.

On the other hand, if the statement is true, then it is true to say that nothing is true, but then the sentence must be false because it asserts that nothing is true.

So, if the sentence is false, there is no problem, but if it is true it leads to a vicious circle because it is self-contradictory.

The simplest way out of this is to say that the sentence is, in fact, false, and that some things actually are true.

This tells us absolutely nothing about the universe or God, of course. The line of reasoning you have put forward is:

1. "Nothing is true" is a false statement.
2. Therefore God exists.

But (2) doesn't follow from (1).

Part of the reason god must exist...

is unrelated to:

is because if nothing existed

Fix the premise or the whole argument does not deserve
a read-over.

I remember that there was a group of atheists in the early 1900's I think it was who went around preaching. They went to a renowned mathematician and explain their situation. He stroked his chin a few times, and then wrote something out a mathematical formula (cant remember exactly, but it was something like) A=BxC. Thereffore, god exists.
The preachers were stumped.:p

My line of reasoning is not
(1)"Nothing is true" is a false statement.
(2) God exists.

My reasoning is:
(1)"Nothing is true" is a false statement.
(2)Therefore something always had to exist
(3)It is impossible for that first thing to be a random number
(4)The only other possibility for something to exist before anything else is if that something is a choice. Because choices can lead to other things without having a cause or reason for the choice.

At least get my reasoning straight if you want to critisize....

(1)"Nothing is true" is a false statement.

is still unrelated to:

(2)Therefore something always had to exist

Apples and Oranges there (so to speak).

To put this problem in simple english for you... because you are wrong about apples an oranges.
Einstein once said, God must exist because of the way the universe is not because the universe exists.

Einstein said alot of things. Amid all the facts he discovered, he
still hucked alot of theories out the door when he found
contradictory evidence (like any good scientist would do). Now,
putting these events aside, suddenly a random quote forms
a link between to unrelated concepts just because the person
asserting the quote was smart? I don't think so.

The other half of the reason is we have to trace things back to a beginning of the cause and effect chain because the first thing exists only because without it there would be a contradiction.. at least in a sense.

Not so fast:

1) assumes time is linear. Last effect could be first cause, ie. circular.

2) Need to prove that all things have a cause, need to prove that a thing can not be self-causing. A proposition equally as viable as "all things have causes" is that "all causes are the results of effects".

3) You're giving no good reason to exempt God from your reasoning. Either God requires a cause or your reasoning is contradictory.

A choice is the only thing that could exist because choices don't need to have a cause and it is impossible for the universes first cause to have been random which is the other

Why don't choices have a cause? Choices are an abstract human construct that may not have any existence or relevance at a mechanistic level. If the world is deterministic then there may be absolutely no choices.

Choices neccesarily require some form of sentience, ie a chooser. The chooser could only have been brought about by a choice, which in turn would require some one to choose it, and so on <i>ad infinitum</i>.

Cybermorphic:

<i>My reasoning is:
(1)"Nothing is true" is a false statement.
(2)Therefore something always had to exist</i>

The second statement still doesn't follow from the first. The only thing which follows is "Something is true". But that doesn't mean the something always had to exist.

Continuing on...

<i>(3)It is impossible for that first thing to be a random number</i>

Why?

<i>(4)The only other possibility for something to exist before anything else is if that something is a choice. Because choices can lead to other things without having a cause or reason for the choice.</i>

I think that every choice has a cause.

<i>At least get my reasoning straight if you want to critisize....</i>

At least explain your reasoning logically if you don't want criticism.

I like how Voodo Child brings up circular time, but I suspect it is just for the sake of the argument and he does not really consider it is a possibility either. Circular time is particularly intresting because it makes the universe have a self reference for a cause. The future causes the past and the past causes the future... This is the same as saying that a choice chooses to be a choice. For instance God could exist after the choice is made and God could choose to make the choice which exists before him after the choice is made as well.. If this can happen the choice can simply choose to exist. This defeats the normal understanding of cause and effect so in my openion we can still say both God and the choice have no cause. Furthermore my argument is reason to accept choices as if they can happen without reason. A chosen number is the only other reasonable canidate for something to exist without a cause other than a random number. Seeing how random numbers are impossible to calculate and choices can be calculated if the chooser is the one doing the math, choices have to be able to exist without a cause because there needs to be a first cause for the universe which does not have a cause.
If you feel that this can not exist without a cause, then how can you imagine the beggining of time as it exists in the Big Bang theory which does not have a cause either? Admititly it is an open theory which can have a cause although it has been said it is impossible to scientificly find one despite that there is no proof you can't find a cause for the big bang.
Addressing James R

>>My reasoning is:
>>(1)"Nothing is true" is a false statement.
>>(2)Therefore something always had to exist

>The second statement still doesn't follow from the first. The only thing which follows is >"Something is true". But that doesn't mean the something always had to exist.

If it means that something is true like you admit, then the implications of that question always exist as logic is appart from our faith in it.. So even before a person considered that "nothing is true" means something must exist, it was a *reason* why something must exist. Instead I challenge you to prove your point. Why do you believe that if that is a proof that something is true there is a time when there wasn't anything that was true despite the logic of the proof?

>>(3)It is impossible for that first thing to be a random number

>Why?

Because it is impossible to calculate a random number. If you don't believe some present me with an algorith to calculate a truly random number and not just psuedo random.

You are being very critical of things you don't have reason to be critical about.

Cybermorphic:

<i>You are being very critical of things you don't have reason to be critical about.</i>

My first post here was to point out a simple error of logic on your part. I clearly explained in that post exactly why I did have reason to be critical.

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by continuing to push a logically indefensible line, but it's up to you. I'm happy to stop whenever you are.

<i>... I challenge you to prove your point. Why do you believe that if that is a proof that something is true there is a time when there wasn't anything that was true despite the logic of the proof?</i>

Look, it's quite simple.

"Something is true" implies only one thing concerning existence: it implies that at least one true thing exists right now.

It says nothing about anything existing for all time, or at some time in the past or at some time in the future. It is a statement about the present only.

Just because something is true right now doesn't mean that there wasn't a time in the past when nothing was true. But that's actually beside the point. Your original point was about God. Even if at all times in the past there was at least one true thing, it does not follow that the one true thing must have been God.

<i>it is impossible to calculate a random number. If you don't believe some present me with an algorith to calculate a truly random number and not just psuedo random.</i>

You don't mean "generating", do you? There are certainly ways to generate random numbers. Stick a Geiger counter in front of a radiation source and you can generate totally random numbers.

I don't see how this is relevant here, anyway.

I think logicians would agree with me that it is impossible for nothing to have ever been true, past present and future. It would be just as much a contradiction then as it is now.
Also I think I have most scientists backing about random numbers. Because it is impossible to calculate random numbers they probably don't exist in the real world. Most people support chaos theory which suggests to us that seemingly random things actually just have complex algoriths that are hard to predict. And I think with your example it is still possible to predict what the random number will be to a certain degree, as I know it is with quantum physics.

I got this massive science book. It gives details of loads of science issues and has sections explaining all about important people in the fields of specific science. I was reading this thread and just happened to remember an entry in this book. You might want to check this out on google somewhere but here it is:

1988: A method to generate purely random numbers was found by Silvio Micali

There you have it.

Silvio Micali was born in Palermo, Italy, on October 13, 1954. He received his Laurea in Mathematics from the University of Rome in 1978, and his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982. In 1983, he joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor Micali has been developing the complexity-theoretic foundations of cryptography, pseudo-random generation, proof-systems, and zero-knowledge protocols. He is the co-recipient of the 1993 Gödel prize.

I guess if you want to call advanced pseudo-random number generation "truly" random then what you say is "true".. but it is still psuedo-random.

The number of radioactive decays in a certain time interval follows a Normal distribution. Numbers generated this way satify all known tests of randomness, and can therefore be said to be truly random numbers.

n1 James R

The number of radioactive decays in a certain time interval follows a Normal distribution
Proof that bad ideas can lead to teaching something new.

You can also look at a graph generated by chaos theory and say that it satisfys our tests for randomness, but in reality it is not random. There is a hidden variable to that graph in chaos theory that gerates the whole chaotic graph. A basic logical equation that is quite simple but developes into complex behavior. Quantum Physics and even radioactive decay could both have "hidden variables" that acount for the seeming disregard of physical law. This is a very poppular theory because it sits well in everyones stumache. So I think you can see why because something appears random it is not random, so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number... Something close to that at least. Then you can say "truly random".

Originally posted by Cybermorphic
so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number... Something close to that at least. Then you can say "truly random". Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you prove a system is random? All we can do is look at the data and see if it obeys any pattern we know. You can not mathmatically prove that something will generate random numbers, because then it wouldn't be random.

But regardless, there is still the other major flaw in your argument. You have no reasoning for God to be the first cause.

Cybermorphic:

<i>You can also look at a graph generated by chaos theory and say that it satisfys our tests for randomness, but in reality it is not random.</i>

Yes. I know about all that, and I agree that deterministic chaos is not random. But some things are, nevertheless, random and not just chaotic. For example, radioactive decay.

<i>There is a hidden variable to that graph in chaos theory that gerates the whole chaotic graph.</i>

No, it's not because of any hidden variable. It is due to sensitivity to initial conditions.

<i>Quantum Physics and even radioactive decay could both have "hidden variables" that acount for the seeming disregard of physical law.</i>

Do you dispute the results of Bell's theory and the well-known Aspect experiment which together prove that quantum theory cannot have hidden variables?

If so, please explain what was wrong with the Aspect experiment and the Bell inequalities.

<i>This is a very poppular theory because it sits well in everyones stumache.</i>

It's also wrong.

<i>So I think you can see why because something appears random it is not random, so I don't think you can say we can call anything "truly" random untill you can prove to us a way to generate truly random numbers from within a formal system, or untill you can look at your radioactive decay and formulate a mathmatical model of a proof that explains why that can not generate a non random number...</i>

I've already explained that radioactive decay satisfies all tests of randomness.

i read this

When you count the number of decays in sequential fixed time
intervals, you will find that these numbers follow a Poisson
distribution. The Poisson distribution is derived based on the
assumption of randomness.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0028273.html

what does this guy mean by "assumption"?

spookz:

The reasoning goes like this:

1. Assume that radioactive decay is random, for the sake of argument.
2. Calculate the expected statistical distribution of counts based on that assumption. The distribution you come up with is called the Poisson distribution.
3. Get a real radioactive source and perform an experiment to see if the observed counts match your predictions.
4. When this is done, it is found the actual count distribution matches the distribution we predicted on the basis of the randomness assumption.
5. Therefore, we conclude that radioactive decay really is random.

If you use the radio or the television as a seed for creating psuedo random numbers tests of the sort you mentioned can lead you to believe they are truly random. You tune the TV to CNN and the images and sounds that come through are given digital values which are then used in a psuedo random algorith to come up with the a sequence of numbers that for all intents and purposes are random. They are random because someone would have to know what seed you were using to generate the psuedo random numbers. Using the TV or Radio to generate these numbers gets even better because when you change the station a completely different seed is being used so the numbers become harder and harder to link together from the psuedo random algorithm. So these numberse can be tested for randomness but are they? No! The TV shows that generated these number are a very ordered and reasoned thing CNN is not a random event it is planned and orchestrated, and your decision to watch CNN and use it as a seed for psuedo random numbers is not random either, you like CNN and you had good reason to use it.
If you want to prove something is random you have to be able to show the math involved in the random action which is impossible so randomness is impossible.

Cybermorphic,

Your CNN example is interesting.

Suppose we look at just one pixel on the screen at regular intervals, and use, say, its red saturation value (between 0 and 255) to generate "random" numbers. Are these numbers truly random?

You would clearly argue that they are not. The image on CNN at any time is determined by human beings. Therefore, the red value of pizel number 65342 at any time depends on previous decisions that human beings have made about what will be on the screen at any time.

But, if you were given the output of pixel number 65342 over the period of, say, 10 minutes, with samples taken every 10 seconds from CNN, could you find a pattern? Perhaps you could. Perhaps CNN would be mostly showing a news reader over that time, and all the red values were showing the colour of his suit over virtually the whole time.

What if you took samples over 24 hours? Would you be able to pick a pattern?

Also, going back to the newsreader, if you were given a list of numbers such as 132, 133, 132, 134, 135, 132, 132, 132, 140, ... would you ever be able to say "Ah, yes, sounds like the 6pm news bulletin on CNN!" I don't think so.

The thing is: it depends on how you choose to define "random". You seem to want to define "random" as equivalent to "uncaused by anything". If that is your definition, few things will ever be random to you, because most things have some kind of cause. CNN is caused, so nothing derived from it is random, as far as you are concerned.

In my opinion, a much better definition of "random" is "unpredictable". The red value of pixel 65342 on CNN over any reasonable length of time is unpredictable, <b>even if it is ultimately caused by something</b>. If I knew the programming in detail for CNN for today, I could, in principle, predict that the red saturation level of pixel 65342 at 5 pm would be between 130 and 160, or something. But, in fact, I would have to go to a great deal of trouble to predict that. For all intents and purposes, it is a random number (except over short times).

When it comes to radioactive decays, as I mentioned before, there is <b>nothing</b> you can do to tell me how many counts a radioactive source will emit between 5 pm and 6 pm, at least beyond a certain accuracy limited by statistics.

Both CNN and radioactive decay are random.