Since Jeff is getting frustrated with many replies, I thought I would start a new conversation here.

In order to discuss God, especially in the scientific way you propose, it is necessary to define some terms.

Let us come to some agreement as to the definition of God. What is it, and what is it's nature?

(as opposed to what he is supposed to have done)

How come this thread got no replies so far?

Jeff's patience was short lived, it seems.

God cant have a definition, or else it will have flaws, if god is 'loveing' to feel love you must feel the opposite, being hate or spite, the way we define god is an all knowing perfect being, yet this is impossible

Definition?

Hmm - when we set out to design and create something we start by defining the requirements - is that what we must do here?

Of course if something already exists and we cannot alter its design then the activity becomes one of measureing and observing. Since no one has ever been able to detect a god of any type then this activity is quite impossible.

So I guess that leads us back to building the design specifications of our mythical god that we want to create, right?

This isn't about creating or designing God, it's about proving that there is a God, which Jeff thought was easily accomplished.

I think I have demonstrated how difficult that is.

But what can actually be proven?
To prove something is to discover that a particular relationship between two or more phenomena is exclusive and and necessary.
Is there one single thing in human knowledge that has such a proof?

The thing is if everything has a beggining, then how did god come to be? If god always was then its also possible that time always was, and there would be the tools available for evolution, If god is self created this is also impossible, because one cant create without already being, but if we assume time is infinite, then we come to the conclusion that every event is preceeded by another event, which takes away the need for an 'ultimate being' or 'creator'

If god always was then its also possible that time always was

I don't see this as a necessary connection.
If God created time, then God can be outside of time.

god couldnt create time though

Time has always been, even if the universe was empty time would still tick bye, we would use it to measure How long before the creation of our world, If there is a god, even he/it wouldnt be able to controll time in any way

god couldnt create time though

Why not? In many religions, God is deemed to be almighty, thus capable of creating time.


Time has always been, even if the universe was empty time would still tick bye, we would use it to measure How long before the creation of our world, If there is a god, even he/it wouldnt be able to controll time in any way

How do you know that time has always been?

Religon is based on the word of man, and has no more basis for being true than a stephen king book


second-
I dont know, and no-one probally ever will

but

The theory that time has always been covers far more basis than the theory of god, every event is preceeded by another in a never ending cycle of time, even if there is a god, he wouldnt be the 'ultimate being' because he also would have been caused by something more powerful. God would be no more perfect than I would If I created a miniature universe

water,

Is there one single thing in human knowledge that has such a proof? Yes - 1+1=2. Would you like me to give you the proof?

water,

How do you know that time has always been? Without time nothing can occur and the universe could not have begun. A beginning event would have needed time to proceed. And any events leading up to a preparing for a beginning would have needed time for them to occur. This creates an infinite regression where each event would need time to exist. I.e. there could never have been a point at which time did not exist.

Hi Alex1 , Spidergoat , Cris and all you fellows !!

God did not create man , man created God inside their mind to have an explanation for all things they did not understand ........
God has never existed outside anyones mind - only inside .......
By the way, time do not just tick away in the universe .... according to the relativity theories (Einstein) times go slower the faster you move , and if you are able to go with the speed of light - TIME STOPS ........... experiments in space has shown this to be correct ....

water,

Yes - 1+1=2. Would you like me to give you the proof?

Yes.

sorry time does not actuelly stop it just go'es so so slow you can hardly see it move, but thats the time on the outside, of the speed your traveling. the time inside, is traveling at normal rate around you, time can never stop, just appear that way.

Hi Alex1 , Spidergoat , Cris and all you fellows !!

God did not create man , man created God inside their mind to have an explanation for all things they did not understand ........
God has never existed outside anyones mind - only inside .......
By the way, time do not just tick away in the universe .... according to the relativity theories (Einstein) times go slower the faster you move , and if you are able to go with the speed of light - TIME STOPS ........... experiments in space has shown this to be correct ....


Time as you know it stops, but time to other people continues, and you are correct time does slow down the faster you go but in the case of humans, you wouldnt realize this because your brain slows down with it, *I was reading einstein yesterday* and besides you cant stop all time, even if everything was moveing fast enough for time to 'stop' you would still judge how long it was stopped through what else but 'time' basically time is a word that can be used in many ways to describe many many things, and in a way is only what we make it

I happen to agree with P.S. in that God was a fairly reasonable explanation at the time for things people didn't understand.

My purpose in this thread was not to address all the implications of the God idea, but to narrow things down a bit, which is how science works. The question I seek to answer is, does God exist now? First you have to define what is meant by the term God. Different religions and sects all have different definitions. If God is another word for everything, kind of like Pantheism, then how can you pick out one phenomenon and say that's proof? Most definitions of God are so all-encompassing that to prove or disprove it is impossible. If God answers prayers, then you could develop an experiment to test that. Although, the response is usually He doesn't answer every prayer, and how can you test for that? Science generally depends on having something be repeatable.

I happen to think that religious people are going down the wrong path when they try to prove the existence of God in a scientific or pseudoscientific way. The great thing about the idea is that it is fundamentally mysterious and unprovable.

Without time nothing can occur and the universe could not have begun.

A beginning event would have needed time to proceed.

This is so according to human perception.

Who's to say that human perception as we presently have it is the alpha and omega of reality?

[QUOTE=Cris]water,

Without time nothing can occur and the universe could not have begun. A beginning event would have needed time to proceed. QUOTE]

In the thought that time always existed we assume there is no beggining event but that every event is preceeded by another. or thats the main theory anyway

Water,

This is so according to human perception.

Who's to say that human perception as we presently have it is the alpha and omega of reality? Perhaps, but can you propose a scenario where something can occur without the passage of time? If there is a change of state of anything from one instant to the next then time will have passed, otherwise the very meaning of an "event" is nonsense, nothing could occur.

It feels to me that time is a neccessary tenet for anyting to have ever existed, even gods. It is not so much a perception as it is an abolute neccessity without which nothing makes sense.

Even if you were to say that to a god everything appears to occur at the same instant - even then isn't that single instant an example of time? One simply cannot refer to anything occurring if time is not involved.

Water,

Proof that 1+1=2

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Hope you follow that OK.

Cris

Water,

Proof that 1+1=2

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Hope you follow that OK.

Cris

And why should we think that the Peano Postulates are true?

Let us go to advanced math :
1 + 1 = 1

1 piece of clay + 1 piece of clay = 2 pieces of clay
I fuse the 2 pieces of clay together in my hand to = 1 piece of clay
1 + 1 = 1

1 + 1 = 3
1 woman + 1 man = 2 humans
they get a baby, which means they are now = 3 humans
1 + 1= 3

Sorry , just teasing ...............please don´t be offended ....

This is so according to human perception.

Who's to say that human perception as we presently have it is the alpha and omega of reality?

Perhaps, but can you propose a scenario where something can occur without the passage of time?

I don't know, but I don't just assume that human perception is all there is.
Not to make an ad ignorantiam, but since humans keep on finding new things, new theories, I am skeptical of positing the present understanding of causality and time to be ultimate.


If there is a change of state of anything from one instant to the next then time will have passed, otherwise the very meaning of an "event" is nonsense, nothing could occur.

It feels to me that time is a neccessary tenet for anyting to have ever existed, even gods.

It is not so much a perception as it is an abolute neccessity without which nothing makes sense.

It is a perception still -- you perceive time as an absolute necessity without which nothing makes sense.
And the criteria for making sense is your present understanding -- which may drastically change when new insights come (if you allow for them).


Even if you were to say that to a god everything appears to occur at the same instant - even then isn't that single instant an example of time?

If we consider ourselves bound by time, in time, then I think we are not competent to make predictions about how an entity that is not bound by time would regard time.


One simply cannot refer to anything occurring if time is not involved.

If you firmly believe so, then so it is!

Water,

If you firmly believe so, then so it is! Well, no I don't, but I can't perceive a meaningful alternative. While we can glibly talk of something existing outside of time, just what does that mean? The nature of everything we understand and can define rests on time being present. While I can imagine how gods might exist I cannot perceive of a condition where time would not exist. It defies definition of any type as far as I can see. So I would genuinely like to see someone show otherwise.

Water,

And why should we think that the Peano Postulates are true? Because they are self-evident and fully defined as part of the proof.