Evidence that God is real

[DaveC426913]

and the value of zero is what?

Zero.

Just like the value of one is ... one.

It's countable and usable. See above bank account example.

Notice, by the way, that it can arbitrarily be swapped with any other number simply with an offset.

If I start my measurement at the edge of a 4 inch brick, its near edge is zero and its far edge is 4 inches.
If I decide to start my measurement elsewhere, say, 2 inches away, then - without having changed anything at all - my measurements are (zero plus 2)=2 and (4 plus 2)=6.
Magic?
No. Zero is a number on the number line, like any other number.

What is at the exact center of mass?
a zero point...
So yes a non-value zero point exists but actually ...uhm...it doesn't

The same thing could be said about the exact end of a 12" ruler. Or a 36" ruler. Or, in fact, any number at all.

Are you now going to tell me that rulers don't really exist because we have difficulty measuring where exactly the mark is?


This is drifting off-topic. Especially having been debunked and thus not germane to the topic.

 

[iceaura]

No such place as a spiritual realm

No such "place" as the quantum realm either, then. Or the biological realm, for that matter.

So BELIEF in a spiritual realm puts it in the supernatural camp.

People "believing in" things does not make them supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about a logical level of pattern one up from conscious thought, for example.

If they do not believe the spiritual realm has anthropomorphic occupants fine

Supernatural ones. Nothing happens in defiance of natural law or physical reality, to illustrate.

Class as a quasi religion

Taoism and Buddhism and Animisms are religions or categories of religions.

 

[James R]

Ok...I'll take a controversial approach and ask the science and math guys here a leading question or two.
q. What is the most important single digit number in mathematics?
a. zero
q. can you provide evidence that zero is real and exists?
a. no but we use it every day
q. What is at the center of everything?
a. A zero point. Center of mass, middle point ( oblique reference to Buddhism )
q. can you provide evidence that central to everything zero point is real and exists?
a. No but we know where it is approximately. ( infinite reduction-ism)
q. Could God exist yet never be proven to exist as with the zero point?
a. ?

Nobody here is disputing that God exists as a concept or idea, in a similar way to the concept or idea of zero.

My question is, rather, whether there is anything in the real world that points to God being something other than a mere idea or concept.

In the context of that question, certain claims - such as that mental states or subjective experiences are evidence that God is real - are problematic.

 

[Michael 345]

No such "place" as the quantum realm either, then. Or the biological realm, for that matter.

So quantum effects happen where? Biological entities reside where?

People "believing in" things does not make them supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about a logical level of pattern one up from conscious thought, for example.

Correct

However
BELIEF in a SPIRITUAL realm puts it in the supernatural camp

Taoism and Buddhism and Animisms are religions or categories of religions.

Category - Quasi

If you, or anyone, want to define them in another category fine - claim Humpty Dumpty

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nobody here is disputing that God exists as a concept or idea, in a similar way to the concept or idea of zero.

My question is, rather, whether there is anything in the real world that points to God being something other than a mere idea or concept.

In the context of that question, certain claims - such as that mental states or subjective experiences are evidence that God is real - are problematic.

Ah! I thought this thread was about providing evidence of God and as you know it really depends on how or what a God is defined as.

• Dependency
• Central
• Immutable
• Omni present
  
• Values

Dependency:
To me the God of mathematics is zero. It also, as is the theist version, can not be shown to exist yet all mathematics depends on the non-existence of zero for it's order and function.
So a criteria of dependency is met, in that mathematics, physics etc requires zero as a point of relativity. ie. 10-10 = 0 so 10 =10. With out zero the value 10 would be meaningless and entirely abstract.
In physics
eg. If zero existed absolute rest would be possible for example. In fact one could seriously argue that the universes constant movement is dependent on zero (nothingness, void, etc) not existing.
eg. When assessing a teeter point when balancing a pencil on it's tip it is obvious that the pencil will move constantly around the zero point balance center. If the zero point existed the pencil would find balance.
We as humans are dependent on the relation between zero and "something" for order, consistency, and value etc.
Central:
The center of anything exists. There is no doubt that this is true. However the very point of center is impossible to evidence or prove due to infinite reductionism. (remember ... no absolute rest in this universe)
It is worth noting that zero , void, Nirvana etc play a significant role in Eastern philosophy. Essentially to become one with nothing is to become one with every thing : ie. x + (-x) = 0
or to become one with nothing is to become one with God. ( Nirvana) (re: Soma cave meditations etc) as per Eastern Philosophy or the subject of death in Western Philosophy.
"When you die what do you become?"
"Nothing" ( zero) but 0= everything.... see?

Immutable:
Zero or nothing is unchanging, unchangeable and impervious to imperfections, corruption etc.
Is it always so and has and will always be so. Utterly constant - universally

and because zero is such, there can only be one zero no matter how often it is used.... 0=0+0-0/0= 0

Omni Present:
A zero point can be described any where any time and in any circumstance. Yet it both exists as an abstraction and exists as a real phenomena yet can not be proven so. because it has no material effect than can be measured other than zero.

Values:
All values are relative to nothing, zero.

One could conclude that zero is fundamentally important and as zero = everything x+(-)x = 0 zero could be said to equal God.

If you believe in nothing then you believe in God.... ( chuckles)

The only thing missing is sentience....

so we get back to defining what exactly is God.

My question is, rather, whether there is anything in the real world that points to God being something other than a mere idea or concept.

well zero seems to be more than just an idea or concept as it exists at the center of everything.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There is also the concept that God can only be proven by "his"effect but not by his cause. Simply put he doesn't exist except by his effect. Approximately 75 % of the world population worship a divine being, most pray every day. That is one hell of an effect if you ask me.

 

[James R]

QQ:

Ah! I thought this thread was about providing evidence of God and as you know it really depends on how or what a God is defined as.

I have written many times that for the purposes of the thread I am happy for theists to define their God if they feel the need to use a specific definition in order to provide evidence.

I think your discussion is of zero is off topic for this thread. I also disagree with some of mathematical content and its supposed application to physics of much of what you wrote about zero, but we can discuss those things in a separate thread if you want to start one. A few brief comments follow, relating to the thread topic.

Zero or nothing is unchanging, unchangeable and impervious to imperfections, corruption etc.
Is it always so and has and will always be so. Utterly constant - universally

This is a nice idea and all, but nothing in this says that "zero" exists, other than as a concept.

well zero seems to be more than just an idea or concept as it exists at the center of everything.

I don't see how, even if you try to define it that way.

There is also the concept that God can only be proven by "his"effect but not by his cause. Simply put he doesn't exist except by his effect.

But that's exactly what I'm asking about in this thread. What are the effects of God? Are there any objective effects?

Approximately 75 % of the world population worship a divine being, most pray every day. That is one hell of an effect if you ask me.

Right, but it is an effect of God, or of something else? You haven't made any link between people wanting to worship and the existence of a real God, yet.

People can and do become attached to or fixated on ideas and concepts, often. But that needn't reflect on the reality of the content of those ideas. For example, lots of people believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, but there's no actual evidence of that. It's more an article of faith, analogous to religious belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is also the concept that God can only be proven by "his"effect but not by his cause. Simply put he doesn't exist except by his effect. Approximately 75 % of the world population worship a divine being, most pray every day. That is one hell of an effect if you ask me.

Using much the same argument that would show that homoeopathy is genuine - 7.5 billion dollars spent on such "remedies" in the US alone in last year.
I.e. it's not a valid argument (especially since there are undoubtedly other factors that could account for that belief, not to mention that the worship/ belief of that 75% is spread amongst numerous - and sometimes incompatible - "gods").

 

[Write4U]

There is also the concept that God can only be proven by "his"effect but not by his cause. Simply put he doesn't exist except by his effect. Approximately 75 % of the world population worship a divine being, most pray every day. That is one hell of an effect if you ask me.

I would not attribute worship as an effect of God's existence, but rather in spite of non-existence. It's an effect of people's desire to have purpose and meaning in life. Reaching for heaven..

 

[Quantum Quack]

For God to provably exist does he have to be sentient?

 

[Write4U]

For God to provably exist does he have to be sentient?

False question.
By that definition Mathematics IS God. It is provable that the universe functions in accordance with certain specific rules. If not required to be sentient the concept of a mathematical universe is a perfect equal replacement for God.
But rather than incorporating mathematics into a concept of God theists argue that God can break his own mathematical laws.
As there is no evidence of such a thing having demonstrably occurred in the history and total sum of our knowledge of the universe, then there exists a contradiction.

If we can detect evidence of a universal mathematical function, then we should be able to detect evidence of sentient tampering with mathematical functions. If not, there can be only one conclusion. God is not acting sentiently, but implacably.

But that contradicts the notion that God must be sentient because if God is not sentient, religion (worship) becomes moot.

But the concept of a sentiently motivated supernatural creator is beyond my imagination.
And I do not lack imagination. It just doesn't make sense at all.

There is only evidence of belief in God, but belief is not evidence. I prefer the logic of pseudo-intelligent "mathematical" functions in converting universal potential into physical reality, or "regular patterns". It's simple and direct. And it meets Occam's Razor.

 

[iceaura]

BELIEF in a SPIRITUAL realm puts it in the supernatural camp

No, it doesn't.
The examples are right in front of you - various spiritual realms, such as the classical Taoist and Zen Buddhist and some Animist (and possibly the more sophisticated Navajo, etc - it's a long list) that do not necessarily include any supernatural entities, aspects, or attributes. This is part of observed reality, "rationally substantiated" up the wazoo.

If you, or anyone, want to define them in another category fine - claim Humpty Dumpty

I and afaik every single dictionary, encyclopedia, and related authority on the planet.
If you want to discuss the evidence (or lack thereof) for a real existence of some God without discussing religion in general and atheistic religion in particular, of course you have a thread right here.
My only goal is to remove the bodies of evidence for Zen enlightenment, the Tao, insights into the higher order patterns of the living or biological world, and similar spiritual considerations, from their potential roles in providing evidence for the real existence of a God.

 

[Michael 345]

My only goal is to remove the bodies of evidence for Zen enlightenment, the Tao, insights into the higher order patterns of the living or biological world, and similar spiritual considerations, from their potential roles in providing evidence for the real existence of a God.

My only goal is to remove the bodies of evidence for Zen enlightenment

Pray tell what bodies of evidence are there and what enlightenment has been obtained?

Is it somewhat like

• Newton and Gravity or
• Arcamedies principal perhaps
• CERN and the Higgs boson even

insights into the higher order patterns of the living or biological world

Please list such insights

from their potential roles in providing evidence for the real existence of a God

If someone is trying to use a non existent spiritual realm to prove a non existent god I would be in awe of them if they pulled it off

 

[iceaura]

Pray tell what bodies of evidence are there and what enlightenment has been obtained?

Doesn't matter here. If there are none, then no problem - right?

If someone is trying to use a non existent spiritual realm to prove a non existent god I would be in awe of them if they pulled it off

Then you will of course welcome the stronger claim: that not even an existent spiritual realm can be simply invoked even as evidence - let alone proof - of the existence of a God.

 

[Michael 345]

Doesn't matter here. If there are none, then no problem - right?

So you have no bodies of evidence to remove?

Got it

Your job is done

Then you will of course welcome the stronger claim: that not even an existent spiritual realm can be simply invoked even as evidence - let alone proof - of the existence of a God.

If something exists, even if closely related to what you are looking for to exist, does not logically follow what you are looking for exist

Proof of the existence of anything is the detection of the thing you are looking for



Breakfast and coffee time

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ:


I have written many times that for the purposes of the thread I am happy for theists to define their God if they feel the need to use a specific definition in order to provide evidence.

I think your discussion is of zero is off topic for this thread. I also disagree with some of mathematical content and its supposed application to physics of much of what you wrote about zero, but we can discuss those things in a separate thread if you want to start one. A few brief comments follow, relating to the thread topic.


This is a nice idea and all, but nothing in this says that "zero" exists, other than as a concept.


I don't see how, even if you try to define it that way.


But that's exactly what I'm asking about in this thread. What are the effects of God? Are there any objective effects?


Right, but it is an effect of God, or of something else? You haven't made any link between people wanting to worship and the existence of a real God, yet.

People can and do become attached to or fixated on ideas and concepts, often. But that needn't reflect on the reality of the content of those ideas. For example, lots of people believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, but there's no actual evidence of that. It's more an article of faith, analogous to religious belief.

Firstly, thank you for your response.
Secondly, perhaps I have over reached, and should have learned by now that attempting to explain complex issues is best left to some other media.

 

[Quantum Quack]

False question.

Why is it false?
Why is an attempt to clarify the burden of proof such a problem for you?
It appears obvious that sentience is mandatory in the context of this thread. I wish to confirm that this is the case.

By that definition Mathematics IS God. It is provable that the universe functions in accordance with certain specific rules. If not required to be sentient the concept of a mathematical universe is a perfect equal replacement for God.
But rather than incorporating mathematics into a concept of God theists argue that God can break his own mathematical laws.

What do you mean by the term "Theist"?
Yes I agree, the logic that mathematics (logic shorthand) attempts to emulate, is present innately, intuitively, in what is being observed.

As there is no evidence of such a thing having demonstrably occurred in the history and total sum of our knowledge of the universe, then there exists a contradiction.

So you believe that man kind has discovered all the logic it needs to discover?
That if an anomaly is observed that defies our current logical emulation it would be considered as a "contradiction"?
see a list of unsolved science problems.
Example:
What is consciousness?
What is/was Dark flow?
What is life?

Do you honestly believe that your current emulation of the logic found, so far, in the universe is sufficient to address the really big questions such as "ex-nihilo" ( pre big bang)?
If so, good luck with that...
IMO the often misinterpreted Zeno of Elea proved logically that a fundamental paradox exists. Heisenberg then came to win a Nobel for his Uncertainty Principle in 1932 based on the logic demonstrated by Zeno.
Until Physics can accommodate this paradox and understand why it is essential to universal function we are just swimming in paradoxical circles IMO.

If we can detect evidence of a universal mathematical function, then we should be able to detect evidence of sentient tampering with mathematical functions. If not, there can be only one conclusion. God is not acting sentiently, but implacably.

well you know the ole saying "if someone doesn't wish to be found...." especially if that someone is smart enough to diddle his own mathematics universally.

But that contradicts the notion that God must be sentient because if God is not sentient, religion (worship) becomes moot.

In the context of your preconceptions I would agree, however your view of what is worshiped is possibly a tad too narrow.

But the concept of a sentiently motivated supernatural creator is beyond my imagination.

Except perhaps when you look in the mirror and see someone seeking to become that supreme being every time you exercise your creativity...

And I do not lack imagination. It just doesn't make sense at all.

Years a go a great thinking member of sciforums ( where abouts unknown) asked the question:
"Why do humans worship God?"
My answer was :
They worship a Sentient God because they worship them selves. A sentient God is only a reflection of our own ego. Self aggrandizement, self serving, self dependent.
Why create a God to worship?
The more you know yourself the more you know the mysterious God in the mirror.
People simply don't know them selves well enough.

There is only evidence of belief in God, but belief is not evidence. I prefer the logic of pseudo-intelligent "mathematical" functions in converting universal potential into physical reality, or "regular patterns". It's simple and direct. And it meets Occam's Razor.

as I suggested my response would be that belief in a sentient God is only belief in unknown self.
The more you know yourself the more intuitive "God " becomes, intuitive intelligence leaving the sentient function to your self.

 

[James R]

If we can detect evidence of a universal mathematical function, then we should be able to detect evidence of sentient tampering with mathematical functions.

In his novel Contact, Carl Sagan put forward the idea of a message from God hidden in the digits of the number $$\pi$$. In the novel, if you looked at the appropriate digits of pi (a few billion decimal places down, say), with the right choice of base, you'd find a series of zeros and ones that made a picture of a circle.

This strikes me as a rather neat trick of the kind that a subtle Creator might use to prove his existence to his Creation. After all, who else would have the ability to insert a meaningful message into a fundamental constant of mathematics?

Connecting with reality for a moment, we know pi to lots of decimal places. Last year, pi was calculated to 22,459,157,718,361 digits, for example. That's 22 trillion!

Tests have also be run on those digits, just in case. The result is that, as far as we can tell so far, the digits of pi look random, which is to say that they follow no pattern except that of pi itself.

Reference:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...with-9-trillion-more-digits-than-ever-before/

 

[iceaura]

So you have no bodies of evidence to remove?

I did. If they came up as an issue. That's why the posts.

Proof of the existence of anything is the detection of the thing you are looking for

Evidence, not proof, is at issue - as in most questions of real existence.

If you agree that the existence of a logical level of pattern, realm of existence, aspect of reality, etc, normally called "spiritual" or "transcendent" or whatever, does not of itself provide evidence of the real existence of a God, then great. My experience has been that forestalling such an argument can save some work.

It also rescues one from the trap of asserting an implausible and poorly explanatory and wholly arbitrary oversimplified "materialism" as somehow a necessary presumption of science and reason. Needing a miracle to explain free will, for example, is a trap only a fundie should fall into.

 

[Michael 345]

My experience has been that forestalling such an argument can save some work.

My experience has been the goal post are moved or you get told you a playing a different game and the rules of your game (reality) do not apply to our game (supernatural)

No shite Sherlock

So what are the rules of your supernatural game

Well you need to play the game first before we tell you the rules

OK so I ........??????

Well if you don't know how to play the game you are never going to know the rules

Well I guess I will just rely on reality

Do that and you will never go to heaven and will burn for all eternity in the pits of hell which you deserve for not playing the game

Rant over

Lunch time