Prove god?

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

I have been an atheist for a while and have always been looking for an argument that will prove the existence of A GOD. A GOD is in all caps to show that I am not looking for you to prove the christian god or the greek gods, all i want is proof of the existence of a higher power that created all things. He does not have to be a moral being, nor does he have to give to craps about his creation. I just want someone to prove that he is there (I use he because in the English language we assume masculine when no gender is put forth). So anyone of any background of any knowledge level go for it. 

Oh and as a side note, yes you do have to prove that god is there, i don't have to prove he is not. It is like asking someone to prove that a dragon exists when the dragon will become undetectable the minute a person looks at is. The same is true for god. He does not exist in our plane of being as I have been told oh so many times and therefore cannot be detected in any way. So don't come in here and say that I have to prove that there is no god. That is for another debate.

[Wayne Dirac]

Are you kidding? They are incredibly finely tuned. First off, you have to guess at what earth's prebiotic conditions were, and then you have to simulate that in a lab where you have painstakingly ensured there is no contamination of any kind, and even then you can really only make good conclusions with 90% confidence rate at best in most biological experiments. Self assembly is not the same thing as replication, and that is the crux of the whole thing. You provided an example of self assembling molecules, but self replicating molecules is an entirely different matter.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It is not a violation of that law. Complex molecules will form and brake apart over and over again with the infusion of external energy. The stars privide ample amount of such energy.

And where do the stars get that energy? If you limit your analysis to this planet, then yes, but thermodynamics is a universal law, which then raises the question, why do we see ANY increase in order anywhere at all, when the physical trend is towards disorder as it should be everywhere.

[Eystein,]

I don't know where energy comes from, anymore than I know where space comes from. Saying God made it doesn't explain anything.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm not claiming that it does, but here is the point. You must agree that for order to exist breaks the law of thermodynamics, from a universal perspective. If you then say "but there must be energy that comes from somewhere else" you are acting on faith. Faith that the scientific world view will prove you right in the end. You are basing your faith on past experiences, but that is no different from the religious person, who bases their faith on past experiences of their own, of from their history. Without an external source of energy to the universe, life breaks the second law of themodynamics.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'll make this even more concise.

Why not?

A simple appeal to authority isn't enough. Provide an argument. All the responses I find say "The sun provides energy into the system" but it doesn't explain how life fits in when you consider the system to be "the universe".  

[Wayne Dirac]

Thonoir I submit that perhaps your understanding of the scientific concept of the second law of thermodynamics is lacking. I am not aware of any definitive scientific theory as to the exact origins of life. So to say that life does not violate the law of entropy is invalid because you have no idea how life began. You are simply assuming that life had to start in some way that doesn't violate the second law because there has never been a recorded incident where the second law was violated. Also, when you start saying things like the second law doesn't apply because this instance is not really an isolated system, and there is no true equilibrium, well then the second law can never apply to anything because you can never really have a truly isolated system.

In summation: either explain the exact kinetics that sparked the engine of life without violating the second law of thermodynamics, or allow for other possibilities.  

[Wayne Dirac]

Indeed, not understanding the origins of life does not mean you do not understand thermodynamics. This is true. But I feel that vertigo has a good enough grasp of the science to feel that life cannot be sufficiently explained with current models.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You can't deny the neuroscientific evidence that the brain encodes information in a non-objective way.

I'm not talking about the coding. I'm talking about the infomation itself.

And why should a naturalist brain not be suited to perceive truth? In order to survive the outside world needs to be represented truthfully, and that generally does happen, albeit non-objectively.

Because it only needs information in so far as it requires to survive. It may not need to know the truth to do this. I'd recomend you read Alvin Plantagina on that point.

Higher mammals have been shown to be self-aware and to have (rudimentary) theory of mind. This is especially true in social animals such as apes, who also show tool-use. There is much more to our survival and intelligence than just advanced tool building, and I think there's the flaw in your argument. Humans and their ancestors have pretty much always lived in groups and over time these groups have become larger and larger and increasingly complex which needs sufficient social intelligence, which also means self-awareness.

Yes, but we do not need self awareness to the point of realising our existence is futile. Or to develop the capacity for irrationality.

[Nelson]

I'm not talking about the coding. I'm talking about the infomation itself.

You really have to elaborate on that because you're not making very much sense as to what you mean and I'm unable to place this anywhere in the context of what we've discussed thus far.

Because it only needs information in so far as it requires to survive. It may not need to know the truth to do this. I'd recomend you read Alvin Plantagina on that point.

I was talking about truthful representation of information. There are enough reliable models in neuroscience that show how computation of information happens and how learning happens, because simply having the information is not enough and that's just not what happens. See temporal difference learning and dopamine circuits. Granted, this is not about absolute truth, but it shows how our brains are tuned to perceive and compute information and use this to build reliable and truthful representations of the world around us.

Also please refer me to specific works, because having to plough through a philosopher's entire works is a bit too much effort for a discussion like this.

Yes, but we do not need self awareness to the point of realising our existence is futile. Or to develop the capacity for irrationality.

What we 'need' and what we get from evolution are two entirely different things. You're still talking from that engineer point of view. Also keep in mind how much spare time we have as humans to realise this. Irrationality has actually been shown to be valuable with regard to making choices.

Any examples on animals by the way?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You really have to elaborate on that because you're not making very much sense as to what you mean and I'm unable to place this anywhere in the context of what we've discussed thus far.

Neuroscience only shows us how the infomation is coded. It doesn't show us whether the infomation is itself true. Because we are using our own brains, we have (in a natrualistic world) no more reason to take their output seriously than we do using any other natural process and expecting it will reveal truth

Also please refer me to specific works, because having to plough through a philosopher's entire works is a bit too much effort for a discussion like this.

Plantinga, Alvin Warrant and Proper Function, (New York: Oxford University Press), 1993. pp. 225-226

Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief... Or perhaps he thinks the tiger is a large, friendly, cuddly pussycat and wants to pet it; but he also believes that the best way to pet it is to run away from it... Clearly there are any number of belief-desire systems that equally fit a given bit of behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

Any examples on animals by the way?

Chimpanzees have been shown to use basic tools. I would have thought it was a simple matter of scaling up from there.

[Nelson]

Neuroscience only shows us how the infomation is coded. It doesn't show us whether the infomation is itself true. Because we are using our own brains, we have (in a natrualistic world) no more reason to take their output seriously than we do using any other natural process and expecting it will reveal truth

And we're back at this point again. We have discussed this before and I'm not going to discuss it again. Circular discussions etc.

Chimpanzees have been shown to use basic tools. I would have thought it was a simple matter of scaling up from there.

And Chimpanzees have shown to be self-aware and have theory of mind. Humans in primitive cultures (hunter gatherer tribes) also show only rudimentary tool use and similarly rudimentary self-awareness compared to us WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) people. Also please read back on the social animal things.

All I feel I'm constantly doing is explaining basic concepts from neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and similar subjects in respond to faulty interpretations and assumptions, and to correct them. I've got better things to do with my time than that, so please, might I be so bold as to suggest you take some courses on these topics to further your understanding of them.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

All I feel I'm constantly doing is explaining basic concepts from neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and similar subjects in respond to faulty interpretations and assumptions, and to correct them. I've got better things to do with my time than that, so please, might I be so bold as to suggest you take some courses on these topics to further your understanding of them.

Firstly, how nice of you to completely circumvent me when I post an argument from an academic source. Secondly, how nice of you to patronise me by demanding I go "take some courses". I have an idea. Why don't you go and read all the theological works of C.S.Lewis and Alvin Plantinga, and while you're at it, do some basic reading on theology. Then come back to me. After all, if you find it acceptable to brush someone off in that way, then clearly you can't complain.

And we're back at this point again. We have discussed this before and I'm not going to discuss it again. Circular discussions etc.

The reason I am back to the naturalistic argument is that you didn't refute it before. I'll quote you C.S.Lewis's basic argument.

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears... unless Reason is an absolute[,] all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based."

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

The following is a quote from the Wiki explaining this

The argument against materialism holds:

1. For an assertion to be capable of truth or falsehood it must come from a rational source (see explanation below).
2. No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitutes a rational source. (i.e. anti-panpsychism)
3. Therefore, no assertion that is true or false can come from a merely physical source.
4. The assertions of human minds are capable of truth or falsehood

• Conclusion: Therefore, human minds are not a merely physical source (see explanation below).

The argument for the existence of God holds:

• (5) A being requires a rational process to assess the truth or falsehood of a claim (hereinafter, to be convinced by argument).
• (6) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a rational source.
• (7) Therefore, considering element two above, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, their reasoning processes must have a non-physical (as well as rational) source.
• (8) Rationality cannot arise out of non-rationality. That is, no arrangement of non-rational materials creates a rational thing.
• (9) No being that begins to exist can be rational except through reliance, ultimately, on a rational being that did not begin to exist. That is, rationality does not arise spontaneously from out of nothing but only from another rationality.
• (10) All humans began to exist at some point in time.
• (11) Therefore, if humans are able to be convinced by argument, there must be a necessary and rational being on which their rationality ultimately relies.
• Conclusion: This being we call God.