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.

[Nelson]

Firstly, how nice of you to completely circumvent me when I post an argument from an academic source.

The argument, or at least the thing you cited, was nonsensical and absurd. It makes me think of Monty Python.

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.

You argue on topics using faulty interpretations of certain concepts, and you continue to use these interpretations and as soon as someone shows you your error you ignore it or you fail to see your error for you continue to use those faulty interpretations. Because of that I give you advice. If you think my theological knowledge is sub-par to discuss the bible you can say so. However there are great differences between theology, and neuroscience and evolutionary psychology in how things are studied, and there are certain basic concepts which you don't seem to grasp properly.

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.

This transcendental argument has been discussed time and time again on the forums in various threads and it has been countered. I'm not going to wander through the desert for forty years going in circles through all these arguments.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The argument, or at least the thing you cited, was nonsensical and absurd. It makes me think of Monty Python.

Wrong. Read it again. It is peer reviewed, published, and widely accepted. Just because the examples sound comedic, does not remove the underlying point. IE that there is no reason to trust the output of our brains, and many other possible outputs could explain the same scenarios to us in different ways.

Because of that I give you advice. If you think my theological knowledge is sub-par to discuss the bible you can say so. However there are great differences between theology, and neuroscience and evolutionary psychology in how things are studied, and there are certain basic concepts which you don't seem to grasp properly.

I'm not discussing neuroscience in the regard you are describing. Answer these questions directly

1. Do you believe our brains are the product of the same natural processes as the rest of the universe?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then why do you expect our brains to produce rationality or truth, when there is no physical principle that requires that truth emerges.

This transcendental argument has been discussed time and time again on the forums in various threads and it has been countered.

No it hasn't. People have attempted to counter it by trying to distract the question in various ways into scientific avenues not directly related, but it has not been answered.

[Nelson]

IE that there is no reason to trust the output of our brains, and many other possible outputs could explain the same scenarios to us in different ways.

I disagree on the basis of what I've learned after years of studying neuroscience. Not going into detail here because I don't really give a rat's ass any more. Reading the same bit of text doesn't make it less absurd and nonsensical.

1. Do you believe our brains are the product of the same natural processes as the rest of the universe?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then why do you expect our brains to produce rationality or truth, when there is no physical principle that requires that truth emerges.

I've already answered these questions, if you want my answer, it's somewhere on this forum. As I said, I'm not going to go round in circles again, we've been through this. If you want to read a great story about people going around in circles for forty years, I think there's one in the book called Exodus.

[Wayne Dirac]

I'd like to point out that evolutionary psychology is one of the most bogus sciences out there. It is based almost entirely on conjecture with no actual empirical evidence.

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

http://io9.com/5613020/evolutionary-psychologist-under-investigatio...

http://www.badscience.net/category/evolutionary-psychology/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/200906/evolutionary-ps... (This one might be a bit racy for more sensible folk. That is, there is an image of a woman's naked behind.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/19/why-do-we-rape-kil...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=2

The bottom line is that evolutionary psychology is hardly a bedrock of scientific knowledge. EP is more like theology then you care to admit.

[Michelle, SleekHare]

I look mostly to the second law of thermodynamics: the natural tendency is entropy, chaos.  "Death."  It requires "extra" energy to produce order.  What causes/caused the machine of life - or, in other words, order?

Hypothetically, lightening struck in some rolly-cloudy sphere and carbon began bonding to things in all manner of ways, eventually creating cells.  But these carbon-based objects require order to exist, require consumption of additional energy to get and stay rolling.  Before they give into the natural order of things - death - they reproduce and continue the cycle.  We know - or believe - that, regardless of how it all started, now only cells create cells.

So what created the spark? What drives the desire to consume, regurgitate, reproduce, and continue on?  Is it really only the simple interactions of electron spheres with each other?

Maybe we'll find our definite answer when/if we fully understand the fabric of space. Slippery little devil.

For now, I would personally feel arrogant to demand proof or disproof of a God.  The existence of order is enough for me to assume there is, or at least was, a Creator.  But it is just that, an assumption.  Perhaps if those who insisted the world is flat - with no possibility of being anything but - had opened their minds a bit more, we'd be even closer to understanding the nature of our existence.

I think it's more important that we take an honest and objective look at the world around us.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I can maintain a concise approach here because it can be described this simply: The second law of thermodynamics states that 'the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease'. The Earth is not an isolated system.

BUT The universe is. This was my argument. The fact that you did not bother to read this is rather frustrating. Your argument works for the Earth, but not for the universe as a whole. Life is part of the universe.

And anyway, you are between a rock and a hard place. Logically you cannot win. Either you accept that A) Thermodynamics is inaccurate, and that entropy is decreasing in the case of life or B) Thermodynamics is accurate, in which case life is chaos, which means all parts of it are chaos including your brain, thus you have no more reason to trust the output of your brain, than you do the movement of the molecules of air in the wind. There is no more order there. You may perceive order, but it is not real.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Your understanding is hopelessly flawed and you would do well to educate yourself further on this subject.

Just saying that is A) Massively patronising unless you have reasoning and B) not an argument. I could equally say the same thing. Go away and educate yourself and you will see that I am right. There, I said it. Now I suppose you're response will be "but I have done and you're wrong" and my response would be "prove it". 

And yet more arm-waving about trusting our brains! I have run out of patience with such an argument. 'Logically you cannot win'. Tish, pshaw and old wet fish. I will simply comment on your first paragraph and have done.

I did in fact read your statement but, as I said, your understanding is flawed. The universe is indeed an isolated system within which entropy increases. The Earth represents a closed/open system (depending on your descriptive basis) which does not violate the second law. How you manage to completely misunderstand this application of a scientific principle is baffling.

How can the universe see entropy increasing always if life exists within it? If we decrease entropy (which we do, since we both behave creating order, and life itself resists entropy), then explain how the rule "Entropy always increases" can be true, if there is a case within the universe where it does not?

[Fake Crowley]

I'm not sure I understand.

 

Are you arguing that if entropy exists, then life cannot exist?

 

I would like some evidence, please, if this is the case.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Life is the opposite of entropy, matter is re-arranged into a more ordered form. This is happening within the universe, which is a closed system, therefore entropy is being breached within a closed system.

[Fake Crowley]

Evidence for the impossibility of coexistance please.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The law of thermodynamics which states that ALL matter will move from a state of order to chaos. Entropy.

[Fake Crowley]

Really, now.

 

Well, I was going to go throw a ball with my dad, but unfortunately gravity exists. Since apparently there's no such thing as some forces counteracting other forces, such as the upwards momentum of a ball briefly overwhelming the force of gravity such as to make the ball fly through the air, I guess we have to stay inside.

 

Sarcasm aside, yeah, it's not like the only law of physics is thermodynamics. The universe does what it does. Sometimes an object in motion doesn't stay in motion on account of forces acting upon it, ye ken?