Proof that God exists

[Whateverist]

I find much of what you've written encouraging. I suspect we'll have plenty of common ground semantically from the look of it. But it is late and I've got to get to sleep now. I'm babysitting my niece and nephew through tomorrow night so I don't know when I will be back to this but I hope not to forget to do so. If I do, please don't hesitate to give this post a bump or PM me then.

From a quick skim it looks like you agree that if a god there be it will need to work within natural law, that it doesn't decide natural law in any arbitrary way and if indeed 'god' has created anything it was as a clever craftsperson, not a magic man. Supernatural as not yet understood natural - good. Also, great that you are able to cop to agnosticism as someone with a theistic bent, it will be your salvation.

---

I am very dubious regarding any inference from the empirical to the supernatural.  Filling gaps in our understanding with speculation that it may be the result of a consciousness for which everything in our universe is but an arbitrary notion seems silly on the face of it.

I suspect that is by design

How to handle your comment actually gave me a lot of pause.  I suppose what arises most prominently is my curiosity concerning how you define supernatural.  I think, before we can have a meaningful exchange of ideas, we first must have consistent and agreeable definitions.

I mentioned somewhere in this sea of words that I was of the opinion that the supernatural is merely a more complicated and yet-unknown aspect of the natural.  If you prefer to put some other spin on it, then that's ok, but let me know if, say, you desire to define it as synonymous with or having added connotations of "magical" or "logically ridiculous" or similar so that we can be consistent in our conveyance.

There are many definitions to choose from:

adjective
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

noun
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

I find that many internet disagreements can be traced to semantics.

Just to reiterate, I believe the distinction between "natural", "artificial" and "supernatural" is an artificial distinction.  Everything that exists, whether known or unknown, is natural.  In order to have a true artificial or supernatural thing, it would have to visit from some other universe and that's taking lots of liberty with fanciful assumption.  Further, if something could visit from another universe, then it would simply mean we defined our universe incorrectly since, obviously, the two universes are one.

As an example, dark matter could be considered supernatural because it fits the dictionary definition of being "abnormal".  Additionally, it's unobservable and unexplainable by what we previously considered "natural phenomenon."  So it would seem what is supernatural is that which exists and what has not yet been properly observed, but it ultimately depends how we choose to define the word.

Next on my mind is: consciousness.  When you say it seems silly that everything is a notion of a consciousness, then what do you mean by consciousness?  If consciousness is just chemistry, then what's silly about it?  When we investigate the mind thoroughly, we invariably turn up with matter; when we investigate matter, we discover the mind because the outside world exists inside our heads, but our heads also exist in the outside world.  In other words, they're one.  Philosophers have quipped "What is mind?  Doesn't matter.  What is matter?  Nevermind." (or something like that.)

Finally, what do you mean by "everything"?  We can't make logically valid statements about everything because there is no reference point outside of everything by which to view everything.  For instance, if we say everything in the universe is moving, then our reference point has been defined to move as well and therefore there is no way to verify that everything is moving.  In order to say something is moving, we need a still reference point.  So to say that everything is a notion of consciousness would mean that we've included the consciousness in the everything and therefore the consciousness came from itself, which is ridiculous.  We could try putting the consciousness outside of the everything, but then that wouldn't be everything.  The best way to escape the bind is to conclude that the universe and consciousness are one and one didn't engender the other because the conscious and unconscious are two sides of the same coin.  We can't have a consciousness unless there is something to be conscious of.

Likewise to say that god created everything is invalid because god would have to create himself.  It's akin to saying the heads side of the coin created the tails when it's really codependent origination.  "On" doesn't create "off", but they arise together.  Mind/Matter, Conscious/Unconscious, Self/Other.  To have one before the other would be like having the north pole before the south.

A problem I suspect many folks may be having when contemplating the origins of the universe is the error in assuming that anything tangible actually exists.  The evidence so far strongly suggests that there are no such things as things and all matter is energy which is an oscillation.

I found 5 mins on this to be enlightening:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

Consider how a buckyball (a ball of 60 carbon atoms covalently linked) could travel through 2 slits at the same time and then interfere with itself like a wave would do.  https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo...2c39db8e7b

Do atoms touch? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TNJrTlbBQ )  What do we mean by "touch?"  We have to define it because there is no such thing as touch.

And quantum mechanics implies that nothing becomes what we call real until it is actually observed.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9KnrVlpqoM  Also have a look at 50:00 to 55:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6BuYK_PwQ

If we can't say for sure where things are until we actually observe them and if things do not exist except as an oscillation of energy, an illusion as it were, then is it less difficult to imagine this world as a notion?

Leonard Susskind (professor of theoretical physics at Stanford and atheist), "I'm inclined to think, yes, that the 3 dimensional world is a kind of illusion and that the ultimate precise reality is the 2 dimensional reality of the surface of the universe."  At 48:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHEPnQdlmRs

Time is a consequence of space because it takes time to move about and if travel were instantaneous, there could be no concept of space, but only an infinitesimally small point void of dimension.  Space must be a consequence of mass because near-massless things see no time or space and, for instance, even though it seemingly takes 13 billion years for light to reach us from the farthest galaxy, it was instant from the point of view of light.  Mass is a consequence of energy because m=E/c^2 and energy is a function of frequency (E=hf) and frequency is just +/- or one thing relative to another thing where neither of the two things can exist without the other because plus is defined as lack-of-minus and vice versa.

Time and space do not exist in what I'll call the ultimate reality because they're just a product of the relative interactions between the seemingly ubiquitous higgs field and localized energy that produces mass and the slowing of the movement through the medium which creates the illusion of time and space.

It's probably no coincidence that when we desire space, we shut off our phones.  The slowing of information creates space.

According to Alan Watts, there are 4 models of the universe:

1) The ceramic model where god is the potter who resides outside the universe, controlling everything.  This universe is built, constructed, assembled. (The Christian, Islamic, Judaic view)

2) The automatic model where the universe is an automatic machine.  The consequence of this model is that we are also machines following the same unguided process that governs the universe. (The scientific, atheistic view)

3) The organic model where the universe is an organism and we are simply aspects of that organism and any notion of our self as a self is just an illusion. (Buddhist view)

4) The dramatic model where the universe is a play and every person, animal, plant, rock, etc exist as roles acted-out by god, the self, Brahman, whatever.  (Hindu view)

I find the latter most fascinating because the Hindu would applaud the Christian for being entirely convinced he is not himself.. for being so utterly absorbed in the role he is playing that he is oblivious to who he really is... and that is the point.  In the beginning, god said "let's get lost".

(The etymology of the word "person" is very interesting: 1175-1225; Middle English persone < Latin persōna role (in life, a play, or a tale) ( Late Latin: member of the Trinity), orig. actor's mask.  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Dev...he_concept  The Latin word "persona" is per+sona which means "through sound".  The persona in Greco-Roman drama was the mask the actors wore and the mouth was shaped like a small megaphone (the phony).  The person is the mask.  A real person is a genuine fake... a phony.)

That view is seemingly consistent with what Christopher Hitchens said regarding the "playing with toys".  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n56u6omxeOs  "I hope I have made it clear that I am perfectly happy for people to have these toys and to play with them at home and hug them and share them with other people who come around and play with the toys, so that's absolutely fine; they are not to make me play with the toys.  I will not play with the toys.  Don't bring the toys to my house.  Don't say my children must play with these toys."  

It would seem that Christopher came to the conclusion that the religious are simply playing games that have no inherent importance other than being something to do and the Hindu would be in perfect agreement.  The Buddhist would add that the Christian never had a choice in the first place because he never existed and I suppose that the atheist would have to ultimately come to a similar conclusion that the Christian didn't have a choice because we're all part of a deterministic and automatic process.

When Christopher said we have freewill because we have no choice, I'm sure he was being silly, but I'm unable to discern what his true feelings were.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_TGNJfg0s

My take is: if we are determined, then we are seamlessly connected to the process of the determined universe that determines us and any notion of a "you" vanishes (central tenet of buddhism).  If there is no you, then obviously you can't have free will.  If there is a you, then likewise you can't be determined or there would be no you.  However, what if the universe is not determined as quantum mechanics implies?  Then we can't be determined, regardless if we exist, and must have an inherently unpredictable nature since we are ultimately part of the universe.

Another consequence of determinism is causality and that implies the existence of things and events because one event causes the next and so on.  That demands an infinite timeline or else there is a first event that had no cause.  In an infinite line of causality, anything that happens once never happens because anything with any probability of happening will happen infinite times; and if it doesn't happen infinite times, then it never happens.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_...nal_return

Therefore there are no things or events because causality can't be true, unless you're willing to conceded that you've read this infinitely many times before and are destined to read it infinitely many more.  Seems silly, but I'm guessing Nietzsche bought it (for those 'valuing' the appeal to authority argument).

(The objection to Nietzsche's line of thinking was clever, but obviously flawed because PI is infinitely long and undefinable meaning that such a contraption could never be made with the precision necessary to make it work.  Use any rational number and the wheels align infinite times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_re...g_argument )

Werner Heisenberg said "The first gulp of the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass god is waiting for you."  Of course, that brings us back to the 0% track record for accuracy in using god to explain things.  Then again, Einstein said, "It is a different question whether belief in a personal god should be contested. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life.”

So, the takeaway, I suppose, is to keep an open mind but be wary of too much rubbish being thrown in.  For that reason, I remain agnostic with a theist lean and by that I mean: I don't know, but I suspect not knowing is the point.

Sorry about the length, but I didn't have a choice   Besides, any proof of god would have to be ungodly long 

---