Proof that God exists

[GrandizerII]

What I'm struggling to convey is if the universe is fundamentally unknowable, then what the hell?!?  How does something exist that is impossible to figure out?

Why not? The universe owes us nothing. We're not that special.

[Agnosty]

What I'm struggling to convey is if the universe is fundamentally unknowable, then what the hell?!?  How does something exist that is impossible to figure out?

Why not? The universe owes us nothing. We're not that special.

Well, it's not just us, but it would be impossible to figure out by any being... including an omniscient god.  How does that exist?

[GrandizerII]

Why not? The universe owes us nothing. We're not that special.

Well, it's not just us, but it would be impossible to figure out by any being... including an omniscient god.  How does that exist?

Let's first establish that it is possible that there be an omniscient god. Then we can worry about how such an unknowable reality exists.

Furthermore, even if there was an omniscient god, must it know the unknowable rather than just know all knowables?

[Agnosty]

Well, it's not just us, but it would be impossible to figure out by any being... including an omniscient god.  How does that exist?

Let's first establish that it is possible that there be an omniscient god. Then we can worry about how such an unknowable reality exists.

Furthermore, even if there was an omniscient god, must it know the unknowable rather than just know all knowables?

That's not what I'm saying... I'm saying an omniscient god can't even know how the universe works, regardless if he exists.  Whether he exists is inconsequential to the point.  How can something exist that can't be known?  How does something like that come into being?  It's as if it had no cause... because if it had a cause, then it could be known.

Coin flips and lotteries are determined events because they're large in size and all outcomes are knowable, but on the quantum level, nothing is determined.  In other words, why a particle is found here or there has no causal mechanism... it just happens that way.  We have to figure that randomness won't lead to order because there is no mechanism for it, and if entropy means anything, it's that.  Yet ordering is what we see and that ordering is why we exist.  How does an ordered universe result from random noise?  And how does it sustain itself that way for 14 billion years?  It's just mindblowing... that's about all I'm saying.

[GrandizerII]

That's not what I'm saying... I'm saying an omniscient god can't even know how the universe works, regardless if he exists.  Whether he exists is inconsequential to the point.  How can something exist that can't be known?  How does something like that come into being?  It's as if it had no cause... because if it had a cause, then it could be known.

Ok, I'm confused about the insistence on such an objection. Is this based on something philosophers have a long history of arguing, or is this a personal objection of yours? If former, give me something to google, so I can understand better why the need for this objection.

Coin flips and lotteries are determined events because they're large in size and all outcomes are knowable, but on the quantum level, nothing is determined.  In other words, why a particle is found here or there has no causal mechanism... it just happens that way.  We have to figure that randomness won't lead to order because there is no mechanism for it, and if entropy means anything, it's that.  Yet ordering is what we see and that ordering is why we exist.  How does an ordered universe result from random noise?  And how does it sustain itself that way for 14 billion years?  It's just mindblowing... that's about all I'm saying.

That's assuming Copenhagen interpretation, no? What about deterministic ones, like the Many Worlds Interpretation?

[The Grand Nudger]

The text walls are too much.  Find some specific thing and make a thread.  You're expressing a far too elaborate set of misconceptions to deal with all at once.

Long story short, your "issues with biology" are not issues with biology. They are personal issues. Claims you insist upon about biology (and a host of other things) - asserted to be true and then held up as "problems".

(def pm me anytime you want to talk about plants, btw - I'm always down.)

[Agnosty]

That's not what I'm saying... I'm saying an omniscient god can't even know how the universe works, regardless if he exists.  Whether he exists is inconsequential to the point.  How can something exist that can't be known?  How does something like that come into being?  It's as if it had no cause... because if it had a cause, then it could be known.

Ok, I'm confused about the insistence on such an objection. Is this based on something philosophers have a long history of arguing, or is this a personal objection of yours? If former, give me something to google, so I can understand better why the need for this objection.

It's personal.  If you want something to read, maybe the last couple pages of this thread will help get inside my head.  Apart from that, all I know to do is reiterate what I've already said.

Coin flips and lotteries are determined events because they're large in size and all outcomes are knowable, but on the quantum level, nothing is determined.  In other words, why a particle is found here or there has no causal mechanism... it just happens that way.  We have to figure that randomness won't lead to order because there is no mechanism for it, and if entropy means anything, it's that.  Yet ordering is what we see and that ordering is why we exist.  How does an ordered universe result from random noise?  And how does it sustain itself that way for 14 billion years?  It's just mindblowing... that's about all I'm saying.

That's assuming Copenhagen interpretation, no? What about deterministic ones, like the Many Worlds Interpretation?

That's assuming the verified one.  Have a look at 50:00 to 55:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6BuYK_PwQ

Many worlds is deterministic?  I never gave it much thought because many worlds seems a giant waste of energy.

---

The text walls are too much.  Find some specific thing and make a thread.  You're expressing a far too elaborate set of misconceptions to deal with all at once.

Oh man that's a shame you feel that way.  I was looking forward to continued banter.  Oh well, if you change your mind and make a specific objection to what I've said, I'd be happy to elaborate on the point.  As far as my starting a thread, I don't know which point is of your interest.

Long story short, your "issues with biology" are not issues with biology.  They are personal issues.  Claims you insist upon about biology (and a host of other things) - asserted to be true and then held up as "problems".

You'd have to give me an example to illustrate what you mean.

(def pm me anytime you want to talk about plants, btw - I'm always down.)

I'll take you up on that!  

[GrandizerII]

That's assuming the verified one.  Have a look at 50:00 to 55:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6BuYK_PwQ

There is no verified interpretation of quantum mechanics. There's the conventional interpretation (Copenhagen) and there's the increasingly popular interpretation that more and more relevant experts are adhering to (Many Worlds).

What can be observed should be seen as distinct from the interpretations of what can be observed.

Many worlds is deterministic?  I never gave it much thought because many worlds seems a giant waste of energy.

Have you ever read or listened to Sean Carroll? If not, you should give him a try. He says it's quite the opposite. He argues that MWI is the simplest explanation of the quantum happenings.

[Agnosty]

That's assuming the verified one.  Have a look at 50:00 to 55:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k6BuYK_PwQ

There is no verified interpretation of quantum mechanics.

What I mean is the verified result of the experiment contained in the video.  I tend and try not to label things such as these interpretations mainly because I'm not a collectivist lol.  Even though I just labeled myself, I try not to.

There's the conventional interpretation (Copenhagen) and there's the increasingly popular interpretation that more and more relevant experts are adhering to (Many Worlds).

Probably because they're thinking in terms of cause and effect and are looking for a way out of the eternal recurrence problem and the "something from nothing" problem.  Anyway, I'm not sure how this affects the results of the experiment in the video.

What can be observed should be seen as distinct from the interpretations of what can be observed.

That's deep!

Many worlds is deterministic?  I never gave it much thought because many worlds seems a giant waste of energy.

Have you ever read or listened to Sean Carroll? If not, you should give him a try. He says it's quite the opposite. He argues that MWI is the simplest explanation of the quantum happenings.

I have seen him on some shows, but nothing specifically by him.

How is MWI the simplest explanation?  If it's simple, it should be easy to articulate

---

Here is Carroll's theory:

We suggest that spontaneous eternal inflation can provide a natural explanation for the thermodynamic arrow of time, and discuss the underlying assumptions and consequences of this view. In the absence of inflation, we argue that systems coupled to gravity usually evolve asymptotically to the vacuum, which is the only natural state in a thermodynamic sense. In the presence of a small positive vacuum energy and an appropriate inflaton field, the de Sitter vacuum is unstable to the spontaneous onset of inflation at a higher energy scale. Starting from de Sitter, inflation can increase the total entropy of the universe without bound, creating universes similar to ours in the process. An important consequence of this picture is that inflation occurs asymptotically both forwards and backwards in time, implying a universe that is (statistically) time-symmetric on ultra-large scales.  https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0410270

I have a lot of trouble with infinity and eternity and it seems some people make a religion out of it.

Never get into an argument about infinity with a mathematician because it never ends

[The Grand Nudger]

---

You'd have to give me an example to illustrate what you mean.

You mean -more- examples?   All that's done is send us down an insufferable rat-hole of the Theists Usual Objections To Everything™.  Have you ever considered the possibility that you're so fundamentally wrong about what you think evolutionary biology says or does that no opinion built off of those assumptions is informative?

That when you make the statement "I have issues with x that make me lean gods", your "issues with x" are not issues, and don't have anything to do with gods?  You can't distinguish between a dam and a forest, and when a bee flaps it's wings you must be amazed to see that the flower stays on the ground.  You can't distinguish between that bee being drawn to specific nectar and the cloning method that we were discussing for apples and blueberries.  So what?  Why would your incompetence or incredulity in any of these regards (or any of the others you professed to be unable to grasp) be a problem for evolutionary theory..or an indicator of gods?