Share interesting philosophical/religous proofs here<<

[CezeN]

For example, a some months ago, I heard the ontological argument:

All rational beings believe in their own existence, whether or not they actually exist. Sherlock Holmes believes that he exists, but he is wrong. God too believes in his own existence–and his omniscience makes it impossible that he is mistaken. Therefore God exists.

The obvious refutation being that you can't really describe an omnipotent being capable of doing anything, even defying logic, as rational.

However, a very interesting proof.

I also liked the one by Charles Lewis? that Jota posted in some far off thread a long while ago:

First, an observation. If God did not know the future, there would be no problem, because he could only watch us as we acted. And to watch someone do something is not the same as making someone do it. But God has perfect knowlege of the past, present and future, which essentially means that from God's perspective, time is spacelike. That is, the whole of the life of the universe can viewed by God at once, like a mural. So from God's perspective, all the actions of your entire life occur in his "present." But the first observation says that observations in the present do not affect free will. QED.

A really interesting one against the omnipotence = no free will controversy.
It's my favorite.

Any of you have some to share?
Preferabley also related to religon, though I don't really mind if it's about something else, instead.

[jotabe]

Hehehe been a while.
I've personally evolved to integrate the possibility of infinite universes to do away with the omniscience vs. free will.
In that frame, there isn't a single spacetime that God sees all at once: instead there are infinite timelines, which account for all the "branching points" that occur in our universe due to the quantum "choices". For example, say that a certain particle at a given time has a 40% probability to tunnel out of its position: then at that moment infinite new universes appear, 40% of them with the particle having effectively tunneled, and 60% not. (that the infinite new universes are created in that moment is just a manner of speaking: they were there all the time, they were just identical with each other).

Btw, about the ontological argument, i would like to say that Sherlock actually exists: he exists in an universe created by the mind of sir Conan Doyle and the minds of all who follow his writings. According to the internal logics of that narrative, that universe is all that exists, it's the real universe. Same goes for God.
Now, think about this: What if God, before actually creating a universe, he decided to run a simulation run in his mind (if God exists, one of his attributes must be surely to be a powerful and fast computing machine ) of what would be an universe like, using a certain set of physical constants? How would the intelligent beings that eventually appear in it feel about themselves?
How could they feel their existence differently than we feel ours?
What if it is us? hehehe

[CezeN]

That's an interesting Quantum Mechanics physics viewpoint that you have.

Also, with the ontological argument, I'm talking about existing in the real world - or what we percieve as our real world, as a real conscious person/entity. Not existing as an idea or what have you in the mind of people.
I wouldn't say that in the proof, the characters universe is all that exists. After all, we have fictional characters that break the fourth wall, and acknowledge that their Universe isn't real like ours. Just the possiblity that characters can recognize this, allows the idea that even in the context of their own show, their Universe isn't real - compared to ours.

Your speculation about God is interesting. Though, I don't believe it or even consider it because of how the bible implies that we are real.
It would also suck, though.

However, have you read the Cognitive Theoretic-Model Of the Universe?
I skimmed it and barely understood it, but it also seemed to propose that we're in the mind of God.

No other philosophical proofs Jota or anyone? =/

[jotabe]

How could we tell, though, if our universe is real, or merely a simulation run? If the simulation is exhaustive and completely ab initio, i don't think there is any way.
The Matrix, for example, is a realistic, physics-limited simulation. It makes mistakes, it doesn't simulate all the way to the elementary particles unless required. But a true ab-initio simulation, that simply starts with energy/particles and physics laws... i think it would be indistinguishable from reality.

And no, none of the proofs of existence or non-existence of god hold any water, and because of the problems of dealing with beings outside the physical realm. But of course there are many other "proofs": every one one commits several fallacies. Two fallacies are common, though: identify whichever being is required by the (faulty) logics of the demonstration with "god", and second, identifying this "god" with the godhead of their own religion. Also, all of Aristotelian arguments (which Thomas Equinas accepts as valid, before adding the Onthological argument) refuse to accept an infinite sequence... without giving much explanation on it, just saying it's absurd.

One that i would like to comment (because it deals with physics somewhat ) is the Final Cause proof:
Everything has been made by something previous in time. If everything has a cause, we would have an infinite sequence, which makes no sense (lol), so there must be something in the beginning which is the cause of everything. This is the Final Cause, which is God.

Errors:
-Denies an infinite sequesnce without saying why.
-Assumes that there is an uncaused cause, which contradicts the previous statement that everything has to have a cause.
-To explain away this exception, it gives it a supernatural explanation that doesn't logically follow.

In physics we can have uncaused events: an atom can disintegrate randomly in any moment; when it does, it's not because of any external event triggering it. Not only that, physics also allow for causal loops: under certain interpretations, positrons are simply time-reversed electrons. When a pair of electron and positron is created and then they annihilate each other shortly after, you could see it as a lonely electron going back in time until it absorbs a photon and bumps it forward in time, then releases that photon, bumping backwards in time again, repeating the cycle. Groundhog day for that poor electron!

[zeldagirl1234]

I have an idea, unsure if it has been posted. So, what if originally there was another planet, billions of years ago(or whatever, you get the idea) and they wanted to try an expirement. So, they sent one person who was 'in' on the plan, whom was of middle age, with a whole bunch of newborns, to Earth? Then, he could, in effect, tell people his name was God and he created them. They would have known nothing else, so they would have to believe this. Therefore, that would be proof of 'alien' life at one point in time, as well as the *pardon* 'non-existance' of god.

P.s. when I say non- existance this is not in any way meant to be offensive

[jotabe]

It would prove the non-existence of 'that' particular god they had been told about, originally. Still wouldn't disprove the notion of a being with vast power who can create universes.

The whole bible could be proven wrong from a literal point of view, and god wouldn't still be disproven, only the christian god.
In fact, the minimal concept of god can be reduced to a merely supernatural being that doesn't mess with our physical universe, and at that point, it becomes truly an unfalsifiable statement. Also, it would be largely irrelevant.

[Bean_wannabe]

Not really a proof, but a pretty cool fact:

The chances of the universe being stable after the big bang, of all the constants that are necessary to stop it collapsing within the first second of existence (like the gravitational constant, etc.) being in the right range, is 1 in 1^(10^230).

That's a pretty big number - It can't be written in full in the universe if one digit was written on each atom.

[zeldagirl1234]

just like a googolplex can't be written out

[Bean_wannabe]

But this number is bigger by an inconceivable amount. And it actually has a use.

It is, however, smaller than Graham's number.