Is this proof of God's existence?

[QED]

In another topic Harvey has set out a series of premises that lead him to the conclusion that God exists and is the creator of the universe. I think this deserves a debate topic of its own so I have copied his arguments below:

1. According to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental physics believe the laws of physics have some independent existence to the universe
2. The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe
3. Propositions are semantic-based structures
4. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics are propositions and are semantic structures(from 1, 2, 3)
5. Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter
6. Propositions require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3, 5)
7. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3,6)
8. An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom")
9. An interpreter of a proposition is restricted by rules of interpretation which are separate from the proposition itself (i.e., defined as not having "explicit freedom")
10. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being (God) is defined as having implicit freedom with respect to the propositions of the universe
11. The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10)
12. We are justified in believing that God is the cause of the laws and the universe(s) that results from the laws (from 7,11)

Can anyone find fault in any of the above premises? Or is it a proof of God's existence?

[ST88]

...objects have properties which themselves are subject to the properties of other objects. How do you make the distinction between a relation and a law?

There are many kinds of relations, but when talking about the cause of something, I think we are talking about causal relations. That is, a causal relation is an cause and effect association that exists between multiple events or states of affairs (e.g., a causal relation that exists between a star expanding and it becoming a dwarf star). A law is also causal by nature, but it explains why an event occurred without reducing to the currently observed events and states of affairs.

I'm sorry, WHAT!!??! You don't want to reduce the level of perception to the "currently observed events and states of affairs"? Implicit in there is that we can reduce to events and states, we just don't want to. This can't be what you mean, can it? The explanation of an event is not a truth value of the event -- it's the label of the event; a label that we place upon it.

What a causal law does is refer you to an antecedent state which, due to the law, necessarily brought about the consequent state (i.e., cause brings about an effect). Everything has an eventual beginning, and as we move "back" to the previous causal chain of events, we eventually get to the beginning. The basic notion of my argument in this thread is to say that the very beginning is a causal law of negative necessity. That is, whatever state we can possibly conceive, the only possible state of affairs that can exist in the beginning is one in which there exists cause/logic/truth/possibility/mind. If we could conceive of a state which did not have cause/logic/truth/possibility/mind, then this conceivable state would actually be assuming these things, and therefore it would not be a real conceivable state. As it turns out, only the conceivable states where cause/logic/truth/possibility/mind are meaningful concepts is part of the real world.

So, really, what you're saying here is that current laws are causal of the Creation Event, which itself could only have been brought about by an intelligence. If true, then in your Creation scenario, there is no possibility, there is only what will happen. In effect, there isn't even probability, because the determination of what would happen was made once at the moment of Creation. In such a case, possibility and mind are only required before the event, and cause/logic/truth are only required after the event. There is no reason that mind need be invoked for anything that happens after the event because of your causal nature of laws.

So, whereas you might call this view of a law a relation between universals (e.g., a truth relation), I think the term "law" is more useful than just labelling it a relation since it is a very unique relation in that it bridges the gap in terms of an explanation between an antecedent state of affairs and a consequent state of affairs.

But these "states of affairs" are themselves arbitrary distinctions made useful only for our convenience. It is useful for us to say that a white dwarf is a dense collection of carbonates, but when we assign the dwarf an existence of its own, a property we might call "white dwarfness", we are engaging in a metaphorical exercise. Any laws that apply to this white dwarfness as a singular object are also being applied as metaphors, since the aggregate of particles that make it up are the things actually responding. Even the concept of "particle" is a metaphor, since it, too, is made up of smaller units. It's debateable whether we will get to a ground-level of unit relations, but these units in the aggregate are the sum of their unit relations, and it's much easier to think of them as being single objects than of being aggregates.

Barring the discovery of what it actually is, we can state with certainty that the center of a dying dwarf star collapses, pulling in its material through a process that we can call "gravity". That we can say that the individual particles are subject to the law of gravity is just a conceit for what actually happens.

This is a descriptive view of laws. It tries to reduce a law to some unexplainable causal relation that exists between a cause and effect.

Not at all. Even if/when the source of gravity is discovered, it would still apply. Its unexplainable nature is irrelevant.

However, I don't think this is reasonable since what a prescriptive law does is offer an explanation of why you get from a cause to its effect. A mere causal relation does not do that. For example, Feynman's use of the principle of least action is a quantum law that explains why particles act as a collective tend to follow Newton's law of motion (F=ma). It is because this is most likely the minimum action of a classical object in motion, and therefore we have a law that bridges quantum world behavior such that it explains classical world of behavior.

Prescriptive laws are especially more successful when explaining the early universe since we want to know why certain events occurred (e.g., an explanation on why there are four known forces, etc.). If you think in terms of relation, then this gets you in trouble with quantum theories where we have virtual particles that pop into existence and pop out of existence. A relation should conserve energy under every circumstance, but the uncertainty principle (or law) states that there are acceptable violations of conservation. The path integral also implies violations of conservation, as does other physical theories that are emerging (e.g., string theory).

There's that word: "explain". Feynman's contribution to (Q) physics does not meet the test of prescriptiveness (unless you say so). We would have to first assume agents, which is not possible without assuming the laws are prescriptive, etc. A "prescriptive" law is one where an agent asserts an action based on a set of rules that it should observe. And since objects do not have a soul or free will, they have no reason to choose the wrong path. But this is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a mechanical universe. And to make a distinction is to assign unnecessary properties in the service of a pet theory.

I would have to disagree. Behavior is subject to laws as we see them. We can write them down and use them to predict behavior. But these "laws" as you call them are merely expressions of the object's properties and relations.

Of course, you can try and reduce laws to current properties and current relations, but this approach fails miserably when trying to understand why the current properties and current relations are as they are. In order to understand the current properties and current relations, you need to have an understanding of what laws were in effect for the previous physical system and then show how those laws affected the previous system to bring about the current system.

Time is a river, harv. "System" is a metaphor for a state of aggregation, so "previous" and "subsequent" when applied to systems is unwarranted. And the ultimate explanation for the current state of a system is practically cosmology. You might as well be asking "Why do we exist?" or some other nonsense question.

I just recently re-read 1984 by George Orwell. Something about what one of the villains says might be relevant here: "Where does the past exist?" Nought but in the minds of men. If you think about the past as a series of systems leading up to the current system, you will get to where you are. boom... stop. OK where are we now? But it must be said that the particles that were someplace else, doing something else in the past, are the same as they are now. Their locations in the past exist in a natural sense, but there is no reason to suspect that there is a place called "the past" in which they exist at these locations. When you ask how we get from one system to another -- it is all the same system. The laws that were present at a previous time were dictated by the makeup of the system at that time, but it is not a "different" system except by where we say it is.

I understand that you believe these laws (rules) are immutable. I would guess they would have to be in order to be based on an immutable standard of Truth. So, then, would your standard for disproof of God lie in the mutability of these rules?

Not really. This is a theory to try and understand the immense order that we see in the world. I don't buy into the Las Vegas origin of the world. I've been to Vegas and I know what happens when, in reality, you gamble. You lose. I don't believe in dumb luck.

A Vegas analogy such as you presented implies a House that is trying to beat you, but please, go on.

I think it's shocking and downright sad that so many people are so gullible to believe that a random beginning (or raw brute fact) would bring about all that we see.

We are not all that different in that regard. It's only that the subject of shock is different.

Saying that, I have a tremendous curiosity as to how it did happen. So, this is where reasoning has taken me. I realize there are mystic theists who don't think we can ever approach this subject with the eye of reasoning. They might be right, but it seems like a shame not to try.

That's very admirable of you. I have great respect for someone who tries to apply reasoning to seemingly intractable problems. It's really the only way to go about things.

[harvey1]

I'm sorry, WHAT!!??! You don't want to reduce the level of perception to the "currently observed events and states of affairs"? Implicit in there is that we can reduce to events and states, we just don't want to. This can't be what you mean, can it? The explanation of an event is not a truth value of the event -- it's the label of the event; a label that we place upon it.

What I meant is that a causal relation does not offer an explanation. It merely tells you that a causal relation exists for currently observed events and states of affairs. Causal law does offer an explanation. It does so by referring to previous events and states of affairs.

So, really, what you're saying here is that current laws are causal of the Creation Event, which itself could only have been brought about by an intelligence. If true, then in your Creation scenario, there is no possibility, there is only what will happen. In effect, there isn't even probability, because the determination of what would happen was made once at the moment of Creation.

Not necessarily. There's Born's postulate, for example, that can dictate that a quantum outcome is based on a probability matrix (e.g., the square of amplitude).

In such a case, possibility and mind are only required before the event, and cause/logic/truth are only required after the event. There is no reason that mind need be invoked for anything that happens after the event because of your causal nature of laws.

There are symmetry breaking events, or judgments, where the outcome should be "true" (i.e., consistent with the whole of reality), and once the symmetry breaks in the direction that will keep the system moving toward a consistent direction (to the overall objective), the mind aspect of the Universe has no causal role other than to sustain the system. That is, every instance the system must persist. In order to persist there remains the causal role of mind to sustain the universe. I should mention though, that on a micro scale, there are symmetry breakings happening every instant. So, mind is always active. On large scales, there can be large dorment periods where the mind aspect of the universe is completely silent. It sorta gives an atheist a false sense of confidence.

But these "states of affairs" are themselves arbitrary distinctions made useful only for our convenience. It is useful for us to say that a white dwarf is a dense collection of carbonates, but when we assign the dwarf an existence of its own, a property we might call "white dwarfness", we are engaging in a metaphorical exercise. Any laws that apply to this white dwarfness as a singular object are also being applied as metaphors, since the aggregate of particles that make it up are the things actually responding. Even the concept of "particle" is a metaphor, since it, too, is made up of smaller units. It's debateable whether we will get to a ground-level of unit relations, but these units in the aggregate are the sum of their unit relations, and it's much easier to think of them as being single objects than of being aggregates.

Well, this is the premise of strong reductionism which I reject. I think that phase transitions bring about the emergence of novel objects in the world, and this ontological emergence means that an object can have laws that apply to the objects at that new higher level.

Not at all. Even if/when the source of gravity is discovered, it would still apply. Its unexplainable nature is irrelevant.

Let's go back to our W and W* worlds that are identical up to time t. If there are no laws, then how can W and W* histories diverge drastically at t? The quantum laws state that they can diverge at the quantum level because there exists probablistic laws at the quantum level. If there are no such laws, then you would be in effect saying that things happen for no reason. That hardly explains the nature of our world where scientific theories provide an excellent analytical explanation for why things happen (e.g., why plants evolve, etc.).

There's that word: "explain". Feynman's contribution to (Q) physics does not meet the test of prescriptiveness (unless you say so). We would have to first assume agents, which is not possible without assuming the laws are prescriptive, etc. A "prescriptive" law is one where an agent asserts an action based on a set of rules that it should observe. And since objects do not have a soul or free will, they have no reason to choose the wrong path. But this is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a mechanical universe. And to make a distinction is to assign unnecessary properties in the service of a pet theory.

Identical W and W* worlds move apart at the quantum level because the laws are probablistic/indeterministic. How is that indistinguishable from a mechanical universe which is certain/deterministic?

Time is a river, harv. "System" is a metaphor for a state of aggregation, so "previous" and "subsequent" when applied to systems is unwarranted. And the ultimate explanation for the current state of a system is practically cosmology. You might as well be asking "Why do we exist?" or some other nonsense question.

You sound like a mystic. If we cannot use terms such as previous and subsequent with reference to our world, then none of our words about the world apply at all. We might as well exchange incense candles.

Their locations in the past exist in a natural sense, but there is no reason to suspect that there is a place called "the past" in which they exist at these locations. When you ask how we get from one system to another -- it is all the same system. The laws that were present at a previous time were dictated by the makeup of the system at that time, but it is not a "different" system except by where we say it is.

I have a hard time seeing application of your ideas to cosmology. There was really a time when the laws of physics were quite different than they are now. There weren't any electrons, or photons, or W, Z, particles, etc.. There was a unified particle for a very micoscopic period of time, but it had different properties than all known particles today. The makeup of our universe (or system) was based on those laws and properties that existed at that time. There's a sequence of events that took place which allows us to talk about the past as wholely distinct from the present. To understand the present, we must understand how the laws that shaped that previous era brought about the changes that happened. Now, it seems that without laws W and W* can only be explained in terms of unexplainable events. If that is true, then why is it explainable? Why do the laws that show how we are causally tied to our past tend to be mathematical equations that can fit on napkins and be constructed solely in the minds of men and women drinking coffee as they ponder the origin of the universe?

A Vegas analogy such as you presented implies a House that is trying to beat you, but please, go on.

I usually gamble on slot machines and video slots, that's how I gained my aversion to atheism...

We are not all that different in that regard. It's only that the subject of shock is different.

You sound like you have decided to be an atheist instead of remaining an agnostic...

[Bugmaster]

That's not premise (1) though. Premise (1) is that Davies is right about what most physicists who research fundamental physics believe about the primacy of the laws with regard to the material universe.

I don't think Paul Davies is an authority on what metaphysical beliefs "most physicists" hold true. That's a job for a sociologist, not for a physicist (physicists have better things to do, heh). Furthermore, I don't think that physicists are an authority on philosophy and religion; for example, Einstein is not an authority on God or lack thereof, regardless of whether or not God plays dice :-)

A proposition doesn't mean that it must be uttered by humans to exist. A proposition is a statement or abstract object having meaning.

What do you mean by "meaning" (yes, I'm aware of the irony) ? How do you define "meaning" independent of humans (or other sapient beings who make up things in their heads) ?

It doesn't make sense for a proposition to exist without an interpreter since without an interpreter a proposition couldn't in principle have any meaning, and therefore it wouldn't be a proposition.

Aren't you contradicting your statement above ?

If the laws of physics exist independently of the universe, then they are propositions since they are meaningful statements or abstract objects... But, you are not part of the majority of physicists working on the fundamental problems that Davies is referring to. My justification is based on what they think is needed to believe about the laws in order for them to rationally, in a scientific sense, give an account for how the universe came to be.

I think QED said this better than I did: physicists believe that the Universe is the laws of physics, not that they exist independently of one another.

God doesn't need a personality. The comprehension that the Universe (with a capital "U") possesses as a property also has as its property that of being omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent with respect to all the worlds that exist in the Universe.

Fair enough; I remember now that your concept of God is, basically, "the uber-dualistic entity that supports all the other dualistic entities" -- I know that I'm oversimplifying, but I think that's the general idea. Thus, your God is not really something that one can worship (it's too abstract for that,and it doesn't have any intentions or plans with respect to humanity), and it's certainly not a bearded old man in the sky. I'll keep that in mind from now on.

[harvey1]

I don't think Paul Davies is an authority on what metaphysical beliefs "most physicists" hold true. That's a job for a sociologist, not for a physicist (physicists have better things to do, heh).

You're not being reasonable, Bugmaster. There aren't tens of thousands of cosmologists and particle physicists working on fundamental problems which would require a sociologist, and it is very easy for someone in Davies' position to gain an awareness of what most physicists believe to be the case. I hope we can avoid cavils here, since we're wasting our time if we go down that path.

Furthermore, I don't think that physicists are an authority on philosophy and religion; for example, Einstein is not an authority on God or lack thereof, regardless of whether or not God plays dice.

Physicists are in a position to realize what kind of theories they need to be true in order to give a theoretical account of the universe that we see. The latest quantum gravity theories appear as they require platonist approaches, and in addition, we already have symmetry principles which seem to imply a need for prescriptive laws (among other issues in physics). Therefore, physicists are justified in believing what they believe.

What do you mean by "meaning"... How do you define "meaning" independent of humans (or other sapient beings who make up things in their heads) ?

Well, meaning is based on a reference to the "way the _____ is." So, for example, if I use "olseitruy" as an English word, then this has no meaning in English. In other words, there is no reference to the way that Engish is constructed or in the act of being constructed, therefore it is a meaningless term. Similarly, if I said that smurfs from Planet 9 are smurfing us without our knowledge, then this statement is meaningless with regard to the way the world is since there are no smurfs that have been identified and smurfing and Planet 9 have no reference to reality either. Meaning can be defined independent of humans in this sense.

Comprehension is necessary if a proposition actually exists independent of humans since a proposition is a statement that requires meaning with regard to the way the world is. Hence, possible true propositions to be true propositions must have actuality. To have actuality, the reference must point to a world that exists (i.e., is logically consistent and instantiated). This requires creation of worlds (instantiation of possible worlds) that are logically consistent. Hence, God has the role of creator in the Universe.

A proposition doesn't mean that it must be uttered by humans to exist. A proposition is a statement or abstract object having meaning.... It doesn't make sense for a proposition to exist without an interpreter since without an interpreter a proposition couldn't in principle have any meaning, and therefore it wouldn't be a proposition.

Aren't you contradicting your statement above ?

No, not at all. Propositions have meaning, and therefore require comprehension of a mind. If propositions exist independently of the universe, then what that means is that the meaning of those objective propositions is established outside the minds of humans. However, that doesn't mean that propositions can exist without a mind. A mind is required for a proposition to exist. So, from your perspective, I imagine you would say that propositions only exist in the minds of biological and artificial life created by biological life. However, if you discovered that there was an eternal mind that was not biologically or artificially created, then you would be forced to say that propositions exist since such a mind exists.

physicists believe that the Universe is the laws of physics, not that they exist independently of one another.

Well, if you mean the Universe with a capital "U," (i.e., everything that exists), then I would agree with that. Usually, when I refer to the laws of physics I'm talking about the laws that brought about our particular universe. But, in the general sense, God would be part of the laws of physics if God were in some way a physical cause to the world.

Thus, your God is not really something that one can worship (it's too abstract for that,and it doesn't have any intentions or plans with respect to humanity), and it's certainly not a bearded old man in the sky.

I disagree. Everything is part of a larger whole, and like mathematics, everything "just fits." The world and all that is, or ever will be is part of one simple and incomprehensible equation that as Ramanunjan said, comprises the thoughts of God.

[QED]

Comprehension is necessary if a proposition actually exists independent of humans since a proposition is a statement that requires meaning with regard to the way the world is. Hence, possible true propositions to be true propositions must have actuality. To have actuality, the reference must point to a world that exists (i.e., is logically consistent and instantiated). This requires creation of worlds (instantiation of possible worlds) that are logically consistent. Hence, God has the role of creator in the Universe.

I think if you worked on this a little bit more you could eventually fit it on a bumper sticker. But I'm afraid it would still leave me cold. Everything seems to boil down to a paradoxical loop formed between mind and matter. Of course we can restate matter as energy if we want to sound a bit more new-age. Your way then, to break out of this loop, is to declare mind to be the forerunner of energy. Now I'm no philosopher, but I bet if I was able to hire one I could get her to draw up a counter-argument to yours putting energy first. Not that this would be any more satisfying in terms of providing us with any explanations, but it would be a great relief to those of us who struggle with the notion of disembodied mind.

[harvey1]

Now I'm no philosopher, but I bet if I was able to hire one I could get her to draw up a counter-argument to yours putting energy first. Not that this would be any more satisfying in terms of providing us with any explanations, but it would be a great relief to those of us who struggle with the notion of disembodied mind.

Well, this is what the apostle Paul was talking about how the carnal mind is at enmity with God. It doesn't want God to exist, and it fights God every inch of the way. This is the rebellious, ungrateful minds that God gave Jesus over to death in order to save.

[QED]

Now I'm no philosopher, but I bet if I was able to hire one I could get her to draw up a counter-argument to yours putting energy first. Not that this would be any more satisfying in terms of providing us with any explanations, but it would be a great relief to those of us who struggle with the notion of disembodied mind.

Well, this is what the apostle Paul was talking about how the carnal mind is at enmity with God. It doesn't want God to exist, and it fights God every inch of the way. This is the rebellious, ungrateful minds that God gave Jesus over to death in order to save.

Are you really being serious here Harvey? I thought that this was a debating Forum. The bible is choc full of little gems like this -- the authors knew that the stuff they were getting down on paper might easily seem crazy to people if they thought about it rationally, so they were quick to pen in warnings like Paul's above in an attempt to give them some sort of comeback. It's like me telling you that I've got fairies living at the bottom of my garden and that they warned me against people like you who might disbelieve me. Do you seriously think that your last reply could add anything constructive to an intelligent debate?

Now you'll have to forgive me for continuing to apply regular logic here but God giving Jesus over to death has a very different meaning in the light of him not exactly being a regular human. When it comes to the story of the crucifixion I don't think I've ever come across a bigger own-goal. Had the story read that Jesus was taken down off the cross and entombed such that his remains were still around for us to pity over today, it might have some real impact as a true sacrifice. But by all biblical accounts the Romans were doing no more than killing a playstation character that could come back to life after 'game over'. I raised this issue in the topic titled Questioning the crucifixion just in case you want to follow it up.

[harvey1]

Are you really being serious here Harvey? I thought that this was a debating Forum.

It is a debating forum, generally speaking, about debating Christianity. Therefore, I think it is apropos to show when the sin of a priori rejection of God has been spotted.

[QED]

Are you really being serious here Harvey? I thought that this was a debating Forum.

It is a debating forum, generally speaking, about debating Christianity. Therefore, I think it is apropos to show when the sin of a priori rejection of God has been spotted.

I say it all seems a bit too obvious what's going on when thinking becomes a sin. I can just about see ye olde surfs falling for this sort of mind control trick but the idea of it being a sin to eat from the tree of knowledge leaves us in no doubt as to the motives behind the religious game plan.

You emphasised a priori in my rejection of God. Is that because you have to convince yourself that I am refusing to accept any sort of God no matter what? I'll accept the existence of God when I see sufficient reason too.

I was watching a documentary following Madonna on her recent world tour. She got just as peeved as you seem to be when in a casual conversation with a sound engineer he revealed that he didn't believe in the concept of God(s). I think you guys might be confusing the rejection of God with the rejection of the concept of God.

[harvey1]

I say it all seems a bit too obvious what's going on when thinking becomes a sin.

Actually, it's incorrect thinking that's the sin here. Incorrect in that it is obstinate thinking--thinking that purposely tries to obfuscate a legitimate cause of the universe. If you don't like the result of a valid approach, just hire a philosopher, is that it?

Is that because you have to convince yourself that I am refusing to accept any sort of God no matter what? I'll accept the existence of God when I see sufficient reason too.

It seems that a priori you reject there to be a God, so how is it possible that you could ever consider a philosophical argument based on philosophical evidence that supports it?

I think you guys might be confusing the rejection of God with the rejection of the concept of God.

I think I'm responding to the bit where you would rather hire a philosopher to give you some relief in your a priori position of there being no God.