What evidence would prove God?

[siti]

Bula!

Gravity in and of itself cannot exist without matter

But can matter exist without gravity? We have no evidence for that either. But suppose the entire material universe consisted of a single object - even if gravity existed would it make any difference? In that case, would it not, like time and space, be a meaningless concept. Gravity, time and space are IMO, relational aspects of the existence of things - i.e. they describe how material things are related to other material things.

None of this, as you rightly point out, get us any closer to proving the existence or non-existence of God. But science doesn't really work like that anyway. In science you make observations and then formulate a hypothesis to to explain them. Then you design experiments to test your hypothesis and continue making observations. If your hypothesis works (i.e. successfully predicts what will be observed in your experiment) then you have a theory. And you keep doing experiments until the theory fails. A successful theory is one that accurately predicts the outcome of many observations and experiments.

And that, for me at least, answers your question "why pandeism?" Pandeism is (part of) my hypothetical God-model that allows me to test my observations of nature and compare the results with some theory of what I suppose God might be like. Like you, I am a Deist because I choose to believe (or "have faith" if you will) in the existence of a deity - but I am not satisfied to just let it rest there, I feel the urge to explore the nature of the God I choose to believe in and being of a slightly scientific bent, I like to have a specific model or hypothesis to work from. I don't know (yet) whether it is correct (in any respect), almost certainly I never will know for sure. But I don't know how else we can get to know anything about the Deity we suppose exists. Pure reason doesn't cut the mustard for me and, as (my idealistically-inclined Plato-Kantian friend ) Gnomon points out, seeing the ding an sich of anything is not possible for flesh and blood mortals, so our only option is to compare the indirect evidence we have to our models and hypotheses and our "knowledge" (of anything) is necessarily composed of theories. I don't see any compelling reason either to exclude God from our hypothetical models of reality or to exclude science from our theoretical reasoning about the possible existence and nature of God. In my ever-evolving-all-inclusive-process-pandeus God model its all (grains of "truth") grist to the constantly turning mill.

[TonyHawks 712]

In science you make observations and then formulate a hypothesis to to explain them. Then you design experiments to test your hypothesis and continue making observations. If your hypothesis works (i.e. successfully predicts what will be observed in your experiment) then you have a theory. And you keep doing experiments until the theory fails. A successful theory is one that accurately predicts the outcome of many observations and experiments.

I would agree with your assessment. The reason I said what I did about matter and gravity is to establish a counter-point to what I think is faulty logic on Hawking's part. I don't care how involved an experiment he manages to muster, I don't think he can ever prove gravity would exist without matter because he lives in a world of gravity and matter! If he's ever produced an experiment where he created an anti-gravity chamber with absolutely no matter in it whatsoever and observed spontaneous creation in that environment I've never heard of it. Besides, I don't think it's even possible to create such an anti-gravity chamber because it would exist on a planet rotating at 1000s of miles per hour, hence the rotational gravity of earth would still affect it. And anything less than that, to my mind, is not proof. This is why I disagree with his theory that the universe could have created itself. If even one atom were required to generate the existence of gravity to start that ball rolling you still have to account for its creation.

And I still think space has definable characteristics even without a single atom in it. It has dimension. I hear comments about whether anything exists if no one is there to perceive it, but I still think it's the "tree falling in the forest" argument. Even though I cannot currently see my living room, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist when I leave it.

[gnomon]

1> But I don't know how else we can get to know anything about the Deity we suppose exists.

2> Pure reason doesn't cut the mustard for me and, as (my idealistically-inclined Plato-Kantian friend ) Gnomon points out, seeing the ding an sich of anything is not possible for flesh and blood mortals, so our only option is to compare the indirect evidence we have to our models and hypotheses and our "knowledge" (of anything) is necessarily composed of theories. I don't see any compelling reason either to exclude God from our hypothetical models of reality or to exclude science from our theoretical reasoning about the possible existence and nature of God. In my ever-evolving-all-inclusive-process-pandeus God model its all (grains of "truth") grist to the constantly turning mill.

1__Good point! Without the metaphors provided by Science, we would have nothing interesting to say about God, except how we feel about our vaguely-defined faith. Since subjective feelings are inexpressible, except by analogy with objective knowledge of reality (from personal, collective, & scientific experience), these forum discussions would be limited to tired old poetic & religious cliches. IMHO, modern Science is the best source of "spiritual" metaphors in this day & age.
__All through history, our metaphoric descriptions of the spiritual aspects of the world have been expressed in the terminology of contemporary scientific understanding. For example, ancient animistic religions---with a narrow-but-deep knowledge of their local habitat---had an impersonal image of the spirit world as spooky unpredictable natural forces. Over time, human culture has gradually expanded our scientific worldview, and our vocabulary for discussing the physical and meta-physical "forces" of Nature. My own worldview includes natural forces, personal agents, physical laws, and eternal principles under the heading of In-Form-Action : a new term for the outdated "Holy Spirit".

2__For the record, gnomon is rationally-inclined by nature, which apart from a few air-head ancient Greek philosophers, is usually associated with hard-nosed Realism and practicality. But you can't reason without the underlying structure of Logic (Pure Reason), and Logic requires an ideal frame-of-reference (axioms, categories) by which to define our postulates, predicates, and verifiable facts. Consequently, he has finally overcome a long-standing prejudice against Pure Reason and Platonic Idealism.
__Actually, it was the intuitive insight of Enformationism that made Ideality essential to the gnomonic worldview. So I now see good reasons for including both the cutting-edge of pragmatic Science (Information Theory, etc) and the old-reliable axioms of Pure Reason in my hypothetical models of Reality and of Ideality.

[siti]

Bula!

I think you are mixing two issues here:

I still think space has definable characteristics even without a single atom in it. It has dimension.

and...

I hear comments about whether anything exists if no one is there to perceive it, but I still think it's the "tree falling in the forest" argument. Even though I cannot currently see my living room, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist when I leave it.

On the first, I do not see how that can really be true. Truly empty space has no dimension - how could it? If there is truly nothing in it, what could possibly demarcate its boundaries? Can you really have space between nothing and nothing? That would only make sense if space itself was something rather than nothing - which seems to be the idea that Craig Hogan (mentioned in Gnomon's earlier comment) is proposing. If that is the case, then what we are saying is that the "atoms" (meaning the smallest indivisible bits of stuff of which all material things are ultimately composed) are, in fact, chunks of space. But if that is the case, then space is not empty at all - it is full of space (if you see what I mean). In a genuinely empty space, there can be neither dimensionality nor directionality (spatial or temporal I think). Empty space is a perfectly symmetrical equilibrium (infinite entropy). There is no left/right, up/down, top/bottom. A single perfectly symmetrical particle in genuinely empty space would have no location because every location would be identical and indistinguishable from any other location - it would simply make no difference "where" it happened to be. It could zip around the empty space at a million times the speed of light and get absolutely nowhere because there would be no "where" for it to go. Anything it did would make no difference at all to anything at all because there would be nothing at all for it to make any difference to. No difference, no change. No change, no time...in fact, such a particle could be said to be simultaneously everywhere and nowhere, and everywhen and nowhen - i.e. infinite and eternal - until it spawns another particle and simultaneously gives rise to the very first spatio-temporal relationship and the material cosmos is born. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! - "...and all the Sons of God shouted for joy" (Job 38:7)

The second issue is to do with observation and I agree with you - but if you extend the idea from your living room to the whole cosmos, then there is no need for an external observer! But we know for sure that the cosmos is being observed from within.

[gnomon]

And I still think space has definable characteristics even without a single atom in it. It has dimension. I hear comments about whether anything exists if no one is there to perceive it, but I still think it's the "tree falling in the forest" argument. Even though I cannot currently see my living room, that doesn't mean it ceases to exist when I leave it.

This is an ancient dilemma : is Space a thing apart from its material contents? Ideally, of course : a vacuum is defined as space without matter or energy. But really, I think not. According to Einstein's assumptions in his Relativity theories, SpaceTime came into existence in the Big Bang simultaneously with MatterEnergy. Henceforth, in practice, space is measured by its contents (real or as-if), and matter is defined by the space it occupies. In other words, space is simply the idea of measurable dimension, but is not real apart from something to measure. Ideal space can only be measured with theoretical measuring sticks.

That essential inter-relationship between space and matter is why Einstein claimed counter-intuitively that space can streeeetch to conform to concentrations of mass---or is it the other way around??? In quantum field theory, even "empty" space contains potential (i.e. ideal) energy/matter. In my own theory where there is no real Matter, there is ideal Infinity, and where there is no real Time, there is ideal Eternity.

The notion of "to be is to be perceived" is another old conundrum. Yet again, whether it's true or not depends on whether you want an Ideal Truth or a Real truth.


<< In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

[siti]

Bula!

Gnomon - I did not mean that you were not realistic, rational or practical - I was referring to my interpretation of your philosophical position of maintaining that the world is fundamentally immaterial (not to say mental) in nature - which I think is a reasonable summation of idealism (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I don't necessarily disagree with this position, but it is a problem, because I think it puts a whole lot of (supernatural or at least preternatural) stuff back on the table about which science can have nothing to say. I cannot observe or measure thoughts and abstractions - except perhaps my own - but I am by far the easiest person for me to deceive - "the heart is deceitful above all things...who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV). So, for now at least, I prefer to focus on the real-world evidence that I can observe (albeit indirectly) and make what I can of that. I also don't really see any compelling reason why ding an sich/"ideal form" noumenons cannot be located fully within my real world - even if I can't see them.

[TonyHawks 712]

I use the secular and philosophical term "worldview" deliberately, to avoid the historical baggage that comes with the religious term "faith". IMHO, Paul the Apostle corrupted the original meaning of faith (hope & trust) by presenting it as a miraculous gift from God to deserving individuals. Consequently, the Christian meaning of "faith" is hope & trust & divine gift (essential for salvation). For Paul, spiritual faith made practical "works" unnecessary. For me though, faith has nothing to do with salvation from sins, or eternal life in heaven; it's simply a self-reinforcing emotional loop to prop-up ordinary hope & trust, which normally require a more tangible foundation. I could go on, but perhaps you get the idea that I have a philosophical problem with that innocent little word in its usual religious context.

The word "faith" is an innocent little word to me. Attaching historical baggage to it unfairly deprives me of the most accurate word for me to describe my feelings about Deism to you. It transcends the secular "worldview" to me, but does not rise to the level of "religion" since that word implies not only the belief structure, but the actions you take (prayer, church services, etc.) because of that belief structure. I'm sorry, is my idealistic intuition sullying your realistic reason?

[gnomon]

The word "faith" is an innocent little word to me. Attaching historical baggage to it unfairly deprives me of the most accurate word for me to describe my feelings about Deism to you. It transcends the secular "worldview" to me, but does not rise to the level of "religion" since that word implies not only the belief structure, but the actions you take (prayer, church services, etc.) because of that belief structure. I'm sorry, is my idealistic intuition sullying your realistic reason?

Hey! Whatever floats your boat.

I also occasionally use the term "faith" to describe my pre-rational intuition of "that which we conventionally refer to as God". But I put it in quotes for the same reason I spell God, "G*D" : to subtly vent my frustration at rational ideas sullied by historical baggage and irrational beliefs. What I mean by "G*D" is not the God of the Bible. What I mean by "faith" is not what most Christians mean by it. It's an innocent word in a sullied world.

You can define the word to mean whatever works for you. But others will hear it according to their own personal definitions. Besides, as I said, it was a personal hang-up, I never meant to deprive you of your own private language.

[gnomon]

Bula!

1> I was referring to my interpretation of your philosophical position of maintaining that the world is fundamentally immaterial (not to say mental) in nature - which I think is a reasonable summation of idealism (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

2> I don't necessarily disagree with this position, but it is a problem, because I think it puts a whole lot of (supernatural or at least preternatural) stuff back on the table about which science can have nothing to say.

3> So, for now at least, I prefer to focus on the real-world evidence that I can observe (albeit indirectly) and make what I can of that.

1__An essential feature of my philosophical position, that you may not have grasped yet, is the principle of BothAnd. My worldview is not Idealism, but Redealism. It is both Idealistic and Realistic, which some might think is oxymoronic (or just plain moronic). The ideal stuff is what we call Metaphysical, which includes human ideas and G*D. The real stuff is what we call Physical, and includes matter & energy. The common denominator between them is Information (mindstuff) which can exist in many forms and in more than one place at a time.
__Unlike some Buddhists, I don't think that everything in this world is Maya (illusory), or that we are deluded like Plato's cave-dwellers seeing shadows as reality. That was a good metaphor for its time. But I think that both the shadowy cave and the sunlit word beyond are co-existent, not mutually exclusive. Instead, I think the real and apparent duality of our existence is essential for the purposes of my hypothetical role-playing deity.
__For the thesis of Enformationism, G*D is defined as Unitary, Eternal & Infinite Mind-Being---no Time, no Space, and no Other Gods---which means that nothing ever happens in G*D's changeless existence. Therefore, the only thing for G*D to do, to stave-off eternal ennui, is to play mind-games with He/rself. But then G*D's imaginary idealistic mind-game is also our actual realistic life-game, with rocks that hurt our toes when we kick them. Despite the shackles of our temporal situation, we occasionally catch peripheral glimpses of the eternal reality-above-reality beyond our cave, which some have interpreted as a heavenly perfect counterpart to our own imperfect world. But I doubt that restless humans would enjoy the stultifying never-changing perfection of Eternity, even with your favorite CSI show on a zillion channels. Personally, I'm not hoping to go to heaven, especially if it's just more of the same reruns, sans commercials, forever & ever amen. As far as I know, this real life is the only life I will ever know---although there is a possibility of reuniting with G*D, I have no idea what that would be like.

2__Erroneous inferences of supernaturalism and spiritualism associated with the Enformationism worldview are the bane of my existence. The Enformationism website is sprinkled with disclaimers about jumping to either/or conclusions about the both/and statements. I do envision G*D as the creator of Nature, hence super-natural, but in the Enformationism context that means something entirely different from the conventional usage. That's why I try to avoid those misleading traditional terms in my dialogs. However, even when I give specific definitions of my intended meaning, the old ideas tend to pop into people's minds automatically. It's those old viral memes again.
__The only alternative to the scientific worldview of Materialism that most people are familiar with is Spiritualism. So they tend to associate Enformationism with such mainstream notions as Spirit-filled Christians, or such fringe fantasies as ghost-hunters and seances. Yet again, Enformationism contains elements of both, combined into a completely new worldview, that purports to be be both Scientific and Humanistic, both Rational and Intuitive, both Realistic and Idealistic.

3__"So, for now at least, I prefer to focus on the real-world evidence that I can observe (albeit indirectly) and make what I can of that." Amen.

Buddhist Reality :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism


"Pied Beauty"

Glory be to God for dappled things -
For skies of couple-colour as a brindled cow;
For rose-moles in all stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoals chestnut-falls; finches' wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced - fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
______Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889)
<<. . . juxtaposing God's changelessness with the vicissitude of His creation . . .>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Beauty

[siti]

Bula!

Gnomon, I get the "BothAnd" principle and I agree with it. What I have trouble grasping is the idea that an idea could have any causal efficacy in and of itself without an existing physical substrate upon which the idea might be realized. I just don't see why real and ideal cannot be part and parcel of a single monistic unity of existence. I suppose my view is that reality is a kind of "BothAnd" existential process - it is not that existence precedes essence (or vice versa) but that the physical reality and the ideal form emerge simultaneously - or more accurately that both simultaneously constitute a process of continuously emerging reality. It has to be a process, because any change (real or ideal) has to take account of the asymmetry (directionality) of time. A thought, once thought, can no more be unthought than a done deed can be undone. So any talk of mind-stuff (thoughts, ideas, information) existing apart from physical (space-time) reality makes no sense to me. You just can't have one without t'other.

[gnomon]

So any talk of mind-stuff (thoughts, ideas, information) existing apart from physical (space-time) reality makes no sense to me. You just can't have one without t'other.

That's true, in the Real world, but not necessarily in the world of Ideas. Minds emerge from Brains, and Life emerges from Bodies. But Ghosts don't float around in space apart from their bodies . . . except in the imaginations of unfettered minds. In the Ideal world all things are possible, but in the Real world, only certain things are actual. Some people don't understand that only G*D's imagination is Real.

When I say that Physics and Meta-Physics are two different categories of reality, the distinction is artificial, but necessary for human thought. Physics is the category of tangible Things, while Meta-Physics is the category of our ideas about such things (e.g. Science). You will agree that Science is not a physical thing to be examined under the microscope, but merely a collection of intangible ideas about things. In that sense, Science is meta-physical. But Science apart from Physics would make no sense, except as a philosophical invention necessary for understanding. Philosophy typically strives for a view from God's transcendent perspective. [ see Kant below ]

The only "place" where physics and meta-physics can be truely separated is in Eternity, where physical things do not exist, and MIND is all there is. But then, even that presumed separation is only a categorical convenience for linear thinking---ultimately both the physical category and the meta-physical category are united in the transcendental G*D category. In the final analysis, All is One. But our finite minds cannot comprehend Oneness. Eternity resolves all parts into a single whole, with no distinctions---unless, of course, G*D chooses to draw a distinction. So we humans analyze all wholes into parts, and then pretend that there are "real" dividing lines between them, as opposed to imaginary lines.

I once read that the goal of Science is to "cut Nature at the joints"---i.e. according to true distinctions. But in reality, all distinctions, all categories, are artificial products of human minds---we decide where to cut*. The world is seamless, right on down to the fundamental digital distinction between existence and non-existence (1s & 0s). Even Kant's Logical Categories were imagined to be transcendental above any human experience--- i.e. G*D's distinctions.

Ironically, if you consider that G*D has always created imaginary (real) worlds, and always will, then even in the Eternal realm, physical and metaphysical are linked forever in the Mind of G*D. This concept is just as mind-blowing as the more mundane "Many Worlds" notion of Multiverse Cosmology. Worlds without end. . . . . . . . . . . .

PS---If at this point, you are not confused, you haven't been paying attention.

* If you don't agree that (almost) all distinctions are artificial, consider the Atom. It was defined by the Greeks as the uncuttable physical object. Yet over the years, Science has labeled many things with that term, but even questionable quarks have now been (conceptually) chopped into vibrating "strings" of space. How much farther down must we go to reach the final physical cut? We've already found it, in the existential digital (1s & 0s) distinction, which is itself a meta-physical category.

<< In the preface to the first edition Kant explains what he means by a critique of pure reason: "I do not mean by this a critique of books and systems, but of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience.">>

The Metaphysical Deduction
<< Here Kant aims to derive the twelve pure concepts of the understanding (which he also calls "categories") >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason


The Art of Man is to re-create Nature in his own image :
“Now nature is not at variance with art, nor art with nature; they being both the servants of his providence. Art is the perfection of nature. Were the world now as it was the sixth day, there were yet a chaos. nature hath made one world, and art another. In brief, all things are artificial; for nature is the art of God.”
____Sir Thomas Browne

[gnomon]

What I have trouble grasping is the idea that an idea could have any causal efficacy in and of itself without an existing physical substrate upon which the idea might be realized.

You are correct, in my opinion, that human ideas have "causal efficacy" only when channeled through a physical medium. Jesus told his disciples that the power of faith would allow them to move mountains. But the Enformationism website says if you want to move mountains, you'll have to use your ideas & faith to organize a bunch of people with dynamite & bulldozers to do the actual relocation. When conjurors pretend to use the power of psycho-kinesis to move physical objects around, they are actually using old tried & true magic tricks, such as sleight-of-hand, to cause objects to move, or forks to bend.

Now that you know what I'm not saying, the hard thing is to grasp what I am really trying to say---it's a new angle on an old idea, and is introduced in the website : all things and ideas in this world---including matter & energy---are various forms of Information. I don't have time to go into a lot of detail at the moment, so I'll just summarize. According to some mathematical ramifications of Shannon's Information Theory, Energy is ultimately nothing more than relationships (ratios)---which are the essence of all information---and some kinds of relationships are causal. That's why all changes in the physical world can be traced back to Energy in some form. [ However, by the power of Memes, one mind can cause changes in another mind---in the metaphysical world---with no exchange of matter or energy, other than a few sound vibrations. ]

But the Enformationism thesis postulates that Energy is simply one form of a divine power I call En-Form-Action : the ability to cause one thing to change into a new form, which is the essence of creativity. One expression of the power to Enform is to change an eternal metaphysical Platonic Form into a temporal physical Thing, as happened in the Big Bang. But then, subsequent to that original creative act, the whole notion of physical causality may boil down to an opinion of the observer. [ see Causality below ]

Light and Heat energy for example, are essentially vibrations---waves in space---which are mathematically oscillations between positive & negative, or between something & nothing. The frequency and amplitude of the waveform is expressed physically (phenomenologically) as various forms of Energy, which in turn may be expressed in various forms of Matter. But it all boils down to ratios, the root of rationality, and of reason, and of mind.

Skipping to the bottom line : all causes in the created world can be traced back to an idea in the Mind of G*D. Hence, causal efficacy (creativity) is prior to Matter & Energy. Divine Causation is the super-stratum of every physical substrate.



Matthew 17:20; And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
However, ye of little faith, will have to do it the hard way, with picks & shovels, and back-breaking labor.


Causality :
<< Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. . . .
In modern physics, the notion of causality had to be clarified. The insights of the theory of special relativity confirmed the assumption of causality, but they made the meaning of the word "simultaneous" observer-dependent.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29