Proving Thor Exist: Reason why the proofs of God fail. (page 3)

trevor

Are we talking of a personal god as defined in historical books - or a pervading intelligence that defines the unity found in the universe?

cantleave

bohm and psac - i love you guys! (no I'm not drunk )

Ding

Bohm,

On the "show of hands" thread you said that the "intelligence" hypothesis for the prime numbers would be better and that the non-intelligent, naturalistic hypothesis would be illogical.

Why, then, must God (or some other intelligent source) a priori be ruled out as the source of the order we measure in the universe -- the complex informational coding of DNA, the gravitational laws of Newton / Einstein, the orderliness of the elements in the periodic table, and the like?

bohm

Ding:

Yes, i would definately go with the "intelligent aliens" hypothesis. Here is why:

We dont have to introduce any radically "new" elements into our explanation of the world.
Every intelligent species would be able to send prime numbers, and we know intelligense at least exist in the universe. So the assumption that another intelligense evolved is not that radical.
Assuming its an intelligense give us a program for further research
Like where its coming from, the polerization of the signal, the characteristics, what kind of machine generated it, etc. etc. etc.

Look, its important to keep in mind that God is not just "an intelligent source", God is for all intents and purposes magic. I dont say God is a bad explanation because its God, i say God is a bad explanation because (1) he is a radically different "thing" compared to our usual experience of how the universe work and (2) what else do we get when we assume God is behind something?

But i can ask you in return: If you saw such a signal from the sky, would you really think the following 3 options were equally likely a-priori:

Aliens
God
natural phenomena of a really strange kind.

With respect to the rest of your post, the 20th century has shown us more and more the universe does not need God to provide order. We have for example learned how evolution can locally organize DNA and thus create small pockets of order, but this local disorder is bought at a price of more overall disorder, for example when the sun burns out.

if it could be shown the universe violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics then i would see that as a good argument for God.

Qcmbr

Bohm - excellent logic.

The Finger

Bohm you just need to think about God more then he will help you

PSacramento

So, you have issues with "GOD" because he ( or what we postulate about him) doesn't conform to what we currently know about the universe?

Look, its important to keep in mind that God is not just "an intelligent source", God is for all intents and purposes magic. I dont say God is a bad explanation because its God, i say God is a bad explanation because (1) he is a radically different "thing" compared to our usual experience of how the universe work and (2) what else do we get when we assume God is behind something?

bohm

ps: Only directly in item (1). Like i would have a problem with a "magic dog" or a "friendly ghost" or a "sentinent taco" -- its concepts that are alien to my current experience of how the universe work. so i dont dismiss them, im just sceptic of them a-priori. (like i would a-priori be sceptic of wavefunctions, of superconductors, of flying machines, you get the idea.).

PSacramento

That's cool, I can respect that view, much like most of my atheist friends.

The Finger

Bohm do you pray incessantly. God maybe listening if you do.

Proving Thor Exist: Reason why the proofs of God fail.

Share this