Evidence of Deity

@sword,

sword;120362 wrote:

Besides the greatest works of art were not inspired by atheism but by religion (Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael, Johan Sebastian Bach, Haendel, etc.)

Probably because if they were not religious, they would have been killed, or imprisoned.

@jeeprs,

God exists iff there is at least one property of God that can be asserted (confirmed).

God has property F implies God has some properties, ie., God exists.

Is there a property that can be confirmed about god?

That is the evidence required in order to assert that God exists.

@Owen phil,

Owen;120428 wrote:

God exists iff there is at least one property of God that can be asserted (confirmed).

I object. There only needs to be one property? Why does a single property confirm existence?

Owen;120428 wrote:

God has property F implies God has some properties, ie., God exists.

Wait a second, are you actually saying that the property of existing is the property of god, therefore god exists because the property of existing has been applied? Isn't that like saying, a cat is a cat because it is a cat? Um, what the hell is a cat then? Maybe I misunderstood, but that is the impression I got with your argument.

Owen;120428 wrote:

Is there a property that can be confirmed about god?

Nope.

Owen;120428 wrote:

That is the evidence required in order to assert that God exists.

Well like I already objected to, I feel a little more than that would be required. Why, well let's examine this in a little different way.

Let's use a car. To set this up, you have no idea what a car is. You have never learned about a car, or what makes up a car. I am going to prove to you that cars exist, but I only have to use one trait.

A car uses gas, therefore car's exist.

It says absolutely nothing about what a car is. You are no closer to understanding what a car is and the only actual thing you can take from it is that car's use gas. You are left with nothing other than that. So if asked, all you can say is there is gas in cars. Might I add, that statement is not a true statement anyways because cars could be empty of gas.

gas = gasoline (for those SA who would like to argue)

@Owen phil,

Owen;120428 wrote:

Is there a property that can be confirmed about god?

That is the evidence required in order to assert that God exists.

Some would say, "Sentient Authorship".

DNA is a code.
All codes have sentient authors.
Therefor, DNA is a sentient authored code.

A perfect inductive argument. Whether it "confirms" a "property" about God or not is up for speculation.

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;120687 wrote:

Some would say, "Sentient Authorship".

DNA is a code.
All codes have sentient authors.
Therefor, DNA is a sentient authored code.

A perfect inductive argument. Whether it "confirms" a "property" about God or not is up for speculation.

Your argument is a valid deductive argument and it is not sound.

It certainly is not an argument for the existence of a confirmable property of God.

@jeeprs,

Owen wrote:

God exists iff there is at least one property of God that can be asserted (confirmed).

Can't I assert that a property of a unicorn is that it has a 3-foot horn? But unicorns do not exist. It's very interesting, the notion of fictional properties.

@Reconstructo,

I believe in God - the Biblical God. If God caused existence, then there can be distinction between God and existence. In this condition, it cannot be said that God exist, but that which can be "beyond" existence.

My view of existence will be very general and it would include material and non-material things and forms. For example, for me, as I use the word existence this way, unicorns exist at least as mental constructs because at least they are patterns within our experience. The word and the concept God exist as mental constructs but not what they stand for. What they stand for, if in Biblical sense, would be "above" and "beyond".

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;120804 wrote:

Can't I assert that a property of a unicorn is that it has a 3-foot horn? But unicorns do not exist. It's very interesting, the notion of fictional properties.

No. A unicorn has a horn iff it exists.

Fictional properties are properties which can only be verified by the fiction concerned. For example, Santa wears black boots, is true within the fiction/myth about Santa, but in reality ..Santa wears black boots, is false.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113480 wrote:

I agree. Dawkins is missing the point. The correspondence theory of truth is his un-god, perhaps. From an angle like that, transcendence can only mean feeling/subjective state. Only what we can all stare at together is real.
Some theists might even allow that "God" is a feeling. But "woo" sounds to me like the equating of a loving couple's wedding with the renting of porn.
It's dismissive, bigoted, subjective. It's the place where motive shines thru "truth."

Hi Jeepers - I had been exchanging some emails with a friend on this topic. I am including one such exchange here as it is relevant to the question you have posted. It is based on a philosophical interpretation of QM.

'Hi Jameel

My point is that the physical universe is precisely one in which the observable universe (knowable as you have termed it) is influenced by outside i.e. that slice that extends from the edge of the observable universe to the extent of the physical universe. It is in this slice that the superposition Eigenstates reside. It is in this slice where physical mechanisms exist and operate and via a mechanism which can NEVER be known to the residents of the 4D sub Topology of the observable universe. It is not that we have not discovered these hidden mechanisms, it is that these mechanisms are not EVER available to the residents in the observable universe. This is the fundamental conjecture of QM. For proof of this I will refer you to the Bell Inequalities - which show that conditions for this conjecture to be true.

Thus, it is an intrinsic property of this universe that its unobservable portion is forever hidden from its observable part BUT the unobservable part directly influences the residents of the observable part via mechanisms that are and will be forever unknown. i.e. We residing in the observable universe cannot measure the superposed eigenstates (this is the unobservable), but are influenced via mechanisms outside the observable universe (the collapsing of the superposed eigenstates) and measure the outcome of this influence (the eigen states). We are and continue to be influenced from 'outside'.

I am therefore merely hypothesing that if its known and a necessary condition for the observable universe to be influenced from a segregated slice then there may be higher levels of realities beyond the edge of the physical universe.

I would also pose the additional question. In QM states of full universal scales (as built by Hawking) who is the observer that gives the superposed states reality? I havent considered in the above discussion an ID as the creater of the physical laws and the physical topology and then sits back and allows things to unfold. That ID would then not even need to interact post creation.'

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 01:02 PM ----------

jeeprs;113428 wrote:

Last night in Australia there was an interview with Richard Dawkins on TV. I found him quite a likeable character. He is rather shy, surprisingly, given how forthright his opinions are. (Actually my feeling was that he has lead rather a sheltered life; very much the Oxford don, I felt.)

Regardless, I think he is very wrong about religion. I don't say this as a biblical Christian or fundamentalist. I hold no brief for creationism or intelligent design, but at the same time I am someone who feels that there seems to be 'an intelligence behind everything'. It is kind of vague, and I am OK with that. (Besides I never want to argue for the existence of God. Only for the existence of the possibility. That is all I think is necessary, for philosophy.)

The question I have, however, is very specific. Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'. He was very clear about that and in fact looked very pained that anyone could hold such a belief. It clearly annoys him.

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

What are you looking for - footprints? Fossil remains? DNA samples?

It seems to me that Dawkins conception of Deity is rather like those of children who imagine him as a kind of very large, but nevertheless finite, being, rather like a super-person. Presumably a very busy one, dashing here and there, creating things. (Of course, if you see it like this, it is no wonder you think it is absurd.)

If, however, the Deity was not 'a being' whose role is to 'tinker with creation' but the intelligence behind the laws of nature themselves, by the operation of which everything subsequent is generated, how could there be evidence of such a Deity? What what you look for? What would constitute 'evidence'?

Hi Jeepers - I had been exchanging some emails with a friend on this topic. I am including one such exchange here as it is relevant to the question you have posted.

Hi Jameel

My point is that the physical universe is precisely one in which the observable universe (knowable as you have termed it) is influenced by outside i.e. that slice that extends from the edge of the observable universe to the extent of the physical universe. It is in this slice that the superposition Eigenstates reside. It is in this slice where physical mechanisms exist and operate and via a mechanism which can NEVER be known to the residents of the 4D sub Topology of the observable universe. It is not that we have not discovered these hidden mechanisms, it is that these mechanisms are not EVER available to the residents in the observable universe. This is the fundamental conjecture of QM. For proof of this I will refer you to the Bell Inequalities - which show that conditions for this conjecture to be true.

Thus, it is an intrinsic property of this universe that its unobservable portion is forever hidden from its observable part BUT the unobservable part directly influences the residents of the observable part via mechanisms that are and will be forever unknown. i.e. We residing in the observable universe cannot measure the superposed eigenstates (this is the unobservable), but are influenced via mechanisms outside the observable universe (the collapsing of the superposed eigenstates) and measure the outcome of this influence (the eigen states). We are and continue to be influenced from 'outside'.

I am therefore merely hypothesing that if its known and a necessary condition for the observable universe to be influenced from a segregated slice then there may be higher levels of realities beyond the edge of the physical universe.

I would also pose the additional question. In QM states of full universal scales (as built by Hawking) who is the observer that gives the superposed states reality? I havent considered in the above discussion an ID as the creater of the physical laws and the physical topology and then sits back and allows things to unfold. That ID would then not even need to interact post creation.

---------- Post added 01-18-2010 at 01:11 PM ----------

jeeprs;113428 wrote:

Last night in Australia there was an interview with Richard Dawkins on TV. I found him quite a likeable character. He is rather shy, surprisingly, given how forthright his opinions are. (Actually my feeling was that he has lead rather a sheltered life; very much the Oxford don, I felt.)

Regardless, I think he is very wrong about religion. I don't say this as a biblical Christian or fundamentalist. I hold no brief for creationism or intelligent design, but at the same time I am someone who feels that there seems to be 'an intelligence behind everything'. It is kind of vague, and I am OK with that. (Besides I never want to argue for the existence of God. Only for the existence of the possibility. That is all I think is necessary, for philosophy.)

The question I have, however, is very specific. Dawkins said in this interview 'God is something for which there is no evidence'. He was very clear about that and in fact looked very pained that anyone could hold such a belief. It clearly annoys him.

So the question is this. If there were a God - let's describe it as 'Deity' - what evidence could there be for its existence?

What are you looking for - footprints? Fossil remains? DNA samples?

It seems to me that Dawkins conception of Deity is rather like those of children who imagine him as a kind of very large, but nevertheless finite, being, rather like a super-person. Presumably a very busy one, dashing here and there, creating things. (Of course, if you see it like this, it is no wonder you think it is absurd.)

If, however, the Deity was not 'a being' whose role is to 'tinker with creation' but the intelligence behind the laws of nature themselves, by the operation of which everything subsequent is generated, how could there be evidence of such a Deity? What what you look for? What would constitute 'evidence'?

Hi Jeepers - I had been exchanging some emails with a friend on this topic. I am including one such exchange here as it is relevant to the question you have posted.

Hi Jameel

My point is that the physical universe is precisely one in which the observable universe (knowable as you have termed it) is influenced by outside i.e. that slice that extends from the edge of the observable universe to the extent of the physical universe. It is in this slice that the superposition Eigenstates reside. It is in this slice where physical mechanisms exist and operate and via a mechanism which can NEVER be known to the residents of the 4D sub Topology of the observable universe. It is not that we have not discovered these hidden mechanisms, it is that these mechanisms are not EVER available to the residents in the observable universe. This is the fundamental conjecture of QM. For proof of this I will refer you to the Bell Inequalities - which show that conditions for this conjecture to be true.

Thus, it is an intrinsic property of this universe that its unobservable portion is forever hidden from its observable part BUT the unobservable part directly influences the residents of the observable part via mechanisms that are and will be forever unknown. i.e. We residing in the observable universe cannot measure the superposed eigenstates (this is the unobservable), but are influenced via mechanisms outside the observable universe (the collapsing of the superposed eigenstates) and measure the outcome of this influence (the eigen states). We are and continue to be influenced from 'outside'.

I am therefore merely hypothesing that if its known and a necessary condition for the observable universe to be influenced from a segregated slice then there may be higher levels of realities beyond the edge of the physical universe.

I would also pose the additional question. In QM states of full universal scales (as built by Hawking) who is the observer that gives the superposed states reality? I havent considered in the above discussion an ID as the creater of the physical laws and the physical topology and then sits back and allows things to unfold. That ID would then not even need to interact post creation.

@ChaosampComplexity,

Chaos&Complexity;120808 wrote:

I believe in God - the Biblical God. If God caused existence, then there can be distinction between God and existence. In this condition, it cannot be said that God exist, but that which can be "beyond" existence.

My view of existence will be very general and it would include material and non-material things and forms. For example, for me, as I use the word existence this way, unicorns exist at least as mental constructs because at least they are patterns within our experience. The word and the concept God exist as mental constructs but not what they stand for. What they stand for, if in Biblical sense, would be "above" and "beyond".

Well after much deliberation, I agree with you. I think there is a difference between what exists and what is real. What is real is an heirarchy within which there are greater and lesser degrees of reality. What is termed 'Deity' is the maximally real, or self-existent, or necessary being. Of course I realise many won't agree with that, and I have gotten over trying to persuade anyone.

incidentally - Unicorns exist in the sense that you or I know what the word refers to, and could even draw one. But they are not real. HOrses are real, and they exist. Numbers are real, but they don't exist. (And that is a whole other can of worms.)

@Owen phil,

Owen;120813 wrote:

No. A unicorn has a horn iff it exists.

Fictional properties are properties which can only be verified by the fiction concerned. For example, Santa wears black boots, is true within the fiction/myth about Santa, but in reality ..Santa wears black boots, is false.

That's right, I think.

@Krumple,

God exists iff there is at least one property of God that can be asserted (confirmed).

Krumple:
I object. There only needs to be one property? Why does a single property confirm existence?

x exists =df EF(Fx).
x exists, means, there is at least one property that x has.
If x has the property G then x has some property, ie. Gx -> EF(Fx), is tautologous.

God has property G implies God has some properties, ie., God exists.

Krumple:
Wait a second, are you actually saying that the property of existing is the property of god, therefore god exists because the property of existing has been applied? Isn't that like saying, a cat is a cat because it is a cat? Um, what the hell is a cat then? Maybe I misunderstood, but that is the impression I got with your argument.

Yes, you do misunderstand my point here.
Existence is not a property. Properties are primary predications, existence is not primary. Existence is the logical sum of properties that apply.
This cat purrs implies this cat exists.

Is there a property that can be confirmed about god?
That is the evidence required in order to assert that God exists.

Krumple:
Well like I already objected to, I feel a little more than that would be required. Why, well let's examine this in a little different way.
Let's use a car. To set this up, you have no idea what a car is. You have never learned about a car, or what makes up a car. I am going to prove to you that cars exist, but I only have to use one trait.
--A car uses gas, therefore car's exist. --
It says absolutely nothing about what a car is. You are no closer to understanding what a car is and the only actual thing you can take from it is that car's use gas. You are left with nothing other than that. So if asked, all you can say is there is gas in cars. Might I add, that statement is not a true statement anyways because cars could be empty of gas.

A car uses gas, therefore cars exist...is correct, even if the gas tank is empty.
To affirm that 'Cars use gas.' entails the existence of cars and it entails that gas exists.

@Owen phil,

Owen;120992 wrote:

Yes, you do misunderstand my point here.
Existence is not a property. Properties are primary predications, existence is not primary. Existence is the logical sum of properties that apply.
This cat purrs implies this cat exists.

Flawed, or is it? Well I know pink exists, and the flying pink elephant is pink, so therefore the flying pink elephant exists. Not to mention I know elephants exist too. So that is two out of the three, the flying pink elephant must exist.

@ChaosampComplexity,

Chaos&Complexity;120808 wrote:

I believe in God - the Biblical God. If God caused existence, then there can be distinction between God and existence. In this condition, it cannot be said that God exist, but that which can be "beyond" existence.

My view of existence will be very general and it would include material and non-material things and forms. For example, for me, as I use the word existence this way, unicorns exist at least as mental constructs because at least they are patterns within our experience. The word and the concept God exist as mental constructs but not what they stand for. What they stand for, if in Biblical sense, would be "above" and "beyond".

There cannot be things "beyond" existence at all.
Did God create his own existence??

x does exist, or, x does not exist ..is a tautology for all x's.

Existence in the mind and existence in reality is "wanton obscurantism" at its best.
Reality is the total of all that exists.
No god can cause existence.

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 08:06 AM ----------

jeeprs;120967 wrote:

Well after much deliberation, I agree with you. I think there is a difference between what exists and what is real. What is real is an heirarchy within which there are greater and lesser degrees of reality. What is termed 'Deity' is the maximally real, or self-existent, or necessary being. Of course I realise many won't agree with that, and I have gotten over trying to persuade anyone.

incidentally - Unicorns exist in the sense that you or I know what the word refers to, and could even draw one. But they are not real. HOrses are real, and they exist. Numbers are real, but they don't exist. (And that is a whole other can of worms.)

Search unicorns on the Web

-noun 1.a mythical creature resembling a horse, with a single horn in the center of its forehead: often symbolic of chastity or purity.2.a heraldic representation of this animal, in the form of a horse with a lion's tail and with a long, straight, and spirally twisted horn

Surely there are no "mythical creatures" that exist ..anywhere.
"Self-existent" ..what can this mean???

---------- Post added 01-19-2010 at 08:13 AM ----------

Krumple;120993 wrote:

Flawed, or is it? Well I know pink exists, and the flying pink elephant is pink, so therefore the flying pink elephant exists. Not to mention I know elephants exist too. So that is two out of the three, the flying pink elephant must exist.

Nonsense!
The pink flying elephant is pink, is a contradiction ..because it does not exist.
The pink flying elephant, has no reference at all.

@Owen phil,

Owen;120997 wrote:

Nonsense!
The pink flying elephant is pink, is a contradiction ..because it does not exist.
The pink flying elephant, has no reference at all.

If what I said was nonsense then your claim here is also nonsense:

Owen;120992 wrote:

A car uses gas, therefore cars exist...is correct, even if the gas tank is empty.
To affirm that 'Cars use gas.' entails the existence of cars and it entails that gas exists.

I just changed what you said from the car to the flying pink elephant. Interesting how you supported it when it was a car, but not when it was a flying pink elephant.

All I am doing is pointing out that you made additional assumptions that you did not equate or define. You also used a combination approach to the flying pink elephant problem where as with the car you stuck with your single trait required definition. You can't have it both ways if your theory is suppose to work. Therefore PINK should be more than enough of a trait to confirm the existence of the flying pink elephant.

@Krumple,

Krumple;121004 wrote:

If what I said was nonsense then your claim here is also nonsense:

I just changed what you said from the car to the flying pink elephant. Interesting how you supported it when it was a car, but not when it was a flying pink elephant.

All I am doing is pointing out that you made additional assumptions that you did not equate or define. You also used a combination approach to the flying pink elephant problem where as with the car you stuck with your single trait required definition. You can't have it both ways if your theory is suppose to work. Therefore PINK should be more than enough of a trait to confirm the existence of the flying pink elephant.

Krumple,
"Therefore PINK should be more than enough of a trait to confirm the existence of the flying pink elephant."

Wrong.
Cars use gas, is true and it implies cars exist.
The flying pink elephant is pink, is false and it implies nothing.
You cannot confirm that 'the flying pink elephant is pink', can you?
There is no property that the flying pink elephant has, is there??
Therefore the flying pink elephant does not exist.

Your argument is like saying, God is omniscient by definition/description, there fore God exists. ???

@Owen phil,

Owen;121007 wrote:

Krumple,
"Therefore PINK should be more than enough of a trait to confirm the existence of the flying pink elephant."

Wrong.
Cars use gas, is true and it implies cars exist.
The flying pink elephant is pink, is false and it implies nothing.
You cannot confirm that 'the flying pink elephant is pink', can you?
There is no property that the flying pink elephant has, is there??
Therefore the flying pink elephant does not exist.

Your argument is like saying, God is omniscient by definition/description, there fore God exists. ???

Once again you are assuming that I know what gas is.
You can not make car use gas therefore cars exist as a true statement.

If I had no idea what gas is, then would you say cars don't exist? No, that is not true at all. I think all you are trying to do here is cover up your mistake by sticking with your flawed argument that single traits affirm existence. It's a logical fallacy.

If you flip the situation then your mistake is blatantly clear. Does the existence of gas equal the existence of cars? No. You could have gas but no cars. The existence of gas does not mean cars exist.

@jeeprs,

Krumple and Owen,

The tricky part here is determining when to affirm or deny existence with the consideration of properties. The number three has the property of being odd. But the number three is an abstract notion. Does it exist? If not, then how can it have a property?

Ideas and concepts are said to exist (the number three is a concept). And if they exist, they have properties. Wouldn't you guys agree?

As for your flying pink elephant. The concept of a flying pink elephant can exist, and you can assign it properties. But keep in mind that you should not confuse the concept of something with that something.

Krumple wrote:

If you flip the situation then your mistake is blatantly clear. Does the existence of gas equal the existence of cars? No. You could have gas but no cars. The existence of gas does not mean cars exist

What I think you meant to say was that the use of gas in general doesn't mean that cars exist, and this is true. But the use of gas by a car, does mean that cars exist (as that would imply that a property of cars is that they use gas).

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;121032 wrote:

Krumple and Owen,

The tricky part here is determining when to affirm or deny existence with the consideration of properties. The number three has the property of being odd. But the number three is an abstract notion. Does it exist? If not, then how can it have a property?

Ideas and concepts are said to exist (the number three is a concept). And if they exist, they have properties. Wouldn't you guys agree?

What I think you meant to say was that the use of gas in general doesn't mean that cars exist, and this is true. But the use of gas by a car, does mean that cars exist (as that would imply that a property of cars is that they use gas).

The number three is not an abstract notion. The notion of the number three is an abstract notion, but the number three is an abstract entity if there are such things as abstract entities. Don't confuse notions with what they are notions of. The number three, if it exists, is not a concept. Of course, if the number three does not exist, then we can say that the number three is only a concept. And that, of course, means that there is the concept of the number three, but there is no number three. (A unicorn is not a concept. If it exists, a unicorn is a strange kind of animal. But, the concept of unicorn is, of course, a concept. And if you want to say that a unicorn is only a concept, what you are saying is that there is the concept, unicorn, but there are no unicorns). The slippage from talking about concepts, to talking about things, is easy to make, but the distinction between talking about the former, and talking about the latter, is very important.

@jeeprs,

I edited this in before you made your post, but it is evidence that I wasn't making the slippage.

Zetherin wrote:

As for your flying pink elephant. The concept of a flying pink elephant can exist, and you can assign it properties. But keep in mind that you should not confuse the concept of something with that something.

But what I don't understand from your post is what abstract entity means, and why you don't think the number three is an abstract notion. Aren't numbers abstractions? The number three is a thing in the world? Where?

Can you give me an example of an abstract entity? Abstract entities, as far as you've described them, are the things. Abstract notions are not the things, they are the concepts of those abstract things. But they both can exist.

Philosophy Forum

Evidence of Deity

Quick Links

My Account

able2know