Argument 18: God Does Not Exist And Logic Proves It

[positive atheist]

What am I supposed to do when you have not proved your claim?

How about ignore me?

Projection and still no proof for your claim.

Projection? Why would I be projecting? If I was projecting I would dislike something about myself and attribute it to you. But I directly quoted what you said. How can quoting you be projection on my part?

There is no improvement to your dishonesty .

I was talking about your improvement from "prove your claim, prove your claim, prove your claim, prove your claim," to some other nonsense you were saying. But now you have, unfortunately, slipped right back into "prove your claim". Very sad.

YOu cannot educate someone into honesty.

Then there is no point in me trying it on you. Thanks for helping me avoid wasting my time.

 

[Theophilos]

So your response is no response to my argument. You are just pointing out that classic laws of physics break down on the quantum level and thus my argument is false?? If this were actually a valid point then all the arguments that god does exist are also false.

My response is that applying human logic does not work with quantum mechanics. Using similar logic to deny the existence of a deity is even more dubious.

The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment shows that observed behavior of light passing through slits depends on whether the observer is looking for particle or wave properties. That is true even when the choice about the observation is made after the light has already gone through the slits. Ultimately the nature of light before it is actually observed is a matter of faith and speculation, not science.

An Orthodox Jewish physicist, Alexander Poltorak, provides an interesting argument to show that there is no contradiction between modern physics and the narrative in Genesis. Until there was an observer, the nature of the universe was as whole would be in an indeterminate state ( . . . without form, and void; and darkness . . .). The presence of the first human provides an observer, which ends the indeterminate state and only a universe consistent with human life could come into existence. The big bang is effectively a back story that is a consequence of genesis.

On the Nature of Time and the Age of the Universe | Torah and Science

Presented at the International Torah and Science Conference in Miami International University on December 18, 2005 Alexander Poltorak Introduction. This is the third in a series of articles, in which I attempt to sketch various approaches to reconciling a cosmological age of the universe...

quantumtorah.com

 

[Lucian]

So if I understand you are not trying to prove my argument is false you are just pointing out all the premises and logic of it are false.

No, since I 1) have not addressed all of your premises and 2) don't know what "pointing out... the logic of it [is] false" means.

To understand what I'm doing, you can just read my last post.

The list of ways in which I am wrong only has 4 things on it so far. Are you sure you don't want to add to it? I'll wait as long as you want.

As I said in my last post, that's probably enough for now.

 

[Ontos]

P3. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.

This is false

The laws of logic are "dependent" on God insofar as God grounds all existing things, but the laws of logic are necessary insofar as they are a reflection of the Divine Intellect.

 

[Whatsisface]

This is false

The laws of logic are "dependent" on God insofar as God grounds all existing things, but the laws of logic are necessary insofar as they are a reflection of the Divine Intellect.

The Laws of Logic can't be dependent on anything, otherwise they wouldn't be absolute and so laws.

 

[Howie]

P1. The principal laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, law of excluded middle, transitive laws, are self-evident to human beings.
P2. Christians believe God created everything, all things visible and invisible, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God.
P3. If something is created by or is dependent on God, it is not necessary — it is contingent on God.
P4. If principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary.
P5. If principles of logic are not logically necessary, then God could have arranged matters such that the principal laws of logic were different.
P6. God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that China is larger than New Zealand and China is not larger than New Zealand?
C. Hence logic is not dependent on God, and any God said to obtain such a property cannot exist.

Have you run your argument by God yet?

 

[Ontos]

The Laws of Logic can't be dependent on anything, otherwise they wouldn't be absolute and so laws.

"The laws of logic are "dependent" on God insofar as God grounds all existing things..."

Did you stop reading here, because the very next part I affirm their necessity

"but the laws of logic are necessary insofar as they are a reflection of the Divine Intellect."

Laws only exist in an intellect. The laws of logic are dependent on an intellect, but they are necessary because the Divine Intellect which grounds the laws is necessary.

 

[Whatsisface]

"The laws of logic are "dependent" on God insofar as God grounds all existing things..."

Did you stop reading here, because the very next part I affirm their necessity

"but the laws of logic are necessary insofar as they are a reflection of the Divine Intellect."

You don't so much affirm this, but claim it. How does this work?

Laws only exist in an intellect. The laws of logic are dependent on an intellect, but they are necessary because the Divine Intellect which grounds the laws is necessary.

This is again claims only.

The laws of logic are realised by intellect but are not dependent on intellect. What grounds the laws of logic are their necessity. For example, the law of identity, A=A, a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. What grounds this law is the impossibility for something to not be what it is. That's all it takes for this Law to be true. God is not needed here for this to be true.

Minds realise this trivial truth, but that things can only be what they are isn't dependent on a mind.

 

[Ontos]

The laws of logic are realised by intellect but are not dependent on intellect.

They are dependent. Laws are propositions, they are statements - statements are about something which demonstrates intentionality - only an intellect can produce or ground such intentionality, such aboutness.

Laws may be "impossible" to be otherwise, but that doesn't mean they possess their own necessary existence.

 

[Whatsisface]

They are dependent. Laws are propositions, they are statements - statements are about something which demonstrates intentionality - only an intellect can produce or ground such intentionality, such aboutness.

Laws may be "impossible" to be otherwise, but that doesn't mean they possess their own necessary existence.

But as I've said, that things can only be what they are isn't dependent on a mind, and that's what the law of Identity is grounded on.

 

[Caroljeen]

But as I've said, that things can only be what they are isn't dependent on a mind, and that's what the law of Identity is grounded on.

Then you are giving reality to something that does not exist outside of a mind. Ideas exists in minds. That something is a law doesn't give it being or substance.

 

[Whatsisface]

Then you are giving reality to something that does not exist outside of a mind. Ideas exists in minds.

I agree that ideas exist in minds, but in this case what this idea points to doesn't. It points to the fact that things can only be what they are.

That something is a law doesn't give it being or substance.

But what the law points to can have, as in this case.

 

[5wize]

....

 

[5wize]

My response is that applying human logic does not work with quantum mechanics. Using similar logic to deny the existence of a deity is even more dubious.

The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment shows that observed behavior of light passing through slits depends on whether the observer is looking for particle or wave properties. That is true even when the choice about the observation is made after the light has already gone through the slits. Ultimately the nature of light before it is actually observed is a matter of faith and speculation, not science.

An Orthodox Jewish physicist, Alexander Poltorak, provides an interesting argument to show that there is no contradiction between modern physics and the narrative in Genesis. Until there was an observer, the nature of the universe was as whole would be in an indeterminate state ( . . . without form, and void; and darkness . . .). The presence of the first human provides an observer, which ends the indeterminate state and only a universe consistent with human life could come into existence. The big bang is effectively a back story that is a consequence of genesis.

On the Nature of Time and the Age of the Universe | Torah and Science

Presented at the International Torah and Science Conference in Miami International University on December 18, 2005 Alexander Poltorak Introduction. This is the third in a series of articles, in which I attempt to sketch various approaches to reconciling a cosmological age of the universe...

quantumtorah.com

You don’t understand the double slit experiment. The change from wave to particle happens not because of observation alone, but the interference of the light required for the observation mucks with the wave pattern. They don’t know why, but it isn’t merely looking or our consciousness’ involvement that changes it. That’s just woo-woo talk. If light is applied and no one is looking, the wave breaks down to particles still.

 

[The Pixie]

An Orthodox Jewish physicist, Alexander Poltorak, provides an interesting argument to show that there is no contradiction between modern physics and the narrative in Genesis.

One big contradiction between modern science and Genesis is that Genesis was the earth - and even plants - was created before the sun.

Until there was an observer, the nature of the universe was as whole would be in an indeterminate state ( . . . without form, and void; and darkness . . .). The presence of the first human provides an observer, which ends the indeterminate state and only a universe consistent with human life could come into existence. The big bang is effectively a back story that is a consequence of genesis.

A great explanation for fine tuning!

Until the first intelligent observer evolved, the universe was in a superposition of states, each state being a different combination of physical constants. When an intelligent observer first appeared in one state, those states collapsed into just one - the one that had produced that observer.

Hence, what we see today is that one state, seemingly fine-tuned for intelligent observers.

[That said, as 5wize points out, the claim that a conscious observer is required is "just woo-woo talk". ]

 

[Torin]

I am very busy reading many things but send a link or give me the name of a book. I cannot promise I will read it but it can't hurt to have it. You are not going to quiz me, are you? Thanks.

Here is a link to some quotes that present the concept:

Lexicon - Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness - ARI Campus

courses.aynrand.org

The best single author book on Rand's philosophy is Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff. The first chapter of that book covers the primacy of existence and the necessary conceptual groundwork for it.