CALDONIA

What laws did God's creator follow?

Big Spoon

Bob K, with "verified eyewitness reports..." I think you're confusing proof with evidence.

Bob K

Big Spoon:One of the problems in creating definitions is creating definitions by tautology, by synonyms, i.e., kinda-sorta like ‘this word’ is the same as ‘this other word.’

What you appear to be saying is that my definition of ‘proof’ is a tautological definition in which ‘proof = ‘evidence.’

The problem with tautologies is that at some point or other either (A) all synonyms taken together must create a visual or verbal mental representation that is commonly agreeable or otherwise (B) someone has to create a nontautological definition such as an operational definition.

An operational definition is a definition in which a word or phrase is defined by the description of the observation and/or measurement of relevant people/things/events.

By descriptions of the observations/measurements of real/actual people/things/events operational definitions relate words/phrases, including abstract words/phrase, to real/actual/concrete/observable/measureable people/things/events; thus, operational definitions can relate words/pphrase to real people/things/events and thus make concrete abtract words/phrases.

Operational definitions are often characterized by, or otherwise could be constructed by means of, structured sentences such a favorite often used by children:

______ [word/phrase being defined] is when ________ [description of the observation/measurement of relevant people/things/events].

Example: Love [word being defined] is when someone says they like you and does nice things for you and with you [description of the observation/measurement of relevant people/things/events].

Here is an operational definition of ‘proof’:

Proof [word being defined] is when someone provides (1) Physical evidence, people/things/events comprised of matter/energy who/which can be perceived by the perceptual senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and/or taste, directly, possibly with the use of machines or instruments such as telescopes, microscopes, or audio amplifiers, etc., or indirectly by the observations of observable/measurable effects upon observable/measurable people/things/events; (2) Verified eyewitness reports of physical evidence by credible eyewitnesses, individuals who are not known to have produced falsehoods, and corroborated by credible corroborators; (3) Valid logical arguments in which the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by (A) physical evidence or (B) eyewitness reports from credible individuals and corroborated by credible corroborators and which lead to related conclusions which are true if the premises are true.

When you look up ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ on www.dictionary.com you get mixed definitions in which ‘proof’ = ‘evidence’:

NOTE: www.dictionary.com cites sources in a confusing way, listing Source: _____ (?) but placing ‘Source: _____ (?)’ inconsistently before/after the definitions, therefore I am not certain which dictionaries can be given credit for the specific definitions presented below. Writers generally cite sources after their text, but I am not confident that this is the method used by dictionary.com.

Proof: n. 1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Proof: n. 1. Any effort, process, or operation designed to establish or discover a fact or truth; an act of testing; a test; a trial. 2. That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief; a test by facts or arguments that induce, or tend to induce, certainty of the judgment; conclusive evidence; demonstration.

Proof: n 1: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it" [syn: cogent evidence]

Evidence: n. 1.A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2.Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3.Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Evidence: n. 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.

Thesauruses produce similar results in which ‘proof’ = ‘evidence’:

Synonyms

Entry: proof
Function: noun
Definition: evidence
Synonyms: affidavit, argument, attestation, authentication, averment, case, certification, cincher, clue, confirmation, corroboration, credentials, criterion, cue, data, demonstration, deposition, documents, dope, establishment, exhibit, facts, goods, grabber, ground, info, lowdown, nitty-gritty, paper trail, picture, reason, reasons, record, scoop, score, skinny, smoking gun, substantiation, testament, testimony, trace, validation, verification, warrant, wherefore, why, whyfor
Concept: information
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)

I get the general impression that proof is a category in which we could logically say that evidence is a subcategory, particularly physical evidence, factual evidence, another subcategory being eyewitness reports, another subcategory being logical arguments.

I therefore have offered my operational definition of proof from the viewpoint that proof is the category of which evidence, eyewitness reports and logical arguments are subcategories, that proof is a class in which some of the members include physical evidence, eyewitness reports and logical arguments.

Your complaint is that I am confusing physical evidence with eyewitness reports of physical evidence.

What I intend by the distinction is to describe a situation in which you and I are trying to prove gods exist/do not exist and we find as physical evidence the gods themselves and as eyewitness reports accounts of physical evidence of the gods from individuals whose credibility we accept because we have had no experiences in which we have confirmed that they have produced falsehoods.

I.e., there is a significant difference between (A) direct perception and therefore knowledge ofthings who/which prove they are gods by performing feats which indicate a superior knowledge and superior capabilities to that of man individually or collectively and (B) someone telling us of their encounters with things who/which they perceived to be gods.

Hawkingfan

It sounds like they don't understand the current theories. Prior to the big bang, all of the matter and energy in the universe was compacted into an infintismally small space. We do not know for certain how it got to be that way. We will find the answers soon. For now, the Christian can say that God put it that way, but then that leads us to the classic rebuttle: if God put it that way, who put God that way? The Christian usually comes back saying that God just always existed even though we tell them that even he must have a beginning.

Bob K

Hawkingfan:

Big Spoon:Hawkingfan;If we define the universe to be the combination of three realities: (1) The spatial reality, which is space, the unbounded area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/vastness/volume in which exist all things and events comprised of matter and energy and which is infinite in dimensions and infinite in duration; (2) The temporal reality, which is time, the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events, and which is infinite in the measurement of time-intervals; (3) The physical reality, which is physics, matter and energy, including forces and force fields, and which comprises all people, things and events, and which is infinite in duration, and if we consider the physical fact that thus far matter/energy has been proven to be indestructible and only convertible, matter into energy, and vice versa, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, and, therefore, matter/energy is infinite in duration, then we can conclude that matter/energy exists regardless of the existence of gods, and that gods, if they exist, are themselves comprised of matter/energy, and because matter/energy is indestructible and infinite in duration, then the gods could have not have created matter/energy, and matter/energy then serves as the cause of causality, no gods necessary, no gods needed, but then we have to recognize the possibility that the gods could in fact exist but instead of being creators of matter/energy are reorganizers of matter/energy by virtue of having more knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge than man individually or collectively.

This statement is not intended to be a proof of the existence of gods, for within it is the conjecture ‘gods, if they exist’; instead, this statement is a conjecture that if they exist the gods did not create matter/energy, and if they do not exist they are not needed because the universe consisting of the spatial reality, space, the temporal reality, time, and the physical reality, matter/energy, proves itself, justifies itself, defines itself, never was caused, has always existed, and therefore never had a beginning and will never have an ending.

Hawkingfan

That is not the definition of god I am familiar with and I don't think it is the Christian view either. There is no evidence to support this. But the real problem I have concerns this:
This is again not in tune with current theories (at least those of Hawking). Scientists believe the universe was caused (we are still finding the answers to why and how), but they do not believe the universe has existed forever. The universe began at the big bang. Time began at the big bang. It is pointless to suggest anything previously existing prior to the big bang because our universe suffers none of its consequences. This is because the universe prior to the big bang was a singularity where current math and science theories break down. But the answers to why and how the big bang occured will come when QM and relativity are combined and new mathematics is invented.

Phanes

You fudged a bit there. If anything, the conclusion should be "an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in one thing that is usually considered supernatural (i.e. God)"; "someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural" doesn't follow from your assumptions.

Possible yes, but by no means necessary.

Shake

First of all, I wasn't asking what the difference was between the two.

Secondly, I disagree with your definitions.

For theory, I found this at dictionary.com:... like, "I have a theory as to why GWB seems to want war with Iraq regardless of what anyone else says.

Whereas I feel that the definition of Theory more closely fits with these (www.m-w.com):... as in the Theory of General Relativity. It may not be a perfect model, but it has been proven, in part at least, and has had made testable predictions which observation has upheld.

Bob K

Hawkingfan:

Bob K:HF:I am not saying the above is the definition of god(s) you are familiar with, nor is it the Xn view.

I am saying that with my view of the universe as comprised of (1) space/the spatial reality of infinite dimensions and infinite duration, (2) time/the temporal reality of infinite time measurement into the past and the future, and (3) physics = matter/energy/the physical reality of infinite duration [conservation of energy = indestructibility of matter/energy = infinite duration of matter/energy] and finite quantity [the universe is a closed system re: matter/energy because (A) there is no other source of matter/energy beyond the matter/energy of the universe and (B) there is no ‘place’ beyond this universe for matter/energy of this universe ‘to go’] that the gods, if they exist, are comprised of matter/energy and therefore are natural and have some limitations according to their composition, that the gods, if they exist, are not ‘outside’ or ‘beyond’ the universe, but, instead, the gods, if they exist, are ‘inside’ the universe and therefore are a part of it.

This thinking gives us a new idea of what the gods, if they exist, may be.

Instead of being some mysterious/spiritual something-or-other, unobserved unobservables, supernatural beings who/which created all-there-is, etc., the gods, if they exist, suddenly become ‘natural’ and therefore more comprehensible and therefore more understandable although more limited than the omni-everything gods of theists [omnipotent/omniscient/omni-benevolent].

And if the gods (A) are more knowledgeable than man and (B) are more powerful/have greater capabilities for using knowledge than man, and (C) if they did not create matter/energy they were able to reorganize matter/energy into who-knows-what-at-this-time, then they certainly could be worthy of being worshipped by humans.

Lack of proof can be proof regardless of claims of logical fallacies.

To my knowledge, no human being on the planet is capable of proving that gods exist, nor has any human being in the past proven that gods exist. No one has been able to capture one so we could torture it until it confesses it is a god and performs tricks humans cannot perform to prove that it has more knowledge than man and more powers than man and therefore is a god. No credible eyewitnesses have provided corroborated reports of the observations of the gods that compels rational people to believe (A) the reports are true and (B) therefore gods exist. No persons have ever provided logical arguments for which the premises have been verifiable/falsifiable/verified true by physical evidence [the gods] or credible eyewitness reports of the physical evidence of the gods, meaning all logical arguments thus far have suffered from the fallacy of unproven premises [the logical fallacy of begging the question, leaving questions unanswered, particularly this question: Is this premise verifiable/falsifiable/verified?] and, too often, the fallacy of circular reasons in which the conclusion is present in the premises and the premises are present in the conclusion, therefore the conclusions, that gods exist, are not supported by the premises and the argument is therefore invalid.

Without proof of the existence of gods, gods are irrelevant to human endeavors.

HF:How can anyone/anything cause space? Space is a pure vacuum except for those areas wherein we find matter/energy. I.E., if we find clumps of matter/energy in space, beyond those clumps we will find pure vacuums. Space has no structure. Matter/energy is the only source of structure, thus structure = matter/energy; no matter/energy = no structure.

How can anyone/anything cause time? Time is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of time-intervals. This is a fact that endures without a beginning and without an ending, and certainly was not created by a Big Bang and certainly will not be destroyed by a Big Crunch.

Thermodynamics has told us that in closed systems energy is conserved, that matter/energy cannot be destroyed but only changed in form, meaning that matter/energy is infinite in duration, is the source of causality, that there never was a beginning to matter/energy and there never will be an ending to matter/energy, meaning that the sum total of matter/energy in a closed system is a constant, a finite number, and, therefore, is not an infinite number, an infinite quantity.

A closed system is defined as a system beyond which there is no other source of matter/energy which can be added to the known matter/energy in the closed system and beyond which there is no ‘place’ the known matter in the closed system ‘can go.’ There is no known source of matter/energy beyond the matter/energy of the universe, and therefore is no known ‘place’ to where the matter/energy of the universe ‘can go,’ ‘can be sent,’ therefore the universe is a closed system and its matter/energy is infinite in duration and finite in quantity.

My overall complaint with current theoretical physics is the acceptance of concepts and principles that are as mysterious and therefore mystical as concepts and principles found in religion.

Intuitively, the universe never did not exist; it has always existed, and consists of space/time/physics. Moreover, there is only one universe, and there are no ‘multiple universes’ or ‘parallel universes’ [which imply ‘multiple universes’].

Intuitively, something comes from something, nothing comes from nothing, therefore, if the universe exists, which it does, then it is the ‘something’ from which all other ‘somethings’ come.

Because matter/energy cannot be destroyed, and therefore is infinite in duration although finite in quantity, there never was a creation of matter/energy--it has always existed, and is the source of causality and the something from which all other somethings come.

One of the ideas that appears to be overlooked by at least some theoretical physicists is the fact that a force field, as found in electromagnetic and gravitational fields, is a form of matter/energy and not some mysterious/mythical spirituality.

If matter/energy creates a force field, which affects things/events within it, then that force field is nevertheless a form of matter/energy, and, therefore, is a form of structure. Thus, when gravity creates of force field in which planets, et al, whirl in orbits, gravity is therefore imposing a structure to a volume of space. Space is not being created by gravity, by matter/energy, by the structure imposed by matter/energy, and, therefore, space is not a gravitational field/force field regardless of the claims of theoretical physicists.

I have read Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, among other books on physics, particularly theoretical physics, particularly the concept of time, and it is clear to me that he has no clue as to what time is, nor does anyone else who claims that time and space are interrelated in the concept of spacetime.

NOTE: A special issue of Scientific American was devoted to the concept of time and related principles, with the overall conclusion that no one really knows what time is, so Hawking is not alone.

My observations re: time:

1. Time is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of time-intervals.
2. The key element of the concept of time is the time-interval, the TI, the unit of measurement of time. The time-interval/TI can be of any initial length/duration [seconds/minutes/days/etc.].
3. There are two time-intervals: (A) The variable time-interval, the VTI, as found in clocks which are subject to, but not adjusted for, the affects of changes of velocity and/or gravity; (B) The invariable time-interval, the ITI, as found in clocks which are subject to but adjusted for the affects of changes of velocity and/or gravity, as found in either motion-sensing/self-adjusting clocks or clocks which are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.
4. The use of ITIs provides the smooth, even measurement of events required for absolute or universal time, and provides, therefore, a pulse, like an heartbeat, for the universe. Moreover, the use of ITIs provides infinite measurement of time either forwards or backwards from any originating timepoint, T0:

Past Infinity <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> Future Infinity

ITIs therefore show the infinity of time, that there can be no finity to time, no beginning of time, and no ending to time.
5. Einstein, by his own admission, on page 99 of his book, Relativity, translated by Robert Lawson, using VTIs for the development of the theories of special and general relativity including the concept of spacetime; he did not use ITIs. If he had used ITIs, then it is my conclusion that space and time would be determined to be independent of each other, as they are, and the concept of spacetime would thus be irrelevant.
6. Because time and space are independent, when time is measured by ITIs, then concepts/principles such as ‘curved space’ or ‘closed space’ become silly and irrelevant, especially observable when theoretical physicists avoid answering questions such as this: What is beyond closed space/curved space?

You challenge conclusions by challenging their premises.

I am challenging the conclusions of SR/GR, et al, by challenging the premise of the use of VTIs instead of ITIs for the development of SR/GR.

If you want to challenge my conclusions, that space and time are independent realities, each with its own infinity, then challenge my premises (1) that time is the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of time-intervals, (2) that the key element of time is the time-interval, the TI, (3) that there are two types of TIs, the VTI and the ITI, and (4) that the ITI provides the invariable measurement of time needed for the independence of time and space.

No one has yet proven that ITIs do not exist, and that they cannot be used for the steady measurement of time, and that time measured by ITIs is not universal time, absolute time, time independent of space, and that time, when thus defined and therefore understood, is not infinite, one of the infinities that comprise the universe.

If this Theory of Invariable Time-Intervals is new and upsets the conclusions of theoretical physicists, that is not my problem; it is, instead, a contribution to our understanding of reality.

Bob K

Phanes:

Bob K:Phanes:I have yet to meet an atheist or an agnostic who said he believed in the existence of anything supernatural.

Do such creatures actually exist?

What would be supernatural that would not be a god? Angels? Demons? Souls? Spirits? Unicorns? Sorcerers?

Have you ever met an individual who did not believe in the existence of gods but who believed in the existence of angels/demons/souls/spirits/unicorns/sorcerers/etc. who thus did not believe in the existence of one type of supernatural something-or-other, gods, but who believed in the existence of other supernatural somethings?

By the way, one of the problems of the horror and sorcerer genres is the background/hidden question of, since we are dealing with the supernatural, Where are the gods in all this? If they were omni-everything gods, then they would know what's going on, have the power to control what's going on, and would help defend humans from demons. But, then, horror/sorcerer stories are 'only stories.'

Note that in The Stand Stephen King did not mess around; he not only had Big D show up as a character, as the Big Baddie, he also had Big G show up, as the Big Goodie, as the hand that ... ['don't want to reveal the plotline therein].

Bob K:Phanes:Again, what would be supernatural that would not be a god, or assume the existence of, the presence of, gods as the Big Goodies in ultimate control of all-there-is?