The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:15 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:01 pm
So, you mean that you cannot consider two finite size volumes? This doesn't make any sense to me.
*sigh*

I can consider two finite size volumes.
What I cannot ASSUME is that each finite volume will have non-zero mass!

Scenario 1: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has zero mass.
B has zero mass.
That is impossible considering translation symmetry.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
Scenario 2: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has zero mass.
B has non-zero mass.
That is not possible either.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
Scenario 3: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has non-zero mass.
B has zero mass.
That is not possible either.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
Scenario 4: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has non-zero mass
B has non-zero mass.
Yes. That is possible.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
We can definitely say that we do not live in Scenario 1.

But beyond that you could be an inhabitor in any of 2B, 3A, 4A or 4B!

Only if you live in Scenario 4 can you assume uniform distribution of mass!
Yes.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:21 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:15 pm
That is impossible considering translation symmetry.
Translation symmetry of which quantities and across which axes?

Entropy is not time-symmetric!

That is literally the implication of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:15 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
Scenario 3: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has non-zero mass.
B has zero mass.
That is not possible either.
How and why have you dismissed this? Everything you know about "the universe" is based on the experiments you have inferred from the part we live in (the observable universe).

To make any claims about the INFINITE unobservable universe, based on observations made in the FINITE observable universe is strictly untestable conjecture and grave misunderstanding of the limits of probability theory/statistical mechanics.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:44 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:21 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:15 pm
That is impossible considering translation symmetry.
Translation symmetry of which quantities and across which axes?
Mass for example and across all axes.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:21 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:15 pm
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm
Scenario 3: Two finite size volumes: A and B.
A has non-zero mass.
B has zero mass.
That is not possible either.
How and why have you dismissed this? Everything you know about "the universe" is based on the experiments you have inferred from the part we live in (the observable universe).

To make any claims about the INFINITE unobservable universe, based on observations made in the FINITE observable universe is strictly untestable conjecture and grave misunderstanding of the limits of probability theory/statistical mechanics.
Because of translation symmetry. Everything was uniform in large scale. There was only quantum fluctuation in smaller scale.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:49 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:44 pm
Mass for example and across all axes.
*sigh*

The distribution of mass is NOT T-symmetric follows straight from thermodynamics.

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:44 pm
Because of translation symmetry. Everything was uniform in large scale. There was only quantum fluctuation in smaller scale.
Are you familiar with the concept of scale invariance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

To appeal to "translation symmetry" in one sentence and then appeal to "different behaviour at different scale" means that the phenomena are NOT scale invariant! NOT scale-symmetric.

Is called a contradiction...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:52 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:44 pm
Mass for example and across all axes.
*sigh*

The distribution of mass is NOT T-symmetric follows straight from thermodynamics.
Time is not really our concern here.
Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:49 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:44 pm
Because of translation symmetry. Everything was uniform in large scale. There was only quantum fluctuation in smaller scale.
Are you familiar with the concept of scale invariance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance

To say "translation symmetry" in one sentence and then appeal to "scale invariance".

Is called a contradiction.
You missed my point.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:55 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:52 pm
Time is not really our concern here.
Everything you say is true when you ignore time.
Everything you say is false when you take time into account.

Should we ignore time for the sake of preserving your beliefs?
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:52 pm
You missed my point.
You are appealing to translation symmetry as some sort of universal law in order to justify your assumption that mass is evenly distributed. You are appealing to Noether's theorem.

And yet - you can't explain why entropy violates T-symmetry.

Probably because you don't understand that Noether's theorem is true only IF symmetry is true.
It doesn't prove symmetry it assumes symmetry.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm
No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.
You post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.
If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.
I have a PhD in condensed matter physics but I study cosmology and particle physics to good extend. What I am trying to say here is related to transnational symmetry at the beginning.
If true then noted.

If you have a PhD is Physics, then you should understand whatever theory is
produced from Science or Physics, such a theory is conditioned by human-made-Scientific-Method.
Thus you cannot make the leap from Physics [human-based] to insist God exists [God-based] but not subject to this conclusion to be proven via the Scientific Method.
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
I am sure I have corrected you on this point on a number of times, yet you keep ignoring this feedback.

The scientific method does not and can not prove anything.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:10 am

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:51 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
I am sure I have corrected you on this point on a number of times, yet you keep ignoring this feedback.

The scientific method does not and can not prove anything.
Depending on your definition of 'proofs'

Mine;
Scientific proofs are conclusions generated via the Scientific Method based on empirical evidence and arguments.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:14 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:10 am
Depending on your definition of 'proofs'

Mine;
Scientific proofs are conclusions generated via the Scientific Method based on empirical evidence and arguments.
You are going to have to define "truth" and "evidence" for your definition to mean anything.

My definition of "proof" is as is commonly used in Proof theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory ).

There is no logical connection whatsoever between proof theory and scientific empiricism.
Mathemaical models are merely tools of science.

As such science does not prove anything. It tests hypothesis.

We make up a story (called a hypothesis) if a story withstands rigorous scrutiny, agrees with experiment for long enough and produces good predictions it becomes a theory. But even theories are not considered to be proofs of anything, for every theory can be falsified with new discoveries.

The scientific method disproves, but does not prove!

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:10 am
Depending on your definition of 'proofs'

Mine;
Scientific proofs are conclusions generated via the Scientific Method based on empirical evidence and arguments.
You are going to have to define "truth" and "evidence" for your definition to mean anything.

My definition of "proof" is as is commonly used in Proof theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory ).

There is no logical connection whatsoever between proof theory and scientific empiricism.
Mathemaical models are merely tools of science.

As such science does not prove anything. It tests hypothesis.

We make up a story (called a hypothesis) if a story withstands rigorous scrutiny, agrees with experiment for long enough and produces good predictions it becomes a theory. But even theories are not considered to be proofs of anything, for every theory can be falsified with new discoveries.

The scientific method disproves, but does not prove!
Don't try to be a too-smart-ass.

Note Popper asserted a scientific theory is at best a polished conjecture, thus ultimately a conjecture. This is a fact, but most scientists do not refer their theory as a conjecture or polished conjecture.

Conventionally what is a scientific proof is obvious and understood by all. The critical point here is, whatever is called a scientific proof, theory or polished conjecture cannot escapes all the necessary procedures and compliance to the scientific method and the peer review.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:31 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am
Note Popper asserted a scientific theory is at best a polished conjecture, thus ultimately a conjecture. This is a fact, but most scientists do not refer their theory as a conjecture or polished conjecture.
You are playing apologetics now. Most scientist do not refer to their theory as "proof" of anything, or "truth" of any sort either.
Most scientists insist on correcting the misconception about the scientific method, its limits and its capabilities.

Least it generates unrealistic expectations of what science can and can't do in the public eye.

Q.E.D!

Truth-seeking is NOT the domain of science. Truth-seeking is strictly a philosophical endeavor.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am
Conventionally what is a scientific proof is obvious and understood by all. The critical point here is, whatever is called a scientific proof, theory or polished conjecture cannot escapes all the necessary procedures and compliance to the scientific method and the peer review.
That may very well be a true statement in a general, but in the particular context of "God" the statement you made is total bullshit.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
Not just to date.

The scientific method can NEVER prove the existence of God. Not today, not ever.

Because nobody (to date) has come up with any conjecture (polished or unpolished) about what God is; how to test it; or how to falsify it.

Even worse: any polished-yet-untestable/unfalsifiable God-conjecture that suddenly becomes a testable/falsifiable conjecture as science progresses is necessarily a God-of-the-gaps argument.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2305
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by bahman » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:34 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:55 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 am

You post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.
If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.
I have a PhD in condensed matter physics but I study cosmology and particle physics to good extend. What I am trying to say here is related to transnational symmetry at the beginning.
If true then noted.

If you have a PhD is Physics, then you should understand whatever theory is
produced from Science or Physics, such a theory is conditioned by human-made-Scientific-Method.
Thus you cannot make the leap from Physics [human-based] to insist God exists [God-based] but not subject to this conclusion to be proven via the Scientific Method.
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
I am aware of that. Our discussion just deviated.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2387
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:31 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:35 am
To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method.
Not just to date.

The scientific method can NEVER prove the existence of God. Not today, not ever.

Because nobody (to date) has come up with any conjecture (polished or unpolished) about what God is; how to test it; or how to falsify it.

Even worse: any polished-yet-untestable/unfalsifiable God-conjecture that suddenly becomes a testable/falsifiable conjecture as science progresses is necessarily a God-of-the-gaps argument.
Not me, but the majority of theists claim their God [whatever that it] to be empirically real.
Whatever empirical qualify for scientific "proof".
Many theists rely on existing scientific theory to prove their God exists.
Therefore on that basis, there is nothing wrong in my statement as addressed to the theists [not you], i.e.

"To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method."

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:11 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am
Not me, but the majority of theists claim their God [whatever that it] to be empirically real.
Whatever empirical qualify for scientific "proof".
Many theists rely on existing scientific theory to prove their God exists.
You do know that there is part of empiricism that is beyond scientific reach, right?

Human feelings and emotions. After all empiricism means experience. And we all experience emotions.
I can apply the scientific method to my feelings and you can apply the scientific method to your feelings, but you can't apply the scientific method to my feelings.

That is not a limit of science. That is a limit reality imposes on us.

And so it is entirely possible that whatever theists call God is a real, psychological or even a subconscious emergent empirical phenomenon.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:42 am
Therefore on that basis, there is nothing wrong in my statement as addressed to the theists [not you], i.e.

"To date there is no convincing proofs of God existence via the Scientific Method."
Anybody who tries to "prove" anything outside of Mathematics is very misguided.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests