If God Existed, What Would He Be Like?

Debate Room
265

That the explanation of “life seeks to preserve its integrity of being (harmony), seeks to expand its being (cooperation), and seeks to achieve integration with other beings” cannot be explained through evolution. Why do you believe that both definitions are incompatible with one another?

Ok. I equate God with Being, Divinity with Good, and Consciousness with Concept. I defined my terms. I hold to these beliefs because they are the most accurate description of reality. I evidenced my claims with the totality of being as omnipresence, the totality of good as omnibenevolence, and the entirety of consciousness as omnipresence. This is my God.

You are not obligated to agree with my definition of God, but I think it would be fair to acknowledge that I do not define God as “the man upstairs” or even within classical notions. Misrepresenting my views on the subject is not how we can move forward.

I did. Now, if you want to discuss the nature of being, goodness, and consciousness with me, I would be happy to do so. And if we come to the conclusion of a God that is non-theistic, amoral, and non-aware of itself, I would be happy to agree with you given that you can demonstrate that.

I am presenting definitions for what we are trying to quantify for before we go into debate if anything meets that quantity.

I have defined what I believe in. It is you who has not yet defined what you do not believe in. If you want to continue to disregard my time, I do not wish to continue this discussion. Please define what exactly you do not believe in or what you find disagreeable about my definitions.

As an atheist, there’s a claim that you are positing (that there probably isn’t a God, that there’s no reason to believe in God, or that there isn’t a God). I ask: “What do you mean when you make that statement? Which one of the three are you positing or are you positing something else entirely?” Wouldn’t it be presumptuous for me to assume you meant one thing when you meant something entirely different with that statement?

266

Reality is not quantum at the deepest level. Uncertainty is merely a limitation of human measurement interactions. A sufficiently able being could know the hidden variables (Bohmian mechanics).

267

Quantum mechanics disagrees. Please show us the evidence.

With this, you state that there are indeed hidden variables. If you have good evidence that can distinguish between the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) and non-local variable mechanics such as the de Broglie-Bohm theory, then congratulations, you will probably get a Nobel prize in physics. But last I heard, the CI was still the dominant theory. And de Broglie-Bohm theory (dBB) is basically just a variant or reformulation of QM that produces the same results as the CI.

Although not addressing non-local variables, the experiments by Alain Aspect (for which he shared the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics) showed that

All three of Aspect’s experiments unambiguously confirmed the violation, as predicted by quantum mechanics, thus undermining Einstein’s local realistic outlook on quantum mechanics and local hidden variable scenarios. In addition to being confirmed, the violation was confirmed in the exact way predicted by quantum mechanics, with a statistical agreement of up to 242 standard deviations.[13]

So local hidden variables are out, leaving only non-local variable theories such as dBB as alternatives to the CI. And as long as CI and dBB produces the same results, they can both be deemed correct, and you cannot distinguish between their correctness. It will therefore be a matter of personal preference which one you use. But personal preference is not evidence or proof.

1 Like
268

My dude, please use the quote feature.

Initially, when replying, you can highlight the first block of text you want to quote (select it with the mouse). Then when you hit reply, it will be correctly quoted and you can begin your reply beneath. If you have additional quotes you want to pull out, go up to the post you’re responding to, highlight whatever that is, and hit the smaller quote button (the arrow on the right, next to the bell, under the date slider) and that quote will be inserted into your response at the current cursor position.

Also keep in mind that the [quote …] and [/quote] tags must be on their own lines in your post; if you inadvertently change that, it will not be properly interpreted after you save your post.

Thanks for this extra bit of effort as it makes the conversation much easier to follow.

270

I would argue that Broglie–Bohm provides us with a better framework in that (1) it offers a clear ontology (as particles always have definite positions under the framework, (2) it removes the measurement problem (measurement is an interaction), (3) is fully deterministic and lawful, and (4) works in principle for the entire universe.This is not a matter of mere preference. The superiority of de Broglie–Bohm over Copenhagen is not a matter of mere preference because Copenhagen fails as a coherent physical theory, while de Broglie–Bohm actually provides a complete one.

In BM, particles always have definite positions, guided by the wavefunction. In CI, the wavefunction is just a tool for predicting probabilities, and particles don’t have well-defined positions until measurement. BM provides a realist picture of the world. You can say, “This particle is here,” whereas CI avoids saying anything about reality when no measurement is made.

CI does not solve the measurement problem. Copenhagen uses two contradictory rules:

Unitary evolution (Schrödinger equation)

Wavefunction collapse (special measurement rule)

These two laws contradict each other.

A theory that relies on two incompatible dynamical laws is not merely “less preferred.” It is internally inconsistent. Broglie–Bohm solves this problem by dropping collapse entirely.
There is only one law: the wave evolves unitarily. This is not preference. This is logical consistency.

Copenhagen cannot describe: closed systems with no classical apparatus, quantum gravity, nor quantum cosmology. A theory that cannot describe the universe as a whole is incomplete. Broglie–Bohm can describe: quantum cosmology, the early universe, and reality as a closed system. A physical theory must work everywhere: not only where humans are measuring things.

Bohmian mechanics also makes all predictions using one mathematical model. Every experiment is analyzed in the same way: wavefunction evolves, particles follow trajectories, detector clicks are particle positions, and probabilities come from the distribution of positions. It works at every scale, with no extra rules. A theory that uses one consistent framework is objectively more complete.

271

Thank you for providing the information. I will try to do this in the future.

272

I already addressed this false equivalence several times, and you ignored those objections several times, they’re meaningless, poorly reasoned woo woo. I also took the time to specifically answer each of the claims in your disjointed post above, and you ignored my responses completely and respond with another disjointed piece of word salad. Read post 255 above, and answer those objections honestly.

Also: Give the best reason you think you have, for believing any deity or deities exist. Define this deity accurately, and evidence all your claims.

I am not interested in wild assumptions or what you imagine, as one can believe lliterally anything in this way.

You are redefining words arbitrarily and using them to falsely equate them with the word deity, hence a false equivalence, it is fallacious reasoning. being and existence are synonymous, and existence is defined as the fact or state of living or having objective reality, in stark contrast to your claims for a deity.

1 Like
273

This doesn’t evidence your claims, it is again another false equivalence fallacy, as reality is and can be objectively evidenced, whereas no deity can, thus they are not the same.

Watch carefully, mermaids are the totality of existence, thus mermaids are real, and they must be omnipresent.

do you really imagine this claim, which has lost nothing by changing deity into mermaids, is evidence for anything. That’s a rhetorical question btw.

Reality does not include any deity, if it did you could objectively evidence a deity, and you demonstrably cannot, or you’d be in the Vatican receiving the adulation of the theistic world, not in a relatively obscure atheist chat room, trying to convince us your empty bag has magic beans in it.

It’s not a definition, it is a string of false equivalences, just change god to mermaids or unicorns and see for yourself that the claims lose nothing if you arbitrarily imagine them with those characteristics.

Sigh, this is an atheist forum, who are you addressing this to? To me the only characteristics I can thus far assign the deity you are imagining are imaginary, unevidenced, and partly irrational.

False equivalences, the words you are equating with your imaginary deity already have definitions that in no way evidence a deity.

Ffs, look up atheism in a dictionary, Google it for the OED definition.

Nonsense, this is a claim an atheist might make, but it is not atheism. That you have come here ignorant of that simple fact, that a cursory read of a dictionary would disavow, says a great deal. How can one measure the probability of something’s existence when it offers no data whatsoever? You’d have first to demonstrate it is objectively possible, you’d then be (if you were honest) in the realm of religious philosophy, and if you think anything over the millennia of this pursuit is compelling, then offer it by all means and I will bring my uneducated middling intellect to bear on it.

I never made two of those claims, again quote the post ffs, it’s easy, highlight text and hit the quote icon. I obviously have no reason to believe a deity exists, else I’d hold such a belief. It is for you to explain to me the best reason you think you have, I grow tired of asking.

What statement, who are you talking to?

274

So we’ve gone from your assertion that

to an admission that it is your subjective opinion (which you give arguments for) that the de Broglie-Bohm[1] theory is better.

A fair enough argument. But this and your other arguments are still not a sufficient basis to support your original claim that “Reality is not quantum…” is, in fact, true. First, both CI and dBB are models. And models are not reality. Do not confuse models with reality. You can make the best flight or car simulators possible, or make immersive VR city simulators so realistic that they can be hard to distinguish from reality when used – but they are still just models and simulations of reality. Second, the dBB framework has (at least) one crucial feature that we do not know of exists, because they haven’t been measured, namely the hidden variables and what’s behind them, and also the pilot wave. Thus, they are mathematical model conveniences. The hidden variables and the pilot wave are postulated, not discovered. Parallel this with the tensor formalism of general relativity (there are no tensors in the real world, they’re just mathematical convenient modelling tools). Or you could look to Lagrange multipliers in analytical mechanics. There are no Lagrange multipliers in nature, as they are mathematical objects that can make otherwise awkward and difficult mechanical problems elegant and relatively easy to solve, once you know the method. And other mathematical or modelling conveniences that makes theories more elegant. So until actual hidden variable are teased out from quantum mechanical systems (if at all possible), or a pilot wave is measured, they are not reality, but just modelling conveniences, and an interpretation of reality. Just like collapsing wave functions etc. are in the Copenhagen interpretation.

But the crucial point still is: The de Broglie-Bohm theory does not explain any observations that the Copenhagen interpretation does not. Thus, you have no basis for calling any of them “more real” than the other. In the end, it all boils down to empirical data.

  1. The name is de Broglie, not just Broglie ↩︎

275

Omnipresence, Sheldon, is a characteristic which does not necessarily need to be attributed to a theistic deity.

You are falling into petty reasoning and bad faith argumentation. From inception of the term, no person on Earth in good faith has advocated that mermaids are omnipresent.

Omnipresence rather, as demonstrated, is a consistent term for the totality of being (consisting of presence in all beings). I am merely demonstrating that, if such a being exists, that it would be within rational constructs: not whether or not the being exists yet.

Before I prove or disprove for God, I need a definition for which to prove or disprove for. Right now, I am merely positing a definition of what God is: not whether such a being exists. You are welcome to dispute my definition, but you must demonstrate why such a definition is irrational or contradictory. Right now, your only objection is that a deity does not exist in reality: a claim that you have yet to prove.

My position is that reality is God: whether theistic or non-theistic. And you have yet again provided a claim to which you have no provide evidence for (reality does not include any deity).

So I take it that you are an ignostic? Or are you just arguing in bad faith?

We know that such definitions are representations of partial realities. As they don’t meet the qualifier of omnipresence, they aren’t good quantifiers IMO to be posited for God.

That’s the problem. Subjective definition is often subject to the one positing the definition. When you say that you are an atheist I assume certain things (via objective definition and my personal experience), but I do not know exactly what your position of atheism entails. I have met a lot of atheists, and I know (for experience) that it is unhelpful to assume be objective definition

That is first an assumption, to which you are using a quantifier to which you have not in good faith disclosed.

Before we attempt to do this, we need a consistent definition by which to test any proposed being with a claim to Godhood under. If such proposed being cannot meet the definition, then it is either partially God or not God if the definition has been shown to be coherent and have utility.

So are you apathetic to the question, believe that the term cannot be coherently expressed, do not see the utility of the term “God”, or something else?

276

Depends upon your point of view. I could see how an academic physicist would argue this, but a philosopher in the study of metaphysics and cosmology would argue that a rational model of reality cannot be truly divorced from the objective reality it represents.

Again, I do think that’s subject to your approach and point of view. However, I would argue for the utility and elegance of the dBB framework over the CI as per my points in the previous post. A model of greater utility and elegance, if shown to be rationally coherent, should be used as it has greater descriptive power in the quantification of reality by scientists and philosophers.

The argument here is not on quantification (quantitative data), but rather on qualification and functional utility.

277

That doesn’t address my point at all.

Oh do fuck off.

Straw man fallacy, and it is so obviously dishonest evasion on your part yet again, as it doesn’t remotely address the objection made to your endless unevidenced claims.

Bullshit, it was one of a string of false equivalences you offerred, they’re the very antithesis of rational.

Oh please, delusions of grandeur, you haven’t offerred anything beyond bare claims, and I don’t believe this will change, as I’ve seen countless apologists with this exact spiel.

You haven’t defined anything, only made bare unevidenced claims and false equivalences.

Thats a lie, my objections are your irrational false equivalences, and your endless unevidenced claims.

I made no such claim, so another lie.

An unevidencec false equivalence, repetition won’t make it any less fallacious.

Nice try, you made a claim it did, and of course it was unevidenced. You also clipped my claim here, to misrepresent it, another piece of mendacity.

So yet again you haven’t the integrity to honestly address objection to your hubristic claims, and instead offer straw men, now that’s arguing in bad faith.

Who is we, you offered a string of false equivalences, and claimed they were evidence, and have repeatedly refused to honestly address this, as you’ve done here again.

The OED definition is not subjective you clown, dear oh dear.

And you are wrong, when anyone says they’re an atheist you know one thing and one thing only about them, that they lack belief in any deity or deities. That’s what atheism means, and it encompasses all atheists.

You have offered nothing data to measure, no assumption was made, you made an unevidenced bare claim about tge probability of a deity existing, and again you have ignored a raft of questions.

We? It was your claim, the attempt to evidence it should accompany any claim else it’s meaningless.

Ah, you’re just going skip past your straw men straight to a question, quelle surprise.

Gibberish, is that English?

What is the best reason you think you have for believing any deity exists, which deity is it.

Start there, not with endless unevidenced claims.

278

It’s rather reductio ad absurdum, Sheldon.

How? Please demonstrate

And what is your primary objection to these supposed “irrational false equivalences”? That a deity does not exist in reality. Is it not? An objection that you haven’t provided evidence for.

I quoted your claim to demonstrate how unreasonable you are being. You claim, “reality does not include any deity”. Please demonstrate your claim.

Empirical evidence, if you will…

Sheldon, are you an ignostic?

Mermaids and Unicorns are such definitions that are representations of partial realities. You’re failing to differentiate between provisional axioms and modal axioms.

I offer reality itself. It is you who have offered nothing.

A speculative definitional claim. I’m providing a framework, not building the building.

Of course it is. I’m asking whether you are ignostic, apatheistic, or an apophatic (Negative) non-theist.

279

It was dishonest evasion, as is this, but at this point it’s clear you’re here to peddle your superstitious wares, and care little about facts or evidence, and the absence thereof.

Already done, scroll back.

I’ve underlined them for you.

Nope, one more time then they are false equivalences, thus when used to form an argument they are fallacious. Equating a deity to reality tells us nothing, and they are clearly not the same, since reality can be objectively evidenced, tested, and empirically studied.

Can you do any of that for any deity? You know you can’t else you’d have done so.

It is your claim a deity exists in reality, it is for you to evidence this claim, no one has to disprove it. NB this is absolutely nothing to do with your false equivalences, or the dishonest way you have here again refused to address them.

That’s a dishonest misrepresentation, as the assertion a) was offered in response to your claim a deity is part of reality (we note without surprise but a fair amount of irony that you offered no evidence), and I qualified my assertion, a qualifying remark and question that you have deliberately omitted here.

Empirical evidence for non existence, fucking hilarious, can you offer empirical evidence that mermaids are not part of reality, or perhaps you think they are? Again yours was the first and larger claim, and remains unevidenced, and you have clipped my response in order to misrepresent it.

That would be relative to the arguments and concepts of deity presented obviously.

I am dubious, though what that has to do with that quote only you can know?

Have I offered any axioms? Be a dear and quote where you think I did that.

No, you made a false equivalence between reality and a deity, asserting that mermaids = reality, does not make reality evidence for mermaids, if there is any objective data to examine for any deity then offer it, subjective and irrational claims are not reliable data.

Atheism is not a claim, it is disbelief, and the lack of a belief does not requires evidence, only the lack of thereof.

That doesn’t answer my question, and all you’re providing in relentless abundance is unevidenced assumptions and false equivalences, that’s not a framework any unbiased person would accept, else one could argue anything into existence.

Superman = reality.

Superman is omnipresent, so is reality, QED…:rofl:

I am an atheist, since I lack belief in any deity or deities, also an agnostic relative to the concept of deity being imagined. Ignosticism must also be relative to arguments and concepts of deity presented, I am apatheistic in that I care more about whether a claim is true than about the claim itself, I treat god claims like all other claims. Since I am an atheist, I hold no definitions or concepts of deity, and thus can’t really be apophatic.

Now are you going to honestly address my objections to your false equivalences at any point?

2 Likes
280

It was, rather, bad faith argumentation of your part coupled with false representation of the proposed premise. I would think that you full well know that mermaids and unicorns are partial expressions. Why would you knowingly equate contingent properties to a proposed essential property?

All false assumptions to the concept of God (which is arguably not the same concept of deity). Why do you think that God can’t be objectively evidenced, tested, and empirically studied?

No. That’s not my claim as stated. My claim is that God IS reality, not that God exists IN reality (although the former includes the later). Two different claims.

Likewise, although I acknowledge the existence of deities, I am not yet asserting that claim.

Again, this was another reductio ab absurdum. The point was to show you that you have to have quantifiers and qualifiers as essential properties for a proposed necessary being and not contingent properties.

So would the argument be better framed if I argue for the utility of the term “God” as a term that serves definitive purposes for our observation of reality?

Yes. You offers mermaids and unicorns as equivalent axioms to reduce my point to absurdity, but I explained that mermaids and unicorns are provisional axioms as they contain contingent properties and not modal axioms whereas God has to meet modal proof (a state of truth concerning all states, not just contingent states).

Atheism isn’t non- cognitive non-theism, Sheldon. Atheism is an active position. Atheism is the claim (however passive) that God doesn’t exist.

There’s no utility pretending like it isn’t. Atheists as a group, from my experience, seem more vocal for their claim than theists.

Again, (sigh) superman as a proposed axiom is a provisional axiom that contains contingent properties. God is a modal axiom with essential properties.

But what is it that you are objecting to then? If you can’t define what you are objecting, are you really objecting to the thing that you think you are objecting to?

281

From you, every time, yes.

Liar, I am done humouring your mendacity.

Liar.

Still an unevidenced and irrational false equivalence, and unless you’re now trying to claim reality doesn’t exist, then this latest lie also exposes your false equivalence.

Then you’re doubly a liar.

Dear oh dear, liar liar pants on fire…

Like the one you dishonestly clipped from the partial claim you quoted above, again liar seems the only apropos response. Is this to be another “lies for Jesus” crusade you’re on, all too familiar, like the entirety of your subjective claims, and irrational false equivalences, did you really imagine we hadn’t seen identical apologetics before?

No, unless you can demonstrate something beyond a bare claim, or an irrational false equivalence that any deity exists. Existence cannot be evidenced outside of reality.

No I did not, I offered your own argument, to demonstrate the absurdity of the false equivalences you had used.

Nope, they are both arbitrary characteristics, assigned without evidence.

Already answered multiple times, and in this post again.

Yes, and it’s things not thing.

282

Oh, please… You don’t even know what you’re objecting to much less what you’re taking about.

Please provide your evidence for why you believe that deities can’t be objectively evidenced, tested, and empirically studied.

Rather, it is that there is no reality outside of God (occasionalism).

Rather, it you who continues to be dishonest, Sheldon.

Yes, I agree. Yet, you are completely missing the point. I am not proposing a provisional deity or a contingent deity. I am proposing God as an essential and necessary state equal to reality.

And I offered your argument back to you to demonstrate the absurdity of the false equivalences that you had used and demonstrated why your argument didn’t work.

Modal axioms are not necessary relative to evidence; they are necessary prior to evidence.

In Empirical Theorizing (provisional axioms), there are no literal axioms: only fundamental assumptions. They are necessary for interpreting evidence, not necessary because of evidence.

In short:

(a) Are axioms needed in order to interpret evidence?

Yes. Evidence only has meaning within a conceptual framework that includes primitive assumptions.

(b) Do axioms become necessary because evidence forces them?

No. No amount of evidence forces an axiom; evidence is theory-laden and interpreted through whatever axioms you start with.

(c) Are some axioms justified a posteriori?

No (a posteriori axioms would not be axioms).

In the context of Ontological Monism, monism is the axiom that yields the simplest explanatory structure. That is not evidence, but metatheoretic justification (modal justification).

When “God” is the simplest axiom

If God = the ultimate unifying principle of being, it is the simplest axiom (most necessary).

If “God” = a complex person, a wielder of intentions, a supernatural agent with many provisional properties, then no (God isn’t the simplest axiom).

This is similar to the “One” in Neoplatonism, the “Ground of Being” in Tillich, and the “Absolute” in Hegel. This is also similar to views of Jonathan Schaffer, Karen Bennett, Kris McDaniel, Alyssa Ney & Jonathan Tallant.

283

Ok sweetheart.

Evidence for the absence of evidence, do you even hear yourself.

Claim 1, evidence nil.

Ah, the old “no you are” retort, what are you 11 years old.

Claim 2, evidence nil.

Nope, you have consistently used false equivalences, and refused to address them, now you’re lying that I have used these, with not even a quote to support it, just a dishonestly clipped assertion to misrepresent what I said.

Prior, fucking hilarious, you’ve offered no evidence, and you know you have no evidence else you’d have presented it.

Like Superman being vulnerable to kryptonite if we accept he exists as imagined.

What evidence, you have offered none. I cut you maximum possible slack here and said provide the best reason you think you have.

Again present a reason why we’d accept that IF, beyond wishful thinking. Also, which deity are you making this unevidenced claim about, and why?

1 Like
284

I’m sure they would, as it basically is their livelihood to do so. However, a model can be 100% rational in terms of internal logic and mathematics, but if the assumptions it builds on are contradicted by empirical data, it is weakened. A model can be useful even if lacking, e.g. for illustrating hypothetical cases or for academical exercises, although the principle that if a model gets shit input, it delivers shit output, will still hold. Empirical data is king. It doesn’t matter how logically nice and clean and beautiful the theory is if it contradicts reality. Or in short: Shit in, shit out.

Earlier, you asserted that quantum mechanics is wrong

and now you confirm that it really is a matter of preference;

In short, pure preference. You really should make up your mind. And you should not make premature assertions.

Currently, the situation is such that given absence of any experimental test or empirical data that can distinguish between the Copenhagen Interpretation and de Broglie-Bohm theory (which, it can be argued, is just a reformulation of quantum mechanics in which position is given a distinguished role, in contrast to other observables), both formulations yield identical results. Therefore, you can not assert that “reality is not quantum”, as your only argument is that you prefer the de Broglie-Bohm formalism. And nature does not care about your preferences.

4 Likes
285

PRECISELY! So why even claim your position as rational?

You’re not a good armchair psychologist or behavioral scientist if you think that I’m 11 years old.

Sheldon, that’s what modal axioms are. The necessity of modal axioms is inherent and does not require any external evidence or prior conditions to be established.

Let me provide you with an example. “There is an absolute objective true state of being.” You cannot disagree with this statement and remain rational.

Again, Superman describes an assumed provisional truth with contingent properties.

This completely misses the boat. God cannot be essentially demonstrated through empirical observation unless God is doing the observing. This is true because we can only know provisional states empirically relative to our capacity of observation. We can know essential truths through modal logic and deduction because we can demonstrate them to be logically consistent and mathematically sound. If a proposed truth were not logically consistent and mathematically sound, we could not know it essentially.

This is purely a panendeistic argument (although I don’t like the term panendeism to refer to God).