If God Existed, What Would He Be Like?

[bsengstock20]

@Get_off_my_lawn

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.

That’s incorrect. If the assumptions a model builds upon are contradicted by empirical data, it isn’t 100% logically coherent and mathematically sound.

@Get_off_my_lawn

Empirical data is king.

That’s incorrect as well. Pure modal logic represents what must be by necessity. Empirical data can only be what must be provisionally. Concerning essential truths, empirical data is inferior to modal logic.

@Get_off_my_lawn

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

You misunderstand. When relative to the side of the universe we are positioned, it is a matter of preference. However, when relative to truths about all possible worlds (the flip side of our universe and all possible universes beyond that), the de Broglie-Bohm theory is superior in that modal/necessary structures outrank raw empirical observation. If the flip side of our universe were to be demonstrated, “flip side” would be if one theory predicted a phenomenon that the other could not.

Suppose a Bohmian effect (say, a subtle pilot-wave influence) were experimentally detected. Then de Broglie–Bohm would be empirically better because it explains an observation that Copenhagen cannot.

[bsengstock20]

A Bohemian effect could be verified by God (an omnipresent omniscience observer):

Empirical verification:

In principle, Bohemian mechanics makes the same statistical predictions as standard quantum mechanics. Any experiment done by us would see the same results as Copenhagen-style QM, and there is currently no experiment that could distinguish Bohemian mechanics empirically from standard QM. There are theoretical proposals (like detecting non-equilibrium distributions of hidden variables), but these haven’t been realized.

If we assume God is omniscient and capable of observing reality at all levels (including hidden variables) then God could “know” the Bohemian trajectories directly, because they are definite in this interpretation. From a human perspective, we only observe the probabilistic outcomes, but for God, there would be no limitation in principle.

God could experimentally verify Bohemian effects by observing or acting from “the other side” of our universe. Suppose God can observe the universe from a vantage completely inaccessible to us, outside spacetime constraints. Then, from that perspective, God could, in principle, directly measure the positions and velocities of all particles, i.e., access the hidden variables.

God could theoretically verify Bohemian trajectories trivially, because He knows all hidden variables.

God could experimentally verify them by acting from outside human constraints, potentially creating observable consequences.

Humans, on their own, remain unable to access those hidden variables experimentally unless God chooses to reveal them.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

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

PRECISELY! So why even claim your position as rational?

Hilarious, you make an asinine observation to evade a request you evidence one of your woo woo claims, I point it out and you say precisely, and then finish with a straw man flourish.

You claimed god = objective reality, we can empirically evidence and test objectively reality, so unless anyone can do that for this deity you’ve imagined, then it’s a false equivalence, and last time I looked a false equivalence used in support of an argument was a fallacious, and thus irrational by definition.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

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

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

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, theists are irony impaired.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

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

Sheldon, that’s what modal axioms are.

I have never seen an axiom that indicates any deity is real, and that includes your nonsense. Clearly my objection to your claim using the word prior, was that it implies there is or will be evidence at any point.

@bsengstock20

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.

I certainly can, and I certainly would, though this sort of stridency is what I’ve come to expect from religious apologetics.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

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

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

And like deities can be shown to exists only the imagination.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

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

This completely misses the boat.

Ah well, I guess that reason is a secret you are determined to keep.

@bsengstock20

That’s incorrect. If the assumptions a model builds upon are contradicted by empirical data, it isn’t 100% logically coherent and mathematically sound.

Whilst the complete lack of any objective evidence for an assumption in your premises, is not a formal contradiction, it makes the argument unsound or unproven. The argument also is uncompelling if it the assumptions it is based on are entirely subjective, if they are both subjective and unevidenced…

@bsengstock20

empirical data is inferior to modal logic.

That a subjective view, not a factual claim.

@bsengstock20

God could theoretically verify Bohemian trajectories trivially, because He knows all hidden variables.

God could experimentally verify them by acting from outside human constraints, potentially creating observable consequences.

Humans, on their own, remain unable to access those hidden variables experimentally unless God chooses to reveal them.

Three claims, no evidence, sigh…

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@bsengstock20

That’s incorrect. If the assumptions a model builds upon are contradicted by empirical data, it isn’t 100% logically coherent and mathematically sound.

So you concede that if deductions contradict empirical data, said deductions are (next to) worthless when it comes to telling us something about reality. In other words, deductions are useless unless based on empirical observations. I.e.: Shit in, shit out. Data is king.

@bsengstock20

That’s incorrect as well. Pure modal logic represents what must be by necessity. Empirical data can only be what must be provisionally. Concerning essential truths, empirical data is inferior to modal logic.

“Essential truths” my ass. Truths are what happens and exists in the real world. You can deduce and logic away on the slipperyness of the skins of mermaids, on the composition of the offgassing from rainbow farting unicorns, and on how many angels can synchroneously breakdance on a pinhead, but the crux of the matter is that all that logicing and deducting and thinking does not tell us any truths, unless coupled with empirical data (“do mermaids or angels actually exist, are rainbows unicorn farts?”) What happens in a non-observable imaginary world that is totally decoupled from reality is meaningless, unless you can couple it with empirical facts. A tiny little empirical fact can negate even the most beautiful and complex framework of logic^[1], but you cannot argue empirical facts into existence if they don’t fit reality. So my bet is on empirical data.

@bsengstock20

However, when relative to truths about all possible worlds (the flip side of our universe and all possible universes beyond that), the de Broglie-Bohm theory is superior in that modal/necessary structures outrank raw empirical observation.

You forget the tiny little detail that “all possible worlds” and “possible universes” are meaningless unless they actually exist. And what we can observe is by definition in our universe. Alternative universes or “possible” universes are practically by definition non-observable. So all the hypothesising about them is meaningless as applied to our observed reality. Reality is what we observe, what we observe is reality. Data is king.

---

1. “The great tragedy of science—the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact” – T. H. Huxley ↩︎

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@bsengstock20

If we assume God is omniscient and capable of observing reality at all levels (including hidden variables) then God could “know” the Bohemian trajectories directly,

The key words here are IF and ASSUME. Assumptions do not poof shit into existence magically. So unless this God (Which god, whose god? Which properties do you assign to her?) actually exists, those speculations are just that, speculations. And nonsense. For it to make sense, you need to prove the existence of Ms. God.

By the way, it is Bohmian (after David Bohm), not Bohemian (a person from Bohemia, or a person living in an unconventional way, or even a rhapsody). The way you keep on harping about Bohmian mechanics, one would think you knew the difference and were more careful.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

You claimed god = objective reality

NO. I claimed God = objective reality, not god = objective reality. I made no claims in reference to any deity.

@Sheldon

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, theists are irony impaired.

The only irony here is that I’m both (I have my M.S in Clinical Psychology, studied at the PSY.D level, and am working on my post-grad in applied behavior analysis) and (if I’m right) you have neither.

@Sheldon

I have never seen an axiom that indicates any deity is real

Correct, because modal axioms do not concern provisional beings (i.e. deities).

@Sheldon

Whilst the complete lack of any objective evidence for an assumption in your premises, is not a formal contradiction, it makes the argument unsound or unproven. The argument also is uncompelling if it the assumptions it is based on are entirely subjective, if they are both subjective and unevidenced…

Sheldon… what is empirical data? (a measurement). What is a measurement? (a mathematical form). Therefore, if the assumptions a model builds upon are contradicted by empirical data, is it 100% logically coherent and mathematically sound?

@Sheldon

That a subjective view, not a factual claim

No, that’s a factual claim. One which you don’t get to disagree with rationally. You want to disagree with that, fine. But know that you just revealed that you are willingly choosing to be irrational.

And what can be asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason.

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

NO. I claimed God = objective reality, not god = objective reality. I made no claims in reference to any deity.

Semantics, evasion.

@bsengstock20

The only irony here is that I’m both (I have my M.S in Clinical Psychology, studied at the PSY.D level, and am working on my post-grad in applied behavior analysis) and (if I’m right) you have neither.

If it prompted the asinine ravings about magic we’re seeing here, then that’s very much a blessing.

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

I have never seen an axiom that indicates any deity is real

Correct, because modal axioms do not concern provisional beings (i.e. deities)

Semantics, you know precisely what was meant.

@bsengstock20

if the assumptions a model builds upon are contradicted by empirical data, is it 100% logically coherent and mathematically sound?

You seem to have ignored what I said again?

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

That a subjective view, not a factual claim

No, that’s a factual claim.

No its not. There is no universally agreed-upon, objective metric by which to declare one form of knowledge “inferior” to the other. You made a subjective claim, and it’s risible to insist stating that fact is irrational.

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

Semantics, evasion.

NO! Absolutely not! Proposed essential assumptions are not proposed provisional assumptions!

Proposed essential assumptions

These are treated as fundamental or necessary starting points for a system of reasoning, theory, or framework.

They are often considered non-negotiable within that context; if they fail, the entire system might collapse.

Example: In Euclidean geometry, the assumption “through any two points there is exactly one straight line” is an essential assumption for that system. Without it, Euclidean geometry doesn’t work.

Proposed provisional assumptions

These are temporary, tentative, or working assumptions, used to explore implications or develop theories.

They are explicitly open to revision or rejection as more evidence or reasoning emerges.

Example: In science, hypothesizing “the early universe was homogeneous” is provisional — it guides investigation but isn’t treated as final truth.

Key difference:

Essential assumptions are foundational and define the structure of your framework.

Provisional assumptions are exploratory tools, meant to be tested, challenged, or replaced.

@Sheldon

There is no universally agreed-upon, objective metric by which to declare one form of knowledge “inferior” to the other.

What is mathematics?

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

There is no universally agreed-upon, objective metric by which to declare one form of knowledge “inferior” to the other.

What is mathematics?

You don’t know?

Have you tried Googling it under evasion / mendacity?

[bsengstock20]

@Sheldon

You don’t know?

Have you tried Googling it under evasion / mendacity?

An objective rational metric that describes reality.

[Walter]

How about an abstract objective rational metric that describes reality but isn’t reality?

For mathematics to cease to be pure abstraction it needs something else.

Data, perhaps?

[bsengstock20]

@Walter

How about an abstract objective rational metric that describes reality but isn’t reality?

For mathematics to cease to be pure abstraction it needs something else.

Data, perhaps?

Mathematics is not purely abstract. It is the combination of abstractions and practical applications.

A degree of mathematical maturity and experience may be needed for conceptual assimilation of abstractions.

Bertrand Russell, in The Scientific Outlook (1931), writes that “Ordinary language is totally unsuited for expressing what physics really asserts, since the words of everyday life are not sufficiently abstract. Only mathematics and mathematical logic can say as little as the physicist means to say.”

In mathematics, abstraction can be advantageous in the following ways:

It reveals deep connections between different areas of mathematics.
Known results in one area can suggest conjectures in another related area.
Techniques and methods from one area can be applied to prove results in other related areas.
Patterns from one mathematical object can be generalized to other similar objects in the same class

[Walter]

In a forum I used to frequent, believing Christians were permitted to proselytise but not to teach.

So, what are you doing in this forum?

Teaching us from your position of mathematical maturity and experience?

[bsengstock20]

Is that I’m a Christian hindering the discussion? Have I made any claims relative to that identity?

[Sheldon]

@bsengstock20

@Sheldon

You don’t know?

Have you tried Googling it under evasion / mendacity?

An objective rational metric that describes reality.

No such single metric exist, which is why your claim that one was superior was a subjective opinion, not an objective fact as you claimed.

mathematics

noun

1. the abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts ( pure mathematics ), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics

Of course given the way you’re mangling word definitions here who can say, superior is likely just one method you mistakenly think evidences magic.

@bsengstock20

Is that I’m a Christian hindering the discussion? Have I made any claims relative to that identity?

Yes, not specifically but generically speaking.

[Walter]

Not at all.

The Christians that used to visit the forum at Ex-Christian.net usually fell into certain groups. The crazies who believed they were god, the crazies who believed they were on mission from god and the genuine believers who believed that it was their mission to bring us to god.

You don’t fall into any of those categories.

The means by which they tried to achieve their aims also fell into certain groups. They tried getting us to believe by faith and without evidence, as per Hebrews 11. They tried using the bible as evidence, not realizing that the bible is the claim and not the evidence. They also tried using science as evidence, not realizing that science is an agnostic discipline which can say nothing meaningful about matters of religion.

You don’t use either of the first two means and I’m currently thinking about the third. How to square science’s agnosticism with Godel’s god-like object.

But there does seem to be a great deal of overlap between you and those Christians in one important way, bsengstock20. You both conduct yourselves with the same evangelical determination to make those poor benighted souls see the truth that you see so very very clearly.

Which prompts me to ask two questions of you.

I’ve already mentioned proselytising and teaching and I wonder if these are on your agenda? The other question is why? Why is it so important to you to spend so much time and effort here when a quick appraisal of your current progress would tell you that you’re making none?

Walter.

[Tin-Man]

My personal two cents worth here: If an all-knowing/all-powerful entity actually was real, then I’m thinking, “WHY would such a being even give two drops of rat piss about we puny little humans on a speck of dust planet near the outer edge of one of a few billions of galaxies within our known universe? My guess is that we would be nothing more than ants in an ant hill to such an entity. Yes, by being all-knowing, it could theoretically know every single one of our individual and collective thoughts. Plus, it could also (theoretically) do whatever was necessary to fix any and all societal problems we have. The question, however, is, “Would it bother to do that? Or, better yet, WHY would it even bother to do that?” Would such a being have any empathy, or other such “emotions”? With the exception of my teenage years, I’ve never been all-knowing, so I’m not sure how that works. Anyway, this is just me tossing shit around in my head and spilling it out here for somebody else to clean up. I’ve been away from the forum for awhile, so please forgive me if I’m a little rusty with my writing. Regardless, for a more simplistic and more practical answer to “What would the bible god be like if real,” simply read the bible. It tells you exactly how that god is. (Despite the fact there have been several billion people over the course of many centuries who have performed astounding feats of mental gymnastics in an attempt to paint the bible god in a much more positive light than it is described in their holy book.)

[mordant]

@Tin-Man

Regardless, for a more simplistic and more practical answer to “What would the bible god be like if real,” simply read the bible. It tells you exactly how that god is. (Despite the fact there have been several billion people over the course of many centuries who have performed astounding feats of mental gymnastics in an attempt to paint the bible god in a much more positive light than it is described in their holy book.)

Without the framing of all the dogma of the church, reading the Bible would not result in belief, or at best … it would only result in terror. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” is by itself a telling verse. They have to give “fear” and “wisdom” specialist religious meanings to make that palatable to a modern audience, but taken at face value, it amounts to, “Nice life you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

[Tin-Man]

@mordant

They have to give “fear” and “wisdom” specialist religious meanings to make that palatable to a modern audience, but taken at face value, it amounts to, “Nice life you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

Howdy, Mordant. Pleasure to meet you. Yes, extortion is definitely the backbone of Christian dogma. But no matter how many times we have tried to explain that to countless Christians who have visited this site over the years, the “God glasses” are simply way too strong for most of them to see it for what it truly is. Add to that the fact most (speaking for myself on this one) were brought up being taught that if you ever question or have doubts about the bible, it is the Devil trying to deceive you and take you off the path to god and drag you down to hell. Scary shit for a young child, especially when being told such things from family and friends whom you love and trust.

I had one of my uncles ask me one time when I was probably early teens, “Who should you fear? God or Satan?” Well, considering I had been taught all my life how EVIL and wicked and dangerous Satan is, the answer to me was obvious. So I proudly answered, “I should be afraid of Satan.” My uncle’s reply stuck with me for many, many years afterward. He told me, “No. You should be afraid of god. Because Satan cannot harm you or do anything to you if you trust in god. However, if you do not obey and worship god, then god has the power to do all sorts of bad things to you.” Again, that stuck with me for many years of my life. Not in a good way, though. As you might imagine, the confusion it caused me was damn near overwhelming at times, especially as I grew older and became more educated and more experienced in life. The thing is, that uncle was the closest thing to a father I ever had. (My Mom and dad split up when I was only 4 or 5, and my dad lived out of state and was never really part of my life.) My uncle was the one who taught me how to shoot, hunt, fish, and other stuff like that. Basically, he was the closest thing I ever had to a male role model, aside from my favorite television/movie action heroes. Therefore, despite the fact that what he told me confused me at the time, my young and impressionable mind jumped through way too many hoops to convince myself that what he told me was GOOD advice. I finally escaped my indoctrination roughly eight years ago. This sight and the regular members on here played a major role in helping me through my deconstruction. (But I digress…) Anyway, point being, the more heavily indoctrinated a person is, the more difficult it will be to convince them of how horrible their chosen god truly is. Speaking of which, if the bible god was somehow truly real, I think it would be a very unpleasant entity to encounter, plain and simple.

[mordant]

@Tin-Man

the more heavily indoctrinated a person is, the more difficult it will be to convince them of how horrible their chosen god truly is.

Nice to meet you also!

I also come from a fundamentalist background. What your uncle said is resonant with Matthew 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The question of fearing Satan is interesting though, because with all the talk of “spiritual warfare”, and particularly amongst the more pentecostal / holiness-leaning sects, they seem to be far more afraid of and impressed with Satan than with their own God. It is as if their faith and “sanctification” is so fragile that a moment of doubt or fleeting consideration of lust or whatever will “give place” to Satan to have his way with you. People become obsessed wtih “cleansing” their home, saying protective prayers, commanding evil forces in Jesus’ name, etc. During a brief time under the influence of an Assembly of God elder, my then-wife was convinced to remove coaster holders from the house because they were fashioned as whimsical owls, and owls were supposedly one of the symbols of the devil or … something to that effect. Fortunately I was able to send him packing and direct her attention elsewhere. Even I had more sense than that.

I’ve been out of the faith for 30 years and for probably 20 of those I kept tripping over ideation that I needed to crowbar out of my head that had been installed there from about age six when my family converted, so be patient with yourself if you still encounter any of that sort of thing – there’s an end to it eventually, lol.