A reasoned proof of God

Let's take a snapshot
Imagine a snapshot of the entire universe which can be resolved down to atomic level. You'll see that every atom in the universe is in a particular position in relation to every other atom in the universe. The position of each of these atoms was determined by the energy which is acting on them and the laws of nature to which they and energy must conform. Whilst the atoms appear 'frozen' in the snapshot, we know that a slideshow of such snapshots would show us that the atoms are in fact, in motion. We know also each atom is exerting a 'stretch' on the the laws of nature which govern itStretching/Compressing the Laws of Nature
I say the laws are 'stretched'. Imagine an atom to be the hub of a wheel which is attached to the rim of the wheel via rubber-like spokes. All these spokes are in some kind of tension/compression. Each spoke is a Law of Nature acting upon the atom at the hub. Under equilibrium conditions, the atom (hub) sits stationary in the centre of the wheel. This because, although individually under tension/compression, the action of each individual law is 'arrested' by the combined action of every other law. If energy (in the form of a force for example) is applied to the atom then, the atom will move from the centre. In doing so however, it stretches some laws and compresses others. The laws don't 'like' this and will tend to pull the atom back to the centre - on order to achieve overall equilibrium. An everyday example of this, is hitting a tennis ball up in the air. Energy is added to the tennisball (a bunch of atoms). Immediately the law of gravity, which always wants to pull the ball to the centre of the earth, is 'stretched' further away from equilibrium. Other laws are affected too. Air atoms pushed aside by the passing ball for instance, 'compress' the law that wants air pressure to be equalised throughout the locality. At any point of it's travel, a snapshot of the tennisball would show: matter, energy and laws of nature in varying degrees of equilibrium. Even when the ball comes back to rest on the ground and is at equilibrium, laws are still stretched/compressed. Gravity, for instance, still wants the ball at the centre of the earth. Gravity is a pre-stretched spoke on the wheel. The tennisball the hub at equilibrium on the ground.The past is the key to the present
Back to our snapshot of the universe. In the instant your snapshot was taken, not one atom in the universe could be in any other position from the one it is in. They are all where they are (destination) as a result of:a) the position they were in previously (embarkation point)... plus
b) the energy which induced them to move (vehicle)... plus
c) the laws acting on both of them and to which both must conform (driver).Predestination of the universe and everything in it:
The position of all atoms in the snapshot is only the result of some prior snapshot (or intitial condition - whenever it is we chose to press the shutter). This means that what you see today wasn't arrived at through a random process. The position in todays snapshot was determined by some previous conditions be they 1 second ago, 1 year, 10000 years or 1,000,000 years ago. Whatever the arrangment of matter, energy, stretched/compressed laws was then, it was such as to ensure todays arrangment is the only arrangement that could have been. For it to be any other way would mean that at some point, an atom or bit of energy conformed to a law of nature in a different way than the only way it can. But that is not possible. Matter and energy can only conform to all the laws that act on them at any point in time - in only one way. They cannot break the lawsEvery 'event' we chose to look at was going to happen once the intital conditions (Big Bang?) set the ball rolling. Similarily, every event from now on is 'pre-destined' to occur. There is only one possible path that the universe could have taken once it started. And we're on it.Where does that leave 'you'
That means too that 'you' is an interesting concept to look at. 'You' are, in fact, just matter and energy - conforming to laws acting on all the atoms > molecules > proteins >DNA > etc.. that make 'you' up. 'You' or any sub-part of 'you', can no more break these laws than any other piece of matter or energy. 'You' may think 'your' different, but 'your' not. Thus, every 'thought' 'you' have is simply a zoom-in on a small portion of the total slideshow. All the universe is matter/energy/laws - there is nothing different about 'you'. These words, 'thought', 'you' are just conventions brought about by the arrangements of matter/energy/laws and exist purely as arrangement of matter/energy/laws. And every 'thought' 'you' have was guaranteed to happen now - given the intitial conditions way back then. As guaranteed as any other part of the slideshow 'you' care to look at. 'You' could no more influence the 'thoughts' 'you're' having now than any other matter/energy combination could influence the laws to which they too must conform. Thoughts 'you' will have tomorrow are pre-destined by thoughts 'you' have today - for nothing can change the matter/energy/law determined result that will happen. Or can it...?A proof of God
The only way for 'you' to be you, a self-realising, thinking rational, free-willed being, who is somehow not subject only to the laws of nature in every single area of its being, is when the matter/energy that is you, is able, somehow, to operate independantly of those laws. 'Something' is needed to 'arrange it' so that the laws can't exert total influence on the matter/energy that makes you up. That something has to be acting all the time too, because as soon as it stops acting, you becomes 'you' again. This something I call God. Only God can make 'you'( matter/energy/law) - into you (rational, free-thinking independant, free-willed being)If you disagree with 'God' as the 'something' which operates outside the laws of nature (the suspension or modification of which constitutes the miraculous) then you are a pre-destined piece of matter/energy subject to and only to, the unswervable laws of nature. And unless there is another way to account for you, someone whose thoughts are their own and not just predestined ones, is, I suggest, in no position to comment for or against this proof. How could one suppose that the undirected (except for natural, blind initial conditions) actions of atoms and energy would arrive at any proofs about anything. How can matter/energy/law act so as to ensure that 'you', who is only matter/energy/law will accurately arrive at the conclusion that there is only matter/energy/law? That would be I imagine, a clear case of circular reasoning.This message has been edited by iano, 15-Aug-2005 07:14 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 16-Aug-2005 06:27 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Aug-2005 05:26 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 19-Aug-2005 10:00 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 31-Aug-2005 09:16 PM

There doesn't appear to be any science in your message so I don't really see how a discussion of "A scientific proof of God" can develop. I will post a message to other Admins to ask them to review your OP. Perhaps they will have suggestions that might make this promotable.AbE:A request for the other Admins to take a look at this has been posted.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-15-2005 12:42 PM

---

I also do not see any science in thos PNT.Lots of philosophy about atoms and God, and lots of "imagine this" kind of stuff, but no science.I the title was changed to remove any reference to science I think it could go into one of the Faith fora.

I'd agree with the comments made. A faith forum would be fine by me.It could be re-entitled: "A reasoned proof of God"ThanksIano

Iano--I will promote it in a Faith forum if you can condense what you are saying by about 50%. People need to have concise opening posts.
Eliminate parts of it such as "what do I mean by this?" and so on.Also...lets cool it with the billions of proposed new topics. One at a time, lad...one at a time!Finally....be nice to Percy. Don't "Duh" the Boss!This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 08-18-2005 03:17 AM

http://EvC Forum: Letters to 'Unintelligible Design' -->EvC Forum: Letters to 'Unintelligible Design'I agree that concise is generally a profitable furrow to plough. However it is not always possible. The proposed thread purports to be a proof and thus needs to contain all the elements of the proof - as well as some consequences should the proof hold together. Both form discussion points. Sure, words could be chopped out here and there, but seeing as it is no longer a scientific but a reasoned proof, prose can reasonably form an element in it - appealing as they do - to reason. The amount that could be chopped out without significantly affecting the whole are far less that 50%. I would suggest leaving it as is.The above link is an example of a OP which is quite a ways longer than mine. Precedence that short OP's are not an absolute requirementIf it is posted, could the title be changed to "A reasoned proof of God"?This message has been edited by iano, 16-Aug-2005 09:35 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 16-Aug-2005 09:43 AM

Thread titles can be changed by editing post #1.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Duh!!! Percy pointed out something that even an imbecile should have noticed. The 'Duh!' statement (extracted from a limited knowledge of the character of Homer Simpson whose prime role seems to be that of a fool) was intended to acknowledge that I should not have had to had such an obvous thing pointed out to me. I have on a number of occasions expressed my admiration for this 'tight ship' and those who sail her, and thus would be surprised if 'Duh' was taken as sassy. If it was, the above should hopefully demonstrate that it was by no means intended as such. My apologies for any offence caused by misunderstanding...it was my 'Duh' that caused it afterall.IanThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 08-18-2005 03:02 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 18-Aug-2005 09:15 PM

Opening post has been edited to remove some unnecessary repetition and to tighten up on prose. Scene setting but with with less words.

Hi Adminphat.Percy pointed out something that even an imbecile should have noticed. The 'Duh!' statement (extracted from a limited knowledge of the character of Homer Simpson whose prime role seems to be that of a fool) was intended to acknowledge that I should not have had to had such an obvous thing pointed out to me. I have on a number of occasions expressed my admiration for this 'tight ship' and those who sail her, and thus would be surprised if 'Duh' was taken as sassy. If it was, the above should hopefully demonstrate that it was by no means intended as such. My apologies for any offence caused by misunderstanding...it was my 'Duh' that caused it afterall.Ian

Hi Admin,Any chance of having this released? Or are there issues with it as an OP still?taIan

"Knock knock""whose there""Admin""Great - any chance of promoting this one or giving us a clue as to problem? I've got some work coming up at this end and will have to go into more or less EvC detox for a while. Just wanted to clear this from the boards before I go.taian

First off, sorry about the delay. I know Jar, Asagara, Nosy, etc. are doing their best to keep up since Moose left us (moment of silence). I'll try and help out too.As far as your post, ...as far as I can understand, you're saying that without something outside of the laws of nature, we cannot have free will. You assume free will. So there's something outside the laws of nature, "making us 'us'". You call it God.If that's the case, I don't see this as a focused topic, a new topic, or even a well-reasoned topic. Usually I don't judge topics myself like this, but in this case I do feel the mis-steps are too big, the explanations too long, and the topic too... done.I'll keep it open for other admins to consider, but I'm not willing to promote it.

---

No probs on delay. I ain't that there's a deficiency of places to post here!I don't presume free will. I attempt to show there can be no free will if every action is pre-determined. Length is necessary to show everything is pre-determined. Maybe I'm missing some science but I thought there was only matter/energy/laws of physics/space/time in which case I can't see an obvious flaw in the reasoning of pre-determination. Can you?The proof of 'what I call God' is the something which somehow interferes with everything we do being pre-determined. Something supernatural or natural but outside every piece of objective knowledge we have of the natural. Not God of the bible or any other God. Just "what I call God". A complete mystery.Focus: no free will versus free will + 'what I call God. It's not that wide.I'll have a look at chopping it a bit. See what you think will yaThanksIan

Ian,Thanks for the response. I can clarify what I said based off it; hope this helps. I think you could eliminate all this argument and simply say "Assume determinism." It would really clear up your post. I think even believers would be willing to accept the premise for the purpose of discussion. This is what I meant "you're assuming free will." That was an assumptionn-laden way for me to state it.My complaint is, I didn't see you argue at all that there IS something beyond what is "pre-determined." What's wrong with everything simply being pre-determined?If in fact you're assuming it (you should state "assume then that there are things that happen which are outside of what can be described by determinism"), then I think your derivation is trivial (assume determinism. there are things outside determinism. that thing is what I will call God).Lastly, I don't see why you call this "mystery" "GOD". "GOD" is a very connotative word, and you're using that in your title... so I don't see what you mean by "God" here. Why use that term when you can just use a more precise word meaning "that which is outside of determinism." If there isn't one, slapping the term "God" on there without any explicit justification seems... messy and misleading to me.Anyway, I'm willing to listen if I'm just not understanding. But when I understand things this way, then I don't see what points you're looking to discuss. Let me know what you think and I'll try and work with you on getting something together I think will work.Thanks.

---