I am a novice with quantum mechanics, and it has been awhile since I've seen Schrodinger's wavefunction equation. Could you spell out what you mean by "evolves" and "quantum state?" It will help me evaluate the implications of your statement.

admitting the autonomy of inertial motion — SophistiCat

Going to have to disagree with you here as it appears to me that all motion, including inertial motion (by which I understand you to mean constant velocity) depends to some degree on another. In fact, all motion is relative motion and insofar as it is relative to another, all motion, including inertial motion, depends on another. But then all that means is that the metaphysical foundation of everything, God, cannot be in motion.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation --

"Conceptually, the Schrödinger equation is the quantum counterpart of Newton's second law in classical mechanics. Given a set of known initial conditions, Newton's second law makes a mathematical prediction as to what path a given physical system will take over time. The Schrödinger equation gives the evolution over time of the wave function, the quantum-mechanical characterization of an isolated physical system. "

Going to have to disagree with you here as it appears to me that all motion, including inertial motion (by which I understand you to mean constant velocity) depends to some degree on another. In fact, all motion is relative motion and insofar as it is relative to another, all motion, including inertial motion, depends on another. But then all that means is that the metaphysical foundation of everything, God, cannot be in motion. — NotAristotle

You seem to be equivocating between "dependence" as being a function of something else and being grounded in something else. And your conclusion doesn't seem to follow from anything.

The point I was trying to make is that in citing the example of a billiard ball, you seemed to be satisfied that it can move of its own accord, as long as it doesn't alter its motion. That's the Galilean insight, which diverges from the Aristotelian doctrine that prevailed earlier.

You seem to be equivocating between "dependence" as being a function of something else and being grounded in something else. — SophistiCat

Sorry to interrupt. I believe I also confuse the use of "dependence" as being a function or as being grounded in something else. This is metaphysics, and I am aware that it holds a lot of complexity to reach a clear conclusion. But I would like to know if understanding the distinction between "dependence" in terms of function or grounded could help us approach God's existence from a metaphysical view. Is this where we should start?

There is a sense in which the motion of a body depends on other bodies in both senses: If there was only one body in the world, then the very idea of motion would be senseless, since there would be nothing against which motion could be detected. So, for there to be any motion, there has to be more than one thing. But as long as that basic condition is satisfied, you don't necessarily need anything else, any other, to bring about and sustain motion. A planetary system, for example, can spin all on its own, without anyone pushing planets around. And the same is true for just about any dynamical system, be it mechanical motion, temperature changes, chemical reactions, or anything else.

Interesting input, thanks.

As I shared previously, it could be hard to approach God in any kind of system. Your example could fit in order to try to prove his existence from a metaphysical perspective. God could be that planet that spins all on its own, and "we" orbit around him due to motion or due to how he makes us spin or move in any other mechanical motion.

But I still believe that my point above can't approach God's existence; if we accept God is a thing with a system himself, then it means he is a set of elements, and if an element is left behind, then God is at risk to no longer existing or working. As I understand it, it seems that set (as the planetary system) works because the elements are always together.

According to many believers, God is above all that. It is more abstract than a set of quantum elements. For this motive, I believe that God's existence could be understood in an epistemological view.

Then, I think we should try to elaborate an argument using epistemology. Whether with truth, belief, or justification. I don't have the necessary and sufficient knowledge to elaborate on this. Probably in the near future.

Because that's definitely contentious. I would be hard pressed to find any philosopher who argues the universe is necessary. I would believe atheist philosophers would simply accept its brute contingency. If you want to argue its necessity in some sense, you would be pitched right back into the nature of metaphysical necessity and the contingency argument for God.

IMO, necessity demands ontological non-composition and non-changeability. I don't think we can ascribe those to the universe, since the universe is a set of space-time events with no substantial existence beyond its components. — Bodhy

Good comment. In my experience, atheist philosophers don't provide any justification either for the possibility of brute contingencies, nor for the assertion that the universe is one. The notion of brute contingency is as far as I can see, a contradiction.

IMO, necessity demands ontological non-composition and non-changeability. — Bodhy

I'd be interested in hearing why you think this? I'd agree that necessity implies that it doesn't change since necessity means to have no alternate truth value. But a necessary structure could have stratified levels of organization, such that variables are included. The structure itself would be necessary, but the values of the variables would be contingent.

What I'm more interested in though is why necessity implies non-composition? I say this because it doesn't seem that composition entails dependency. A structure could have composite parts, but the parts could be recursively defined, like sets and relations. Or, like the relationship between logical negation and either of the laws of noncontradiction and that of the excluded middle. By recursive definition between parts, I'm talking about a composite structure where each part requires the others for the structure to work, where the parts collectively constitute the "necessary structure".

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

Righteously spoken by someone with true knowledge of enlightement!

In "Thus Spoke Xarathustra", the great ones and Xarathustra were huddled in a cave, and the great ones worshipped a donkey. You are now that donkey, good sir, for the duration of this discussion. You have earned it.

Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac

No. "God" and "existence" belong to different category of worlds. Existence negates God. God negates existence.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement.

If you mean there is no physical proof of a metaphysical entity, then we're in agreement. — LuckyR

:ok:

In my view it cannot be proved and such proof goes against the whole idea of believing in God and against all Abrahamic religions.

When there's a proof, you don't need to have faith. Christianity, and Jesus Christ, say to take God into your heart. That doesn't mean to think it out, use reason and then you will find God. I assume all Abrahamic religions are similar in this case.

And lastly, just assume there would be this proof. It itself would then obviously quite powerful religious item. Why then need things like the Holy Bible and so on? God exists, so then just pick the correct God or the God closest to this proof. Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

Existence negates God. God negates existence.

You can’t say that because you don’t know anything about existence, or God, for that matter.

Hence the proof itself would be basically an idol and believing in the proof would be idolatry.

Well put, it would be impossible for us (or anyone) to prove the existence of God, even to ourselves. So it would only be idolatry. Even if God came down and said, “here I am”, we would be none the wiser.

This is not to disparage believers, because they have faith, which doesn’t require proof.

Addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/913307

When there's a proof [truth-makers], you don't need to have faith [make believe]. — ssu

Agreed. Whatever is real can be known, even if only in principle, and therefore does not require "faith" (i.e. appealing to ignorance). Thus, I think it can be demonstrated that theism is not true¹ even though other conceptions of divinity (such as e.g. acosmism & pandeism) are completely undecidable (agnostic).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1023613 [1]

Exactly.
Above all, with a proof... or with God appearing to everyone and being part of physical reality, it's not essentially an issue of faith, of choosing your life choices.

Your not basically making moral choices to be "good" or to be religious, to have faith or not, or to be an atheist. You are then making simply practical choices, just like how you cope with the planet spinning on it's axis and circling around the sun and creating night and day and the seasons. Morality goes out of the question, just as it's not a choice for us to have night or day. At least when we are on this planet.

Thus, I think it can be demonstrated that theism is not true¹ even though other conceptions of divinity (such as e.g. acosmism & pandeism) are completely undecidable (agnostic). — 180 Proof

I would put it that basically matters of faith cannot be objectively answered and are hence truly subjective.

And when you cannot demonstrate that theism is true, you cannot demonstrate it's false.

And when you cannot demonstrate that theism is true, you cannot demonstrate it's false. — ssu

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false.

Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable' – "not true" is not necessarily equivalent to "false" (e.g. non-propositional statements are not true and not false).

(1×1=2) "cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false. — 180 Proof

Mathematics is totally objective.

Besides, my claim is that 'theism is Not True is demonstrable' – "not true" is not necessarily equivalent to "false" (e.g. non-propositional statements are not true and not false). — 180 Proof

I think I didn't understand this. Are you saying the issue is undemonstrable or undecidable?

Only one. You are only one, and what is most important to you is singular. Don't worry about everyone else, unless humanity is the most important thing in which case it is still one god. Everyone else may give importance to trivia... Indeed, if you look around there are worshippers of money, power, beauty, tradition, science, sex... too bad for them, and not worth further consideration. — unenlightened

When one wonders about what is most important, we may well initially think of a singular thing or somebody. We soon realize though that that something or somebody does not exist in a vacuum. Not when you embrace something more base as most important, like money or sex, since money is only important because you can buy something for it, or because it provides you prestige in the eyes of others and for sex you need someone else to have it with.

When we think of something commonly held in higher regard, like one's loved one or child, we have to acknowledge that we value its importance as well within a relational network. Your child is not just 'a child' but your child, whom you begot or in any case raised and moulded. Your lover is important because she is her own person, with little traits and habits that endear her to you and whom you feel for, at least in part because of how she relates to you.

When one considers that which is most important, to be God, or actually 'that which is most perfect' as is a more common proof of God, we notice how these traits always point to their relationship to you and to the world, in other words, to a network of things that is in itself embedded within a larger network and so on. If one caries this train of thought further, one will have to acknowledge that the world or 'reality', the unity of al 'res', 'all that there is', is itself of supreme importance or perfect, because nothing can be substracted from it, or it would not be 'all that there is' and nothing can be added to it, because than there would be something laying ourside of 'all that there is'. And so, you have to come to conclusion, as Spinoza came, that 'Deus sive Natura', God or nature. It is the real that one embraces in last instance.

Bishop Whalon make a pretty obvious point: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671

"If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are relative to one another in various degrees. It is actually impossible to imagine a universe in which there is, say, only one hydrogen atom. That unique thing has to have someone else imagining it. Existence requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation."

If God does exist, then that is not God. — Bishop Whalon

This is such a nonsense claim.

Are you saying the issue is undemonstrable or undecidable? — ssu

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts).

Negative, or apophatic, theology is undefeated. All deities are either idols or empty names. To wit: "The Dao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Dao." ~Laozi

If God does exist, then that is not God.
— Bishop Whalon

This is such a nonsense claim — Michael

Thus: "Credo quia absurdum" ~Tertullian. :roll: :pray:

No. Again: I claim that it is demonstrable that theism is not true (see links in my previous posts). — 180 Proof

Cite a non-trivial example of a nonfictional religious text.

Also, provide nonsubjective truth-makers for the following sine qua non truth-claims of theism:
(1) at least one mystery
(2) created the whole of existence and
(3) causes changes to (i.e. intervenes in) the universe in ways which are nomologically impossible for natural agents or natural forces (re: "miracles"). — 180 Proof

?

Very difficult and confusing wording in my view. But I'm not very clever. What is "providing nonsubjective truth-makers"?

Yet notice the difference between "it can be proven" and "it is demonstrable, that something".

In Your math example:

(1×1=2) cannot be demonstrated to be true" because, in fact, it is demonstrably false"

one has to remember that you can give a proof that 1x1=1. At least you can refer to the axioms and an axiomatic system. Hence no need for the demonstrability of falsehood when you can give a direct proof.

Yet when the only thing you can give is an indirect Reductio ad absurdum proof, it actually isn't the same as an ordinary proof. It leaves open questions.

And anyway, my point was that to give a proof as in logic or science, one needs objectivity. Yet not all questions can be answered objectively as they are inherently subjective. Religion deals a lot on those subjective questions, like what is good and what is bad. Giving thus proofs in religious issues forgets the requirement for objectivity. And not only "proving God" forgets this, it actually goes against a lot of religions itself.

The typical atheist argument is that for example all the creation stories are, to put it mildly, quite far from our scientific understanding, hence everything in religion is quite dubious. The problem then comes when the same question is asked, what then is good and what is bad? The vague reference to humanity or something else hides that the problem isn't solved. It still is a subjective issue and an objective proof as in science/logic cannot be found.

The typical atheist argument is that for example all the creation stories are, to put it mildly, quite far from our scientific understanding, hence everything in religion is quite dubious. The problem then comes when the same question is asked, what then is good and what is bad? The vague reference to humanity or something hides that the problem isn't solved. It still is a subjective issue. — ssu

Atheism is a pretty broad area. Most people are only familiar with the Dawkins/Hitchens approach, which is polemical, mostly non-philosophical, and often childish and petulant.

I am a freethinker and atheist, but my form of atheism is simply that I lack a belief in God. I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, because I don’t have that knowledge. While some philosophers don’t like this formulation because it differs from the conservative tradition of atheism, which asserts all gods to be false, I think it is a common view among organised atheists these days.

If we can simply say that atheists have a position on the existence of God, we can also say that they are diverse in the other beliefs they hold. As someone who used to have connections to humanist and atheist organisations, I know that many atheists also believe in clairvoyance, UFO abductions, and ghosts. They don’t necessarily rule out all eccentric or supernatural claims.

The idea that God doesn’t exist simply because the stories in holy books are myths is not very strong reasoning. The problem with most obvious forms of atheism is that they only critique the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalism and literalism, which is equally disparaged by many believers, including theologians like David Bentley Hart and Bishop John Shelby Spong. I grew up in the Baptist tradition. I was taught that the Old Testament stories are myths and allegories. I believe this is a well-established tradition in Christianity. Literalism seems to be a reaction to modernity and a retreat into concrete thinking as a bulwark against changing culture.

Atheism is a pretty broad area. — Tom Storm

So is faith/religion and religiousness, yes.

I am a freethinker and atheist, but my form of atheism is simply that I lack a belief in God. I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, because I don’t have that knowledge. - I think it is a common view among organised atheists these days. — Tom Storm

Isn't that a level of agnosticism? I myself have been since my childhood an agnostic and feel quite happy about it.

The problem with most obvious forms of atheism is that they only critique the low-hanging fruit of fundamentalism and literalism, which is equally disparaged by many believers, including theologians like David Bentley Hart and Bishop John Shelby Spong. — Tom Storm

That's a very good point. But we usually tend to go with the stereotypes or the worst possible examples of some ideology or viewpoint and not accept the fact that a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable and informed people can have totally opposite world views from us.

Or then it's simply these times where the discourse is dominated by the algorithms, where two people with opposite views but with an understanding and respect where the other person comes from, is too boring. As if we would then yawn ourselves to death.

Literalism seems to be a reaction to modernity and a retreat into concrete thinking as a bulwark against changing culture. — Tom Storm

I think it's even more general than that. It's basic human nature, which you can see in even in philosophy itself, where especially the "puritans", "fundamentalists" and those who don't swerve of from the teachings of their great philosopher, be it the Karl Marx or someone else, will put themselves on the pedestal and proclaim to be better than others. If it happens even in philosophy, you bet it will happen in other human endeavors also.

Isn't that a level of agnosticism? I myself have been since my childhood an agnostic and feel quite happy about it. — ssu

The category is usually called agnostic atheist, since atheism refers to what you believe and agnosticism to what you know. It’s a popular category in the atheist realm. I have never been able to believe in any version of God I have been presented with, so I would say there is no God. But I would never claim to know this. This, of course, can lead to very tedious discussions about what counts as knowledge, the role of certainty, and so on.

But we usually tend to go with the stereotypes or the worst possible examples of some ideology or viewpoint and not accept the fact that a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable and informed people can have totally opposite world views from us. — ssu

Perhaps when it comes to different ideas, we should steelman them; present them in the strongest, most charitable form, before evaluating them. The fundamentalist Christian view of the world is a bit cartoonish and is mostly a variety of American Protestantism, which some consider a heresy.

Or then it's simply these times where the discourse is dominated by the algorithms, — ssu

Probably: the same bifurcated views circle around us ceaselessly. Perhaps our job is to get off the merry-go-round.

I think it's even more general than that. It's basic human nature, — ssu

Many students of religion, including Karen Armstrong, chart the development of modern biblical literalism, particularly the fundamentalist kind, as largely in reaction to modern science and historical-critical approaches to scripture. But no doubt there are additional dimensions to this.

those who don't swerve of from the teachings of their great philosopher, be it the Karl Marx or someone else, will put themselves on the pedestal and proclaim to be better than others. If it happens even in philosophy, you bet it will happen in other human endeavors also. — ssu

You may disagree, but I think that may be something related to, but different from, fundamentalism. Fundamentalism seems to be about how a text is interpreted and the reading that is presented as ‘correct’. What you’re raising, however, seems like an adjacent and perhaps more interesting element: zealotry.

Do you see much fundamentalism where you live? Here in Australia, it flickers in marginal spaces, largely due to the influence of American Protestant culture via social media and online communities. But it’s still a minor force. The default setting here seems to be a general lack of interest in God or religion.

What is "providing nonsubjective truth-makers"? — ssu

Sufficienly corroborable evidence.