# God/Gods? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2002, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661 "2002-05-01T15:30:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/21 "2002-05-03T13:49:58Z")
**Lib** , thanks for the link to _J. Chem. Edu._ When I have more time I shall read it in depth, but even after a quick glance at it, I think I see your point: _informational entropy_ should not be equated with _thermodynamic entropy_. Some years ago I wrote a research paper summarizing the then-current thinking on the application of the Second Law to biological organisms and biological evolution. The confusion/equation of informational and thermodynamic entropy was common in the literature even then, especially in the area of genetics. Although I didn’t make a clear distinction in my previous post, I was speaking in terms of thermodynamic entropy: the Second Law does favor the development/evolution of biological organisms. In such far-from-equilibrium systems, increasing thermodynamic entropy results in a system which is best described as highly _organized_ rather than highly _ordered_, in part because the term “order” evokes human concepts/perceptions of information and the arrangement of things. And IMHO, whoever started the association of “information” with “entropy” should be. . . well, allowed to witness the heat death of the Universe. However, my studies in this area were 10+ years ago and my understanding could very well be out-of-date, for which I apologize. And this is probably a topic for another thread anyway. Cheers. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/22 "2002-05-03T14:48:46Z")
Look, if constellations were really supposed to be connect the dot drawings then there would be little numbers next to stars. (compliments to Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst). But nothing has ever encapsulated (IMO) views on the universe any better than the [Principia Discordia](http://www.geocities.com/erislover/principia/principia.html#00049). > [@](#): > > **HERE FOLLOWS SOME PSYCHO-METAPHYSICS.** > If you are not hot for philosophy, best just to skip it. > > The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making. > > With our concept making apparatus called “mind” we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled “reality” and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see “reality” differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept. > > We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle. > > Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other. > > DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like “relation”, no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is “absence of female-ness”, or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE. > > The belief that “order is true” and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION. > > The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. > > Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all of that. ---
**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/23 "2002-05-03T15:08:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > “…Reality is the original Rorschach.” Did you know that you’re not supposed to cut out the ink blots? I didn’t. > [@](#): > > Verily! So much for all of that. Indeed. Now we have summarily dismissed the construct of _order_ both thermodynamically _and_ metaphysically. At this point, somebody should say something profound. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/24 "2002-05-03T15:26:58Z")
The atoms aren’t real. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/25 "2002-05-03T18:57:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > Something is equavalent to something. And until you can identify that something you cannot say it is NOT “god”. [Yawn] - Yes, we all know you can’t prove a negative. > [@](#): > > No sir. Without order you have disorder, confusuion. If there was no order then you would not have science. From that order we learn to predict it. Yo cannot predict something from disorder. My reason for believeing _order_ necessitates a creator of _order_ is that from chaos you cannot get order. Therefore I believe that in the beginning there was chaos and something created that order. There are at least 4 problems with this reasoning: (1) Your unfounded belief that the universe is ordered; (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe without supernatural intervention would be non-predictability; (3) That a sentient being such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn is required to provide order; and (4) If such a being even existed, that you can know anything about it’s characteristics without any objective evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/26 "2002-05-03T19:13:37Z")
Your fourth is weak, Blowero. Not all valid evidence is objective, and not all objective evidence is valid. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/27 "2002-05-03T20:25:29Z")
> [@](#): > > **Libertarian** : Your fourth is weak, Blowero. Not all valid evidence is objective false. > [@](#): > > and not all objective evidence is valid. Irrelevant. I will expound on my point, if that will help. The problem with trying to deduce God in the manner that **Saen** has attempted, is that even if you accept all his premises (which I do not), and then accept his conclusion that “something” controls the universe, we are still left with no information whatsoever about the characteristics of this “something”. So, at best, even if the premises held, the conclusion would still be “We don’t know what controls the universe”. Besides which, the point isn’t even necessary, since Saen’s argument is entirely predicated on a belief that predictability is somehow NOT the natural state of the universe, and that “outside intervention” is needed to make events predictable. If this is the case, please demonstrate why this is so. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/28 "2002-05-03T20:59:52Z")
You needn’t convince me of the weakness of Saen’s argument, but I wasn’t addressing his; I was addressing yours, or at least one element of it. You say that my assertion that not all valid evidence is objective is false, and that its converse is not relevant. What objectively would constitute valid evidence that brown is my favorite color? If I signed an affidavit testifying that my favorite color is brown, how would you know I wasn’t lying or mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/29 "2002-05-04T07:03:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > [Yawn] - Yes, we all know you can’t prove a negative. > > There are at least 4 problems with this reasoning: (1) Your unfounded belief that the universe is ordered; (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe without supernatural intervention would be non-predictability; (3) That a sentient being such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn is required to provide order; and (4) If such a being even existed, that you can know anything about it’s characteristics without any objective evidence. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > “something” is not equavalent to “god”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > [Yawn] - Yes, we all know you can’t prove a negative. I’m sorry, but was that your “unfounded belief” to make you state the first quote? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\* > There are at least 4 problems with this reasoning: (1) Your unfounded belief that the universe is ordered; (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe without supernatural intervention would be non-predictability; (3) That a sentient being such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn is required to provide order; and (4) If such a being even existed, that you can know anything about it’s characteristics without any objective evidence. \*\* (1) Semantics aside I think we agree that the universe is not random. Wheather ordered or organized something makes it “predictable”. (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe is just predictable ranks right up there with a father telling a son “because I said so”.(3) I never said a sentient being was required. I said something, and you said something is not god. (4) Now you get into particulars based upon different religions. And it makes me wonder if you have a clue what faith is all about. My argument is not weak or flawed. you are trying to get me into a debate about a particular religion and beliefe system when my first post stated basically that we do not know. Then you say that you know that it is NOT something. You say that you cannot prove a negative but your posts are peppered with negative conotations against agaisnt a “god”. Ok instead of me asking you to prove a negative, what is you objective evidence of what controls the universe? and what does not? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/30 "2002-05-04T07:13:44Z")
So, what controls God or the gods? What causes him, her, it, or them to be orderly rather than random? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/31 "2002-05-04T09:16:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, we all know you can’t prove a negative. Gah, I missed that altogether. We don’t all know any such thing. Why won’t this myth die? Kindly prove the assertion that you can’t prove a negative. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/32 "2002-05-04T09:47:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > (1) Semantics aside I think we agree that the universe is not random. Wheather ordered or organized something makes it “predictable”. There are different theories as to why the universe is predictable. Superstring theory, for example, holds that all subatomic particles are “strings” that are vibrating at a particular rate. This determines how the particles interact with each other, which in turn determines how matter and energy interact in the universe. We can observe these interactions and make predictions. I don’t know if superstring theory is correct, but it is an example of “something” that is not a god. (If someone has studied physics, and I have grossly misstated this, please correct me.) This is not the same as being “ordered”. Are the stars lined up in rows? Are planets all of equal size and density? What exactly do you think is so orderly about the universe? > [@](#): > > (3) I never said a sentient being was required. I said something, and you said something is not god. This is what you said: > [@](#): > > To have a set of circumastances and know that it weill produce the same thing every time means there is order. And something controlls that order. So yes there is a God/gods. Sounds to me like you said that the “something” is God. Either that, or your last sentence is completely unrelated to the previous two. > [@](#): > > (4) Now you get into particulars based upon different religions. And it makes me wonder if you have a clue what faith is all about. Faith is all about self-deception and wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > My argument is not weak or flawed. you are trying to get me into a debate about a particular religion and beliefe system when my first post stated basically that we do not know. **"So yes there is a God/gods."** Doesn’t sound like “we do not know” to me. > [@](#): > > Ok instead of me asking you to prove a negative, what is you objective evidence of what controls the universe? and what does not? Why does something have to control the universe? Maybe the universe is the way it is because this happens to be the way all those particles bounced around and stuck together. Why is it that you can’t accept that explanation, yet you can accept the even more unlikely explanation that a magical being pulled the universe out of his ass, so to speak? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/33 "2002-05-04T09:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Gah, I missed that altogether. We don’t all know any such thing. Why won’t this myth die? Kindly prove the assertion that you can’t prove a negative. \*\* No, you have to prove that “You can’t prove a negative” is false.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/34 "2002-05-04T10:36:43Z")
It’s your assertion. Prove it or abandon it. Otherwise, if you stand by it, you’re engaging in what you call “self-deception and wishful thinking”. Plus, you still have not shown what valid objective evidence there is that my favorite color is brown. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/35 "2002-05-04T10:52:14Z")
Eris, the problem with the Eristic Principle is that there is indeed an objective grid for the universe; i.e., for any arbitrary particle, its distance from any other particle at any time is an exact sum of Planck distances. Thus, the objective grid is the grid whose coordinates are Planck distances apart. ---
**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/36 "2002-05-04T12:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > we all know you can’t prove a negative **Libertarian** is correct: this statement is a “myth” arising from some mixed-up ideas about scientific theories and how to test them. In order for a scientific theory to be rigorous and valid (as a construct), it must be _potentially falsifyable_. That is, the theory must be constructed such that predictions can be made on the basis of it and experiments designed to test those predictions and the soundness of the theory. In this sense, a theory is easy to disprove, because one only needs to find _one_ instance where the experimental and predicted outcomes do not agree in order for the theory to be false. This may lead to the theory being revised or discarded altogether; but in either case, the original theory has been disproven. It is much more difficult to _prove_ a theory, as you might imagine, because to do so one has to demonstrate that the theory applies in every imaginable instance. Now, if the theory is worded in a negative sense – “such-and-such does not occur” – then this “negative” is hard to prove because one has to show that it applies in every instance. This, I think, has led to the myth of “you can’t prove a negative”. OK. . . now for a more pragmatic approach. Here are some negative statements: _The Earth is not flat._ _The Earth does not revolve around the Sun._ _Green is not Libertarian’s favorite color._ 😉 Are these inherently unprovable because they are negatives? Now consider these two statements: _God does not exist._ _God exists._ Is the first inherently more difficult to prove than the second? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/37 "2002-05-04T15:38:25Z")
The assertion is absurd on its face. I mean just consider the statement itself: You can NOT prove a negative. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/38 "2002-05-04T15:56:08Z")
“A gem-quality diamond larger than the Cullinan does not exist.” This may not be disprovable in fact, though it is theoretically so, by finding such a diamond. But if only one existed, and that one in an asteroid belt in a stellar system in the Andromeda Galaxy, there would at present be no way of disproving the statement. In general when I’ve seen this statement, it’s been with reference to a universal negative. But even this is easy to disprove in theory. “There’s no such thing as a white crow” requires only that we find one white crow to disprove it. Perhaps in honor of the poster who brought it up, we might refer to the idea as **Saen** ’s Fiction? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/39 "2002-05-04T17:43:26Z")
**blowero** > [@](#): > > Faith is all about self-deception and wishful thinking Now wait a second. First of all you cite me a theory that belies what we percieve today and would be false if you did not base it upon another theory (Kaluza-Klein Theory), that creates 6 more _invisible_ dimensions. And I would loosely call it a thoery but more of an idea. And so therfore your assertion is because of these theories then there is no “god”? Of course since these are unproven theories they would not be based upon your faith (self-deception and wishful thinking) in the authors, But you were the actual scientist who has the limited information for you to come up with this theory. You just cant prove it to us little folk yet. > [@](#): > > Why does something have to control the universe? Maybe the universe is the way it is because this happens to be the way all those particles bounced around and stuck together. Why is it that you can’t accept that explanation, yet you can accept the even more unlikely explanation that a magical being pulled the universe out of his ass, so to speak? Coincidence huh? Shit happens? How about “because I said so”? Let me ask you why _can’t_ something controll the universe. Why are you so averse to there being a “god”? It has never been proven to be false so why do you proclaim it so? You would rather base your _faith_ upon invisible dimensions based upon some half baked theory wich in itself is based upon another idea. At least I have the history of man and studies to back me up. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661/40 "2002-05-04T17:45:42Z")
Poly, a much easier example is this: “2 plus 2 does not equal 5”. It is easy, even trivial, using the Peano axioms, to prove that that assertion is true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-gods/106661.md?page=3)