The Atheist Book Club discussion
Science
>
I have a fairly convincing argument that god DOES exist...
"Why" assumes purpose before there is any evidence that there is a purpose, a purpose requires a conscious decision, therefore this is a religious belief, not a form of enquiry. "How" does not assume a purpose.It sounds as if you are saying it is wrong to ask "why"? Because that is all I'm doing here. I'm NOT assuming there is a purpose. I'm simply asking the question why. The answer may be that there is no purpose, but what good does dismissing there is a purpose without at least exploring the possibility. And humans are very far from all-knowing. What we do not know about the universal reality infinitally outweighs what we do know about it. Therefore claiming there is no purpose without even exploring the option invites ignorance.
As stated a few times previously an "action" or "reaction" is an "event". An event can be described as a vector describing the spatial and temporal location of an event. "The Big Bang" or more correctly T=0 cannot be an action or reaction because the temporal and spatial co-ordinates for events to take place do not exist until T>0 so the simplistic idea of a reaction or action does not make logical sense.
Are you saying that the Big Bang was not an event then? And why does your defintion of 'event' include 'event' in it to explain it. Isn't that like trying to describe an apple as "something that is an apple"...
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Hi Gary,You said 'The reason why I use "tends to zero" is because of my physics background. Generally absolutes are bad in physics and science in general. This is why when a layperson talks about "definite" proof or disproof a scientist has a hard time explaining the problem with that and why we choose relativistic terms such as "reasonable truth2, "five sigma", or "reasonably disproved".'
I know. I have a degree in physics as well and am well-versed in science (my brother is a fully qualified astronomer, and we talk often about these things--though he agrees with me now). Indeed, as a mathematician, I cringed when you said that a single probability tends toward... but being that you're a physicist, I forgave you on it. Sequences and series tend toward, single probabilities are just numbers between zero and one, inclusive. Additionally, I disagree that it is a requirement of science to never be sure. Logically impossible concepts, like omnipotence, can just be flatly stated as nonexistent just as easily as can be numbers that are simultaneously positive and negative. Indeed, since we have no physical evidence whatsoever for any supernatural anything, we have to treat all of these notions as abstractions, and that's the realm in which absolute mathematical certainty can play. That is not, though, what I'm saying about some general, vague conception of God (indeed, I'd argue that some definitions of God do exist, although they only exist in the same way as does, say, the number four--as an abstraction).
Let me use something else you've said to strengthen the point I'm trying to convey to you: "like many other gods and myths the probability of it being right is vanishingly small." What do you mean by "vanishingly small"?
That's the question that led me to wonder about the probability-zero concept that I've developed. What is "vanishingly small"? Is it "arbitrarily small," like arbitrary epsilon>0? If so, then why should we argue that the number is positive at all? We are permitted to say probability zero, almost surely, while not conceding philosophical defensibility. You've even mentioned an argument above that justifies an infinite sample space.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_s... to see how I'm using this term "almost surely" in a formal sense. I'd appreciate your feedback on the idea.
Like I say, the Biblical God seems more like a Fairy Tale or a Christmas story to me.But as to your question about What happened to this god? What are the chances he would just disappear? Well, if a conscious force did create the universe, then that force still exists in every particle of the universe. It did not disappear. It is everywhere. I mean even us measley basically ignorant humans - who have not evolved our perceptions enough to concsiously percieve anything beyond the smallest fraction of the universal reality - can see and feel this force at work. Afterall, isnt physics actually little more than the study of this Unknown force/entity?
I am starting a similar discussion to the one on this thread here:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
I'd like to invite everyone who has joined in on this disucssion to join in on that one as well.
:)
Afterall, isnt physics actually little more than the study of this Unknown force/entity?It's a fallacy to assert unknown force as an entity.
Ed, you're not an agnostic, your a panenthiest.
Shanna, why do you say it is a fallacy to assert unknown force as an entity?
Regarding "proof of God": there is no proof that God exists nor proof that God doesn't exist. People take this as a zero-sum conclusion, meaning that the argument is insoluble. they are wrong. The absence of proof forces one to create a presumption of nonexistence. the burden therefore shift to the God proponents to prove that God exists. The catch is that the search for evidence pro or con must have been undertaken and it must have been undertaken in a mature manner. Here I think that the non-existence advocates are on better ground, not necessarily because of what they have done, but because the proponents of God do such a poor job. They grasp at straws. Proponents of unicorns and fairies could do just as well.Now, to change the emphasis a bit, what should one mean by "God"? If one means an omnipotent being, the argument is lost before it is begun. There is no being. No evidence at all. But if you mean some sort of "force," it gets more interesting. If, instead of assigning human attributes to this force, you accept it for what it is and-using science--try to understand how ti works (the elemental forces of the universe), does it then make sense to talk of the existence of a "God"? I still think not, but it is a far more interesting conversation.
Your assigning characteristics of sentience without evidence to suit your argument for a conciousness/creator. But on reflection I realise I am using one definition of entity, which are you using?
Re: the difference, brought up above, between "atheist" and "agnostic"...it's right there in the etymology of each word. Agnostic derives from the word gnosis, Greek for "knowledge." A-gnostic means not-knowing. Atheism deals with lack of belief, while agnosticism deals with lack of knowledge. Most atheists are also agnostics; that is, they do not claim to know whether gods exist, and also do not believe that gods exist. You can compare the atheist-agnostic twin stance to a person who is both agnostic and theistic (doesn't know whether gods exist but believe they do in spite of that lack of sure knowledge.)That's it in a nutshell.
...to say nothing of the fact that "free will" makes zero sense as a gift from a Creator who supposedly knows exactly what you are going to do throughout your entire life. Nor is there any point to judging and potentially condemning you if God already knows everything anyway. He knows if you're going to end up, at death, an unredeemed sinner. So if you are, what's the point of creating you in the first place, unless he's just cruel and enjoys creating people in order to torture them for all time? Apologetics just turn into this circular mess the moment you start poking at them, and suddenly everything in the world looks like a really limpy-dick theodicy.
James wrote: "Hi Gary,You said 'The reason why I use "tends to zero" is because of my physics background. Generally absolutes are bad in physics and science in general. This is why when a layperson talks about..."
Yes I'm not a great mathematician :-)
However, there are two things I was addressing. Foremost that in physics infinities are usually problematic, therefore absolutes whether infinite or infinitesimal (i.e. 1/infinity) are problematic. However, hindmost is the simple fact that a layperson can call you out on the 'absolute certainty' (as has been done with certain arguments above) say 'isn't it possible that the truth has been obfuscated, and then conflate any honest uncertainty to reasonable doubt, or even surety.
In fact often the latter argument is sometimes accessed unknowingly with arguments like "if there is even the tiniest finite chance that an infinite God exists, then any finite number multiplied by infinity becomes infinity and therefore certainty". It quacks like logic, but it isn't.
With our best understanding of quantum physics, real infinities (as opposed to potential infinities) do not exist within our universe, just as real nothings (as opposed to conceptual nothings) do not exist. There is no "emptiness" possible in the universe as this would violate the uncertainty principle. Even space and time cannot be split into infinitesimal parts, but are instead limited to the tiniest slivers of Planc length and time.
So my point of debate with the theistic arguments presented is that arguing that a probability may be contrived to be non-zero, does not make it anymore reasonable for it to be assumed to exist, and that drawing a case for not believing in god to be directly equivalent to believing in god conveniently forgets the potentially infinite competitors for the role of "god" in the theistic cosmology.
So I think we are talking from roughly the same page :-)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Like I say, the Biblical God seems more like a Fairy Tale or a Christmas story to me."Without trying to sound insulting, but do you realise that from the perspective of a cosmologist a creator intelligence seems equally fanciful? The astronomical equivalent of the stork bringing the baby universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But as to your question about What happened to this god? What are the chances he would just disappear? Well, if a conscious force did create the universe, then that force still exists in every particle of the universe."
Again, have you not acknowledged that "creation" is an "event", an "event" requires "time", Einstein demonstrated that Space and Time are intrinsically linked, therefore to "create" space you would have to "create" time but there is no time to create time in.
The idea of "creation" is actually just a well disguised infinite chicken-egg scenario.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "It did not disappear. It is everywhere. I mean even us measley basically ignorant humans - who have not evolved our perceptions enough to concsiously percieve anything beyond the smallest fraction of the universal reality - can see and feel this force at work."
Exactly how does this "force" propagate? If this force is in "every" particle then how does this not violate the laws of quantum physics?
How have we saw or felt this force at work? How has it been measured? When has it been confirmed to be extra to the known interactions of physics?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Afterall, isnt physics actually little more than the study of this Unknown force/entity?"
No because you have said "Unknown force/entity" which is an oxymoron in context as you are claiming to "know" it is a force or entity, which means it is not unknown.
Physics is the study of existence while attempting to remove human bias and preconceptions. Assuming answers and then trying to select evidence to support those answers isn't physics and isn't science.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I'd like to invite everyone who has joined in on this disucssion to join in on that one as well.
:) "
Thank you.
Libbie wrote: "Re: the difference, brought up above, between "atheist" and "agnostic"...it's right there in the etymology of each word. Agnostic derives from the word gnosis, Greek for "knowledge." A-gnostic me..."I do agree with most of what you said Libbie, however agnostic has also been argued to me as a position of "not-knowable" rather than "not-knowing". So it is the position that to know 'god' or to know the full story of the universe is impossible as to hold that information you would have to encompass the universe.
(To me though that's just reductionism gone mad.) :-)
Again, have you not acknowledged that "creation" is an "event", an "event" requires "time", Einstein demonstrated that Space and Time are intrinsically linked, therefore to "create" space you would have to "create" time but there is no time to create time in.This kind of thinking assumes that we understand the universe better than we actually do. We know that "our rules" of time and space break down the further we travel from our little planet (let alone our little solar system and galaxy).
We are only studying the universe from our micro-mini little piece of it. And look how much of what he "know" about the universe has changed in even the last 10 or 20 years. How we define 'creation' and what it means really only applies to our miniscule little vantage point of an infinite universe. Again it would be like a microscopic little race of people who live on a grain of sand trying to explain the clockwork of a galaxy that we humans cannot even see - only times a godzilion.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "This kind of thinking assumes that we understand the universe better than we actually do. We know that "our rules" of time and space break down the further we travel from our little planet (let alone our little solar system and galaxy)."Some catch up reading is in order methinks.
Our rules (talking in terms of physics) are currently the two pillars of Quantum Theory and Relativity. Each theory has been tried and tested both here on Earth and by observing the most distant things visible right back to the Big Bang Fireball.
They have never "broken down".
We certainly do not understand everything yet, mainly because those two pillars of physics don't play nice together, but we learn more everyday.
The origins of the universe are particularly problematic because Quantum Physics deals with the really small and Relativity with the really big and in the earliest moments of the universe the very small was simultaneously very big.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "We are only studying the universe from our micro-mini little piece of it. And look how much of what he "know" about the universe has changed in even the last 10 or 20 years."
It hasn't really changed, we just know more stuff that we didn't know before. The planets still orbit the sun, we just understand more precisely the forces that hold them there.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "How we define 'creation' and what it means really only applies to our miniscule little vantage point of an infinite universe."
"Creation" is a religious idea. Science has never observed, nor has evidence of any "Creation". It is an assumption based on a human point of view that things have beginnings and endings, yet science only sees transitions.
Similarly an "infinite" universe is not what we see. As far as we know the universe has a finite size and a finite age.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Again it would be like a microscopic little race of people who live on a grain of sand trying to explain the clockwork of a galaxy that we humans cannot even see - only times a godzilion. "
Yet your entire argument takes a quality that we can only demonstrate in humans (consciousness) and projects that quality to encompass the entire universe. Meanwhile science looks for the provable qualities that are shared by the big bang, the stars and in the very atoms in the mind you think with.
You are trying to attribute the universe with human-like qualities while railing against the idea that we can understand the qualities of the universe. That is not logical.
Gary wrote: "Libbie wrote: "Re: the difference, brought up above, between "atheist" and "agnostic"...it's right there in the etymology of each word. Agnostic derives from the word gnosis, Greek for "knowledge...."Functionally, not-knowable and not-knowing are pretty much the same thing. A person can be both agnostic and theistic or both agnostic and atheistic. One says "I don't know and maybe can never know whether gods exist; I choose to believe they do" while the other says "I don't know and maybe can never know whether gods exist; I choose to believe they do NOT." My only point is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, or even a stances which a single person cannot hold at the same time. In fact, MOST atheists are also agnostics, since most of them admit that it's unknown (and maybe unknowable) whether gods exist.
Atheism doesn't address knowledge, only belief.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "This kind of thinking assumes that we understand the universe better than we actually do. We know that "our rules" of time and space break down the further we travel from our little planet (let alone our little solar system and galaxy). "No, it does not assume that.
Ed, the thing people have been trying to tell you here is that it's unsound thinking to say "We don't know: therefore, god." (However you want to define god.)
"We don't know. Period." is the only current honest, rational response to these big questions in life. Assigning a personal concept, or even a socially recognized concept of a "god" to the unknown doesn't explain jack-shit. And there is nothing wrong with leaving some things presently unexplained. In fact, it's leaving big fat question marks everywhere that leads to discovery and knowledge. Hand-waving the unknown away with "God did it!" only kills the drive (in some people) to find out what really happened.
Libbie, I ageee. We don't know - period. That is why I don't believe in god. I only believe that there is the possibility that the universe was created by a conscious Unknown thing (force, entity or whatever), call that thing God, call it Larry, call it whatever, but we cannot dismiss the POSSIBILITY of that thing because we currently do not understand our universal reality enough to make such a definitive claim. So what I'm saying is - let's explore this notion. This god notion, as you called it. See what we can learn from it.Gary writes: You are trying to attribute the universe with human-like qualities while railing against the idea that we can understand the qualities of the universe. That is not logical.
Who ever said the universe is supposed to be logical?
;)
Actually, Ed, we can dismiss that possibility, because there is no evidence to support the idea, zip, zilch, nada. If someone presents evidence, then it will be examined, if it shows to support such an idea, then it can be considered as a possibility, if there is a lot of evidence (and it can't be explained another way), then it could even start to be considered a probability, until then it can simply be rejected.
Hazel wrote: "Actually, Ed, we can dismiss that possibility, because there is no evidence to support the idea, zip, zilch, nada. If someone presents evidence, then it will be examined, if it shows to support suc..."No Hazel "We" cannot dismiss that possibility.
1~ Humanity has such a limited perspective of the universe thta to make such a all-knowing claim is beyond redonkulas.
2~ Consciousness derives from the Big Bangaroo. Since all the ingredients neccesary for consciousness to exist were present there in the Big Bangaroo, then obviously the POSSIBILITY exists.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Who ever said the universe is supposed to be logical?"You did? When you postulated that you had a convincing argument? ;-)
However, my point was that you were being illogical not the universe :-)
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Libbie, I ageee. We don't know - period. That is why I don't believe in god. I only believe that there is the possibility that the universe was created by a conscious Unknown thing (force, entity or whatever), call that thing God, call it Larry, call it whatever, but we cannot dismiss the POSSIBILITY of that thing because we currently do not understand our universal reality enough to make such a definitive claim. So what I'm saying is - let's explore this notion. This god notion, as you called it. See what we can learn from it."
The problem is that there is no evidence for your claim. Certainly there is not absolute proof that this doesn't exist, but there are a potentially infinite number of other things that we have no proof for that we do not know does not exist, but it would take infinite time to devote to "learning" from them, yet only finite truths to be had.
Please consider Russell's teapot as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell&...
We could also for example that blue monkeys from Venus were present at the Big Bang and they were the collective entity that "began" it. We could then speculate on how blue monkeys survive the pressures and temperatures of Venus, how they live and what there society would be like, and even how they have avoided detection.
Certainly we may even find out useful information by this exercise (e.g. accidentally discovering an organic blue dye that has incredible insulation properties) but in fact this information would have been found by sheer random chance.
Therefore with potentially infinite possibilities it is only sensible to dismiss those that we do not have at least a bit of evidence for.
Yet your entire thread is based on the idea that "you have a fairly convincing argument that god exists", but your basic premise is "we cannot prove he doesn't".
By the same argument we cannot prove that god wasn't murdered before he "created" anything and therefore is already dead and gone, so why not believe that instead?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1~ Humanity has such a limited perspective of the universe thta to make such a all-knowing claim is beyond redonkulas."What is making an "all-knowing claim" is selecting one possibility from potentially infinite possibilities and saying that we should believe it because we cannot disprove it.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I could claim that you have murdered someone, but without evidence should you be put on trial for potentially murdering someone based on the fact that some people have been murdered, some people commit murders, and you're a person?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Actually, Ed, we can dismiss that possibility, because there is no evidence to support the idea, zip, zilch, nada. If someone presents evidence, then it will be examined, if it shows ..."Yes, Ed, we can dismiss any claim for which there is absolutely no evidence, otherwise we have to accept all sorts of stuff as possible. We can entertain the idea, but based on the evidence, we reject the claim. We dismiss it as unsupported. And we can include the caveat that if ever any evidence is presented that appears at first glance to support the idea, we will examine the claim again.
There is an infinite number of claims I could make about the universe, but they can just as quickly be dismissed as unsupported. Being able to conceive of an idea doesn't make its truth any more likely. Otherwise we have to give equal support to the idea that a twinkie of immense proportions created the universe, because honestly, theres as much evidence as your claim.
2~ Consciousness derives from the Big Bangaroo. Since all the ingredients neccesary for consciousness to exist were present there in the Big Bangaroo, then obviously the POSSIBILITY exists.
The possibility existing means the concept exists, and yes the concept exists. However theres no evidence to support the concept, thus it can be dismissed. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Yet your entire thread is based on the idea that "you have a fairly convincing argument that god exists", but your basic premise is "we cannot prove he doesn't".First of all, you are implying God has human qualities when you describe god as 'he'. I have been careful to define god as an unknown, some force, entity, etc - but certainly never human.
Second 'We cannot prove IT exists' is NOT the basic premise of my argument at all...it is simply a reality that we must confront when dealing with this issue. Its pretty much impossible to talk about this issue without bringing it up - and most likely someone else brought this reality up before I did in this thread.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "First of all, you are implying God has human qualities when you describe god as 'he'. I have been careful to define god as an unknown, some force, entity, etc - but certainly never human."True, but your basic premise is that the "entity" you refer to has consciousness, a quality that has never been confirmed outside of humanity. Meanwhile gender at least has been observed in non-humans.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Second 'We cannot prove IT exists' is NOT the basic premise of my argument at all...it is simply a reality that we must confront when dealing with this issue. Its impossible to talk about this issue without bringing it up - and most likely someone else brought that fact up before I did in this thread. "
Well in post 4 on this one you brought up the problem of limited knowledge "Lets remember that we humans here on Earth have an unbelievably limited perception of our universe. From this limited perception - no matter how far we think our science and phsyics has advanced - it is nearly impossible to make any definitive claims as to how the universe works. BUT there are things we can say with a fair amount of certainty."
Not only is that statement demonstrably wrong but the last sentence contradicts the rest of the postulation. You say it's next to impossible to make definitive claims and then say that their are claims one can make with a fair amount of certainty.
So your argument is self-contradictory, you bemoan the limits of our knowledge and then yet try to derive a proof based on the lack of knowledge or evidence.
Hazel wrote: "Actually, Ed, we can dismiss that possibility, because there is no evidence to support the idea, zip, zilch, nada..."So according to your line of reasoning, ancient folks could dismiss the possibility that the Earth revolved around the sun because they had not evolved enough to find any proof of this?
Is that what you saying?
Maye YOU can dismiss it, but please do not include me in this close-minded outlook.
What I am saying is the possibility exists. There is evidence that the Big Bang COULD have involved consciousness. Evidence that I have already explained.
cross product writes:I really wonder what your expected outcome of this discussion is. You seem to be stuck in a loop
My purpose has been to have a discussion on the evidence for and against the possibility of the existence of a conscious creation of the universe.
yes, thats exactly what I'm saying, they worked with the evidence they had available, as is rational. My outlook isn't close minded, its just not so far open that my brain falls out, in future please avoid making such attacks, direct or indirect. No-one has accused you of anything.What evidence have you given that hasn't been show to fall short? Any and all "evidence " you have put forward has been roundly disputed and shown not to hold up.
It is rational to dismiss the idea, just as we dismiss the idea that kittens may have been present at the big bang because all the constituent parts (according to you, anyway, not according to how it actually works) of kittens were present at the big bang.
This really is going round in circles. I'm not interested anymore, as we've answered all your questions more than once, your logic has been shown multiple times to be flawed. If you can't read ideas for which there is evidence, and make rational judgements on their validity, and just adhere to the possibility of ones that have been shown to be not possible already in this conversation, then I see no point in continuing along this line of enquiry. I have told you that I can entertain your idea, but that the evidence does not support it, thus it can be dismissed, and thats rational.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "So according to your line of reasoning, ancient folks could dismiss the possibility that the Earth revolved around the sun because they had not evolved enough to find any proof of this?Is that what you saying?"
Good example. Actually there was plenty of evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun, it neatly explained the seasons, the changing star-field and indeed the motions of the observable planets. Even in the third century BC they had suspicions of this.
In the end, why did the geocentric universe last so long after a better explanation came along? Because people based their perception of the universe on a humanocentric ideal, and it was a long time before everyone could be convinced that they were not the literal centre of the universe.
This is the exact position you are in by projecting a humanocentric quality (consciousness) onto the entire universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Maye YOU can dismiss it, but please do not include me in this close-minded outlook."
As I have repeatedly illustrated (and apparently been ignored) your point of view already dismisses every other possibility except the possibility of a conscious entity, that is close minded because you have closed your mind to all other possibilities. The position of "dismissing" the idea until evidence for the idea is confirmed is not close minded, but instead viewing all conflicting possibilities with an even regard for their individual merit.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "What I am saying is the possibility exists. There is evidence that the Big Bang COULD have involved consciousness. Evidence that I have already explained."
Actually the evidence wasn't explained. You postulated that because consciousness exists it may have existed at the 'beginning' of the universe. That isn't evidence, but a supposition and the flaw in that supposition has been pointed out repeatedly.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "My purpose has been to have a discussion on the evidence for and against the possibility of the existence of a conscious creation of the universe. "
The evidence against the conscious creation of the universe is;
(1) Relativity tells us that space and time are the same, so one cannot 'create' one without the other, yet creation logically requires a time when something didn't exist and a time when it didn't. Therefore it's a logical impossibility.
(2) Nothing has been observed as being "created". Certainly 'virtual particle' pairs do seem to emerge from space and vanish again, but this is an intrinsic feature of space/time, not nothingness. Therefore their is no reason to assume the universe was "created". Creation is a humanocentric term based on the idea that humans see objects or people come into and leave existence, even though that scientifically speaking they have just changed from one form to another.
(3) Our only basis for the existence of 'consciousness' so far is what we label as consciousness in humans. Human consciousness cannot currently exist outside of the complex carbon based molecular structure of the human body, we have no reason to suspect that this consciousness could survive the epoch when carbon did not exist, or earlier when all matter was ionised atoms, or earlier where radiation outnumbered matter, or earlier before protons could form, etc. etc.
(4) Based on the already discredited argument of the necessity of creation, a creating entity would thus need creating itself, requiring another entity conscious or otherwise to thus create it.
(5) The universe has existed for "all time" but we know "all time" is a finite amount. This may be hard to imagine, but that is because from a human point of view time is a linear constant, when we actually know (and your GPS takes account of this fact) that time is not linear or constant.
So with this in mind, can you present evidence "for" creation without relying on mere postulation or circular definition?
(edited because I accidentally skipped a response, my apologies).
xox, when Gary refers to god as 'he' that is showing me that he is totally misunderstanding my definition of God. I've tried explaining it over and over - I am not talking about a god that is a 'he' or a 'she' or anything like that.I think people have this default setting of this idea of god because of all the religious conditioning that many of us have had to endure over our lives, but for the umpth-teen time, I am NOT referring to the Biblical god. I am referring to the phenomenon that is responsible for the creation of the universe.
(1) Relativity tells us that space and time are the same, so one cannot 'create' one without the other, yet creation logically requires a time when something didn't exist and a time when it didn't. Therefore it's a logical impossibility.
Relativity is a THEORY. It is a theory that works for us humans, from our limited scope. Just like the theory of a flat Earth worked for people in the ancient times, or the theory that the sun revolves around the Earth. But as we learned more about our universe, these ideas that seemed as clear as the nose on Karl Malden's face were challenged then debunked.
We are constantly learning more about our reality, about our universe. And for everything we seem to think we know, 20 new mysteries or incongruencies pop up
My point is that from our perception, here on this tiny little planet in an infinite universe, conventional wisdom is that time and space cannot exist without the other. That is a nice theory, but it is still a theory, but it is still just a theory.
So I asked you a while ago, "what is your definition of God?"Is your answer "the phenomenon that created the universe"?
If it is, why call it God instead of its more descriptive title, "the phenomenon that created the universe"? People clearly aren't reading/hearing what you're meaning when you're calling it "God."
If so, then the title of your thread becomes "I have a fairly convincing argument that there was a phenomenon that created the universe," which is kind of a dull title. Interestingly, what followed was not actually a description of that phenomenon in detail, like we read from Laurence Krauss, but rather a weird cosmological word game.
Gary writes: As I have repeatedly illustrated (and apparently been ignored) your point of view already dismisses every other possibility except the possibility of a conscious entity, that is close minded because you have closed your mind to all other possibilities.Gary, this is total bull. I have not dismissed ANY other possibility. Please point out even ONE possibility that I have dismissed in this thread!
In fact I have done exactly the opposite. I have stated ad naseum now, that mankind has not evolved his perceptions enough to come to any ONE definitive answer - which leaves the door open for a multitude of possible answers...
Hazel wrote: What evidence have you given that hasn't been show to fall short? Any and all "evidence " you have put forward has been roundly disputed and shown not to hold up.The evidence that I have put forth has shown that the POSSIBILITY exists. And that is all I am trying to prove. So my evidence does hold up. No one has proven that the possibility that the phenomenon that created the universe could NOT have had consciousness. The fact that all of the ingedients neccessary for consciousness were present in the Big Bang is enough proof to show the possibility exists.
Furthermore, we have discussed that conscious observation is able to "create" reality.
Gary writes: Good example. Actually there was plenty of evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun, it neatly explained the seasons, the changing star-field and indeed the motions of the observable planets. Even in the third century BC they had suspicions of this.Gary, this evidence is clear in hindsight, but in the time of the ancient humans this evidence had not yet been realized. We know that the reasons for the seasons but as little as - what - 3000 or 5000 year ago mankind attributed the change in weather to animal-headed gods. Man has been around for like 6 million year and it took us that frickin long just to figure out the earth revolves around the sun, and now just a couple thousand years later, you honestly think we understand the mystery of the universe?
I mean, let's put have some perspective here. We are still evolving. Our understanding of the universe is still in its infant stage here. Shit goes on that we have no idea about. Our senses have not evolved enough to know what is really going on in our universal reality. So let's not just start dismissing things based on THEORIES and what we THINK we know. Cuz we don't shit, Holmes.
I really hope you answer my questions this time instead of ignoring them and then telling me I'm not adding anything to the conversation.
Ed, re: the sun and earth, what would the evidence have looked like if it suggested an earth that rotates on its axis?It's utterly disingenuous to say that the evidence indicated that the sun went around the earth. People's thinking just wasn't straight. And we know quite a lot of shit, Holmes.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The fact that all of the ingedients neccessary for consciousness were present in the Big Bang is enough proof to show the possibility exists."So were the ingredients that would ultimately become cake, teapots, computers, glass, hair, party blowers, trees, feathers and nappies, is there any logical reason to assume the possibilities of their presence at the big bang?
Can you define your "ingredients nessesary for conciousness"?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "xox, when Gary refers to god as 'he' that is showing me that he is totally misunderstanding my definition of God. I've tried explaining it over and over - I am not talking about a god that is a 'he' or a 'she' or anything like that."But you are defining "it" as a consciousness, a property not known outside the human species. I am not misunderstanding you, I am trying to point out the inherent assumption you are making.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I think people have this default setting of this idea of god because of all the religious conditioning that many of us have had to endure over our lives, but for the umpth-teen time, I am NOT referring to the Biblical god. I am referring to the phenomenon that is responsible for the creation of the universe."
But you have still been referring to a conscious, therefore thinking being. Whether genderless or not, it is still the result of human bias that we tend to attribute conscious intent to unknown phenomena.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Relativity is a THEORY."
Ok, just so you are aware, 'theory' in scientific terms does not mean a 'guess', 'estimate' or 'idea'. It means a tried and tested model of the universe that works and gives reliable predictions.
What you are talking about is a hypothesis.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "It is a theory that works for us humans, from our limited scope."
Nope. For humans universal time is from our limited scope, space and time being separate is from our limited scope, Newtonian mechanics is from our limited scope.
Relativity tells us what happens away from our limited scope. Your entire "creation" argument is founded in a concept of time and mechanics that was surpassed last century.
Surely if your point is right about limited scope you should stop looking backwards.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Just like the theory of a flat Earth worked for people in the ancient times, or the theory that the sun revolves around the Earth."
Actually scientifically speaking they were never theories, because they did not make predictions that were then tested and confirmed.
In fact Eratosthenes in 240BC came up with the hypothesis that the Earth was spherical rather than flat, and predicted that he could estimate the circumference by checking the length of shadows at different places on the same day at the same time. He was correct and also managed to get a decent estimation of the size. So the 'theory' of a round earth replaced the assumption of a flat one.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "We are constantly learning more about our reality, about our universe. And for everything we seem to think we know, 20 new mysteries or incongruencies pop up"
Yes, but new ideas and theories need to incorporate the old theories. Old theories do not suddenly stop working. Gravity works on Newtonian mechanics fine at a limited range of speeds. The new theory needs to replicate this prediction otherwise it is wrong.
Therefore any new theory must include the fact that Time and Space are inexorably linked.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "That is a nice theory, but it is still a theory, but it is still just a theory.
"
But you are using an outdated hypothesis to support your hypothesis based on your limited human perceptions without even taking into account new information. That is quite common in religion.
What would you say to a person that just tried to prove to you that the Sun is created in the East and destroyed in the West every day, based on the hypothesis that the Earth is flat so the sun cannot possibly go around it, as it would have to travel underground? Would you agree that this idea had validity? After all the Spheroid Earth, Heliocentric solar system are just theories. Nice theories yes, but still just theories that happen to explain everything we perceive, including when sending a person into orbit.
In the end if your argument is based on the rejection of knowledge based on a mistrust of human perception then that argument also invalidates your own argument at the same time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The evidence that I have put forth has shown that the POSSIBILITY exists. And that is all I am trying to prove. So my evidence does hold up."What evidence?
A recursive argument is not evidence.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has proven that the possibility that the phenomenon that created the universe could NOT have had consciousness."
Actually I have offered two pieces of important evidence, first the evidence that the idea of creation is self contradictory and second the fact that the only forms of consciousness we can confirm could not have formed until millions of years after the end of the Big Bang Fireball.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The fact that all of the ingedients neccessary for consciousness were present in the Big Bang is enough proof to show the possibility exists."
That is no proof as it assumes that things that exist now must have existed then.
Did Uranium exist in the Big Bang? Probably not. Few elements heavier than lithium would have been able to form in the fury of the fireball. It actually needs millions of years to form Population III stars (pure hydrogen/helium) then those to burn out and seed the universe with enough mid range elements to form Population II stars which supernova and form Uranium.
The idea that complex forms could have spontaneously existed at an arbitrary time before they evolved into existence again has no precedent, no evidence and no rationale.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Furthermore, we have discussed that conscious observation is able to "create" reality."
Which is an "interpretation" (i.e. an unconfirmed hypothesis) based on one of those nice "theories" that you were formerly disparaging.
Furthermore, the very idea of consciousness effecting quantum events - if true - also makes it impossible for the universe to have evolved beyond the size were it should have been dominated by quantum effects. This hypothesis is further 'evidence' (if true) that there could not have been a consciousness at the beginning of existence.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, this evidence is clear in hindsight, but in the time of the ancient humans this evidence had not yet been realized. We know that the reasons for the seasons but as little as - what - 3000 or 5000 year ago mankind attributed the change in weather to animal-headed gods. Man has been around for like 6 million year and it took us that frickin long just to figure out the earth revolves around the sun, and now just a couple thousand years later, you honestly think we understand the mystery of the universe?"Are you trying to claim that science is just a series of guesses that will eventually be proved wrong.... When typing that claim into a computer?
The above argument is little better than that of a neo-Luddite.
We have advanced for the main reason that we have (capslock)dismissed(/capslock) ideas that were unsupported, had no evidence, or were just as unlikely as thousands of other ideas.
The whole idea is to find evidence and rationale to turn ideas in to tried and tested (capslock)theories(/capslock) rather than relying on supposition, superstition and assumption to form hypotheses whose only merit is that they cannot be tested let alone disproved.
If you are happy to believe ideas based on no evidence then your thread title should be "I have an argument that can pretty much convince myself to believe in anything I can possibly imagine."
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No one has proven that the possibility that the phenomenon that created the universe could NOT have had consciousness."Actually I have offered two pieces of important evidence, first the evidence that the idea of creation is self contradictory and second the fact that the only forms of consciousness we can confirm could not have formed until millions of years after the end of the Big Bang Fireball.
That is fine that you offered these arguments. But these arguments are just that. They do NOT in any way definitively prove that the possibility that the phenomenon that created the universe could NOT have had consciousness, do they?
"Can you define your "ingredients nessesary for conciousness"? "
No, can you? Can anyone here? I'd like to hear it if they can. But the point is that human consiousness is something that has derived from the Big Bang. There are other kinds of consciousness as we have touched upon during this thread. Animals show consciousness for instance. If you believe in life on other planets, then that would be another kind of consciousness. Some argue that plants have consciousness. Some may argue that planets and stars and galaxies display signs of consciousness as well. Since consciousness is not something we can see or percieve directly, it is tricky to define.
We can percieve the results of consciousness, the effects of consciousness. And this is how we know it exists in other life forms.
Gary said:But you are defining "it" as a consciousness, a property not known outside the human species. I am not misunderstanding you, I am trying to point out the inherent assumption you are making.
Gary, you are way off here. Consciousness IS known outside the human species. Like I say, we can not see it, but we can see its affects on the matter that make up our universe. Cows for instance display traits of having consciousness. So do venus fly traps.
Consciousness is very closely related to that Unknown that the ancient Greeks called the soul.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "That is fine that you offered these arguments. But these arguments are just that. They do NOT in any way definitively prove that the possibility that the phenomenon that created the universe could NOT have had consciousness, do they?"Yes they do, first by logically demonstrating that "creation" is a human assumption not an inherent quality, and secondly by disproving that the only form of consciousness we have any evidence for cannot exist in the initial conditions of the big bang.
So yes, that's evidence.
What you are stipulating instead is that consciousness is some form of magical quality which can magically exist wherever it likes. However, that isn't a logical argument. You cannot prove that wizards didn't cast a spell and make you type that. It doesn't make the "wizard" hypothesis have any logical relevance just because you cannot disprove it.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But the point is that human consiousness is something that has derived from the Big Bang."
"Derived". There are plenty of things that were derived from the Big Bang, it doesn't mean they existed at the start and in fact it makes little sense if they did.
Ice cannot form except in temperatures below 273K at 1atm of pressure. In the presence of molecules of Hydrogen and Oxygen. None of that existed until millions of years after the big bang, but your claim would say that ice "could have" existed at the start. Unfortunately the answer to that is almost certainly "no".
Ed Wagemann wrote: "There are other kinds of consciousness as we have touched upon during this thread. Animals show consciousness for instance."
Some animals show some signs similar to consciousness, but none have been widely agreed to be conscious. However, we are still talking about beings with nervous systems, electrochemical interactions, memory, senses etc. You are still assuming that somehow there is a magical immaterial component that there is no evidence for.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Some may argue that planets and stars and galaxies display signs of consciousness as well."
How?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Since consciousness is not something we can see or percieve directly, it is tricky to define."
Exactly, so how can you then simply pick a definition to fit your argument when you know that this definition is simply picked to support said argument?
Ed Wagemann wrote: "We can percieve the results of consciousness, the effects of consciousness. And this is how we know it exists in other life forms."
The best definitions of consciousness include the ability to think, to be aware and to be self-aware. Thought is a process that requires memory to give the initial point then thought uses those memories to formulate new ideas which are then remembered.
A consciousness at the start of the universe would have no memories and no time in which to think, therefore it would fail at the definition of consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Gary, you are way off here. Consciousness IS known outside the human species. Like I say, we can not see it, but we can see its affects on the matter that make up our universe. Cows for instance display traits of having consciousness. So do venus fly traps."
They are alive, yes, however consciousness implies self-awareness and the ability to make "conscious" choices. Yes certain animals show some of these qualities, and some come extremely close. Yet the point remains, these are all living beings, not immaterial entities that can exist without molecules and energy.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Consciousness is very closely related to that Unknown that the ancient Greeks called the soul. "
You do keep returning to ideas that are thousands of years out of date.
Greeks also had a concept of "cold" as a force in itself. Science shows us that "cold" does not exist and the effects of cold are actually the effects of heat escaping a warm body to a cold environment.
Greeks also had an idea that sight was something that emanated from the eyes (hence the idea that someone's gaze falls upon you).
Greeks had a concept of there being a "perfect" form for every object of which all real "imperfect" forms are derived.
There a lots of things the Greeks believed in, or had concepts of that have turned out to be a lot less poetic in reality.
The idea that living beings require a magical force in the form of a 'soul' is pretty redundant. We now know not only where thoughts are processed in the human mind, but we are on the verge of actually "seeing" them form. We know that chemicals and physical damage can drastically alter thoughts. We know that electrical stimulation can alter thought processes. Exactly what role is left for a magical soul?
You claim this is a convincing argument for the existence of god, but if part of the argument is the belief in the existence of a magical soul then your argument is only going to be convincing to those who already believe in 'supernatural' forces.
Yes they do, first by logically demonstrating that "creation" is a human assumption not an inherent quality, and secondly by disproving that the only form of consciousness we have any evidence for cannot exist in the initial conditions of the big bang.So yes, that's evidence.
No, its not. Its speculation at best.
1~You have not proven that something can exist without ever being created. You say that time and space as we know it cannot have been created before the existence of time and space. The key here is the qualifier "as we know it". Time and space could have existed in a way that we do not understand. Just as consciousness could have existed in a way we don't understand. The birth of our universe could have been the death of a previous universe.
Think of it in terms of a black hole...what happens to time and space beyond the event horizon of a black hole? Do we understand this? No. We can only speculate.
2~What do you constitute as evidence of consciousness Gary?
I think you are limiting your argument only to consciousness of the 'human species'. You dismissed other forms of consciousness, including unconsciousness.
And arent you assuming that something can exist without ever being created? Where is the evidence for that argument?
The evidence for my argument however, that something can only exist once it is created, is all around us. The computer you are looking at, the chair you are sitting on, the pants you are wearing (good god, you are wearing pants, aren't you?).
What you are stipulating instead is that consciousness is some form of magical quality which can magically exist wherever it likes.
No, I'm not. I never said that at all.
Also Gary, why do you keep using the word 'magical'. Magic implies something that is not real or something that is make believe. Just because we do not unsderstand something that does not mean we should dismiss it as 'make beleive'. Can you see dark mater or dark energy? No? So then you must call that magical also, right?Ice cannot form except in temperatures below 273K at 1atm of pressure. In the presence of molecules of Hydrogen and Oxygen. None of that existed until millions of years after the big bang, but your claim would say that ice "could have" existed at the start. Unfortunately the answer to that is almost certainly "no".
No, I am saying that the ingredients neccesary to produce ice or produce consciousness were present at the Big Bang. And one of those key ingredients is Time. But the big misperception in your "almost certain" presumption is that Time as you are using it in your example is from the limited perception of a tiny little human being on our tiny little earth. And how do we humans measure time? We measure it by how many times the earth revolves around the sun. So when you say that these conditions to create ice did not exist until millions of years after the Big Bang, you are basing your calculations on how many times a planet that did not yet exist would revolve around a sun that did not yet exist. And that just doesn't cut the mustard.
Last of all, I'm not saying that everything the Greeks did and thought was right. But when it comes to identifying the idea that there is something that is Unknown that is propelling us through time and space - and not only us, but all matter in the universe - they were recognizing something important.
I'm rather enjoying that you're challenging a physicist on physics, Ed. This is what I meant before about him being able to be paid to provide these lessons that you repeatedly ask him to give you for nothing.
Actually one of our biggest area of disagreement might simply have to do with our different definitions of Consciousness. Which is why I have created this thread here:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Folks, There seems to be a lot of "prove a negative" going on. One cannot prove God doesn't exist. But the burden is on those who assert God to prove he exists. They cannot do so because their underlying assumptions are just too extensive. There is no justification, for instance, in assuming a creator. The list goes on. We need to face the fact that God has not provided us with enough facts to prove He exists, therefore the reasonable position to take is that He doesn't.
Thank you, Timothy. Shifting the burden of proof is a really big problem in all of these discussions. It is, in fact, what enables all argumentum ad ignorantiam, which is what we see predominantly here.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, its not. Its speculation at best."It's speculation that consciousness cannot survive a plasma? Get me anything with consciousness and allow me to subject it to a plasma, then test the smouldering remains.
That's not speculation.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "1~You have not proven that something can exist without ever being created."
Actually the law of conservation of energy demonstrates that things are not created.
Put it simply. Creation requires a time when something does not exist and a time when it does. You cannot therefore create time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "You say that time and space as we know it cannot have been created before the existence of time and space. The key here is the qualifier "as we know it"."
Actually you are arguing from time "as you know it" not as we know it.
Again you are trying to argue from ignorance, rather than build on knowledge. You can prove anything you choose if you are allowed to make things up. It doesn't make it logical or convincing.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Time and space could have existed in a way that we do not understand. Just as consciousness could have existed in a way we don't understand."
Then why use those labels? All you are doing is expanding and changing the words to fit your argument, not using evidence to deduce a result.
The birth of our universe could have been the death of a previous universe.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Think of it in terms of a black hole...what happens to time and space beyond the event horizon of a black hole? Do we understand this? No. We can only speculate."
Actually we can say quite a bit. For a start the time dilation effect at the event horizon would indicated that objects do not cross beyond the event horizon until infinite time. This "Frozen Star" hypothesis explains quite a bit about the alleged interior of a black hole.
All science involves speculation, but the point is we discard ideas with no evidence to concentrate on the ideas that produce results. Without this you would be paralysed with infinite options, or you would (as you have been doing) choose the 'preferred' answers while potentially discarding a truth that is not yet apparent.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "I think you are limiting your argument only to consciousness of the 'human species'. You dismissed other forms of consciousness, including unconsciousness."
What's your definition. Name me something that has demonstrable consciousness that is not a human, or an animal that may or may not be.
Unconsciousness refers to things that are not within consciousness (by the name) whether that effects consciousness or not. It still doesn't hint at any immaterial consciousness.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And arent you assuming that something can exist without ever being created? Where is the evidence for that argument? "
Erm... Things exist... and things have never been seen to be "created". (It would violate known and well tested laws of physics).
I've even given you "virtual particle pairs" but that isn't actual creation from nothing, that is a local disturbance in space-time.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "The evidence for my argument however, that something can only exist once it is created, is all around us."
No.
You are looking at things that once were something else that have been changed into their current forms.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "No, I'm not. I never said that at all. "
So how can consciousness exist without the kind of structure for the process of consciousness to exist on?
Without a spoon, mixing bowl and ingredients, is there some ghostly "essence of mixing" that floats around the universe looking for a place to happen?
Consciousness is a process, not an object.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Also Gary, why do you keep using the word 'magical'. Magic implies something that is not real or something that is make believe."
Actually magic usually means something "supernatural" that is somehow beyond "mundane" nature. However, in a way you are right, nature is "that which is natural" so all things in the universe are therefore natural to the universe because we define the universe as "everything in existence". Therefore if there was a godlike consciousness it would be a natural part of the universe not a supernatural part as the term supernatural would define it as being "outside existence" and since outside existence is synonymous with not in existence I am sure you can see the logic there.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Just because we do not unsderstand something that does not mean we should dismiss it as 'make beleive'."
Your basic argument keeps coming back to the idea that if we don't agree with the argument, then we don't understand enough. This is not true.
We understand enough about the universe and enough about consciousness to make your supposition extremely unlikely. Trying to claim we don't know, and then immediately claiming knowledge that does not fit with what we do know is illogical.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Can you see dark mater or dark energy? No? So then you must call that magical also, right?"
No because we can detect it's existence from the available evidence.
Thank you for bringing this up as it demonstrates the problem with your line of "assume its true if you have no evidence".
It was once thought that the universe was eternal and infinite. A lot of very clever people laboured under this assumption for a long time, never even realising that it was an assumption.
Then Einstein looked at his equations and realised that if the universe was as it appeared it should collapse under it's own weight and added a "cosmological constant" to his equations to preserve the stability of the universe. (Not the same constant that Dark Energy now gives us though). It actually wasn't discovered until later that the universe is actually finite, bounded in space and time.
By assuming an answer (God, an eternal universe) we shroud our eyes from the evidence that will lead us to truth.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "But the big misperception in your "almost certain" presumption is that Time as you are using it in your example is from the limited perception of a tiny little human being on our tiny little earth."
Nope, that's your version, and it's wrong. You are assuming (by assuming creation) that time is linear and infinite. We know (proved by measurements from outside "our little Earth") that this is wrong and therefore the conclusions you are trying to draw are wrong.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "And how do we humans measure time? We measure it by how many times the earth revolves around the sun."
Yup that's how you measure it, not we. Yet again you are using an idea of time thousands of years out of date.
Personally the rest of us are using the radiation emitted by caesium atoms in a single non-accelerated frame of reference.
So once you update your ideas, revisit your argument again.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "you are basing your calculations on how many times a planet that did not yet exist would revolve around a sun that did not yet exist. And that just doesn't cut the mustard."
Nope.
I'm basing it on a convenient approximation of time for the layperson. The actual times involved can be directly observed by seeing the microwave fireball of the bigbang remnant which is still visible in radio-freqeuncies of around 3.5K black body radiation.
Ed Wagemann wrote: "Last of all, I'm not saying that everything the Greeks did and thought was right. But when it comes to identifying the idea that there is something that is Unknown that is propelling us through time and space - and not only us, but all matter in the universe - they were recognizing something important."
Or they were making the same assumption that a lot of cultures have made and never realised was an assumption. Like the eternal unchanging "celestial sphere". Also there was people at the time who recognised that your "something important" was an article of faith, not logic and reason.
The Atheist Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Why Evolution Is True (other topics)Why Evolution Is True (other topics)
Evolution the Human Story (other topics)
The Incredible Human Journey (other topics)
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (other topics)
If I can address one point.
James wrote: "Gary, just above, noted that "an atheist places the probability of a 'god' as tending to zero." Actually, I place the probability of the existence of God at zero."
The reason why I use "tends to zero" is because of my physics background. Generally absolutes are bad in physics and science in general. This is why when a layperson talks about "definite" proof or disproof a scientist has a hard time explaining the problem with that and why we choose relativistic terms such as "reasonable truth2, "five sigma", or "reasonably disproved".
For example the fact that the stars are distant versions of our Sun, some of which are much bigger and a lot of which are smaller, is a theory. Is it impossible that they are actually some form of elaborate projection? Yes. Is it of a high enough probability that I need to consider it, no.
So for the existence of the Judeo/Christian God, can I imagine being wrong and 'He' does exist, easily, after all 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." So my disbelief could have been engineered by a more powerful entity in order to damn me.
However, like many other gods and myths the probability of it being right is vanishingly small hence I consider it certain beyond 'reasonable doubt'. That small acknowledgement that ultimately things may not be what they seem isn't a concession to religion, but (in my opinion) a mark of intellectual humility and honesty.