Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Steve H on November 08, 2017, 01:49:43 PM
-
This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.
-
Leaving aside the lack of a logically coherent definition of free will, how does any such thing survive if your god is also omniscient?
-
Two initial thoughts:
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".
This is indeed the straightforward definition of the word. Any tinkering with it is fine, but it's not omnipotence any more.
I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it.
Despite the repeated assertions of one poster in particular here we can't actually state as a fact that humans actually have free will. It's a philosophical issue not amenable to scientific demonstration (as far as we know at present - that may change), but I would go further and state as a fact that contemporary neuroscience at the least casts serious doubt upon it as a viable concept.
-
As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).
-
You can’t square a loving god with omnipotence given the suffering that exists. The only thing that makes sense is to believe that god does what he/she can, but that also means that god doesn’t answer petitional prayers, because to pick and choose who gets help and who doesn’t is also unloving.
-
Two initial thoughts:
This is indeed the straightforward definition of the word. Any tinkering with it is fine, but it's not omnipotence any more.
Despite the repeated assertions of one poster in particular here we can't actually state as a fact that humans actually have free will. It's a philosophical issue not amenable to scientific demonstration, but I would go further and state as a fact that contemporary neuroscience at the least casts serious doubt upon it as a viable concept.
Free will in the classical sense is an impossibility in a deterministic universe since it requires the ability of the human mind to contravene the laws of physics. Even in a non deterministic universe, the problem is not really solved.
-
Ok, how about this... god doesn’t have a mind or a will, but is just a neutral animating energy. I’m that sense could that be a form of omnipotence?
-
As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).
The 'strong' version here seems to be logically incoherent to me. How can a choice be made if not from previous events and/or randomly. Note this has been coveted in great detail on SfG by the admirable torridon.the 'weak' version is not free in any sense I can see and neither of them deal with the issue of omniscience, were it to be attribute of your god.
Unless you envisage your god as an eternal tinkerer reacting to events to keep his 'vast eternal plan' on track, you end up in a Liebnizian position as satirised by Voltaire that this is the best of all possible worlds and could be no different.
-
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).
What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.
-
What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.
Except it obviously isn't. I am sure Johnson was a fabulous drinking companion, but as a thinking companion he's not that far above his namesake Boris.
-
Ok, how about this... god doesn’t have a mind or a will, but is just a neutral animating energy. I’m that sense could that be a form of omnipotence?
Interesting idea. In the sense that it could do anything logically possible, even with no actual intent it makes sense. Again we have to drop the omniscient and omnibenevolent ideas here as they imply will. Actually thinking about it an omniscient omnipotent thing could still exist without will but it's a very weird thought.
-
This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.
Does omnipotence also include changing the past?
In any case, as far as human thought processes are concerned, the only way someone or something can be omnipotent is if the world is an illusion (something like a Virtual world). The person responsible for the VR can change anything in the virtual world instantaneously by changing the program.
-
Does omnipotence also include changing the past?
In any case, as far as human thought processes are concerned, the only way someone or something can be omnipotent is if the world is an illusion (something like a Virtual world). The person responsible for the VR can change anything in the virtual world instantaneously by changing the program.
Interesting question but surely human perception of the past changes all the time so you could change what is perceived to have happened without changing the actual past. Indeed in terms of fixing code, it's arguable that that is exactly the case.
Don't see that the ability to change the past implies virtuality. It's conceivable that a non virtual world could be changed if you see time as a dimension that you can move in. I believe there is a rather successful TV programme going for ovef 50 years that trades on that.
BTW thanks to this incarnation of SteveH for the interesting OP
-
As I understand it, there are two versions of free will - strong and weak. the strong version allows us to choose between two or more courses of action - I had grilled chicken for lunch, but I really could have had egg and chips instead. The weak version says that I was always going to have grilled chicken, and never would have had egg and chips, but it was nevertheless my choice.
Anyway, as Dr Johnson (I think) said, "All reason is against it, but all instinct is for it" (or something like that).
I didn't think that free will = choice, but an act that is unconditioned or without cause. Hence, when people ask, 'what is free will free from?', the answer seems to be a prior causative event.
This has led to the debate on the other thread, which involves notions of determinism and randomness. An act is either determined or random, although 'random' itself is a rather difficult concept. But anyway, is choice non-determined? That seems very odd.
By the way, I think sarcasm can be quite adult.
-
HV,
This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
Fair enough.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".
Yup. Be careful though: “anything that can be done” just means anything that’s amenable to unlimited power – ie, anything at all provided it’s a coherent proposition. “Four-sided triangles” for example couldn’t be done because the notion itself is incoherent whereas, say, curing Uncle Albert of his chronic gout could be whether or not he wanted to be cured.
I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans,…
“Generally agreed” by whom?
First, the “free” of “free will” is a misnomer.
Second, to be concerned with the limits of “God’s power” presumably you’d have to think there to be a “God” in the first place (and presumably too you’re referring here to the god in which you happen to believe rather than one of the countless other gods in which other people believe).
Either way though, as the concept of a God changing our minds for us is a least a coherent one then no – a god unable to do that would not be omnipotent at all.
…applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it.
Then “He’s” not omnipotent in any meaningful sense of the word. “Doing anything he likes with matter” is actually a pretty good definition of omnipotence; dilute or limit that and you lose the “omni” necessarily.
This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Then more that one person has had the same wrong idea – see above.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again)…
It’s go nothing to do with belief or non-belief, just logic.
…it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
“They” could, but only if they were to share your illogic on the subject.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.
That’s not true. You did it when you didn’t want to engage with the argument that undid you, and what “debate” do you think there to be?
-
What Dr Johnson said was " 'Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't". Quite right too.
As NS commented, Johnson notoriously got things wrong like this. For example, his famous refutation of Berkeley 'I kick the stone and refute idealism'; OK, but it didn't. Similarly, just saying that I 'know' something and that demonstrates it satisfactorily, well, no. Famous modern example, is the idea that we never actually touch anything, contrary to what we 'know'.
-
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful".
Is there anywhere in the Bible where this attribute is used? Elohim could be loosely translated as 'the powers that be', a quite vague expression. In the New Testament the Greek word 'dynameon' appears and tends to be associated with strength, ability and possibility. Jesus said 'with God all is possible' but this was in the context of being saved.
-
It was suggested by a mod that I re-post this here, to avoid it getting derailed or hijacked, so here it is.
This has been discussed at some length on 'Searching for God', but it keeps getting mixed up in other topics and spats, so I thought I'd start a thread devoted to that topic alone.
As I argued there, "omnipotence" can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", a definition that retains the idea of "all powerful", not merely "very powerful". I suggested that free will, which it is generally agreed is a limit on God's power over humans, applies in some analogous sense to all matter - that it is intractable stuff, and even God can't do absolutely as God likes with it. This might lead to an explanation for the existence of suffering. This idea is not original to me - I've read something along those lines elsewhere, although I came up with it independently.
Before the non-believers tear me to pieces (again), it is worth pointing out that admitting this does not prove God: they could, in theory, admit that my definition of omnipotence is valid but still disbelieve.
I'd be grateful if the debate could be conducted in an adult way, without sarcasm, name-calling, or accusing others of lying (and I know I've been guilty of the first two myself, though in my defence only reactively) It would also be nice if one particular poster could refrain from yet again opining that there is no evidence for the existence of God, or that the God of the Bible is a psychopath. It's irrelevant.
Modify message
-
Moderator:
The previous thread on this issue in Christian Topic was substantially derailed so we've asked for the OP to be re-posted here.
Members are free to discuss omnipotence freely, including any criticisms of this term and how it is utilised in theism, provided that it is done on the basis of argument and in line with the ethos of this Board. Therefore any 'this is nonsense' posting or derails into other issues (as happened in the other thread) will be removed.
Update: some posts from the original thread have been merged here.
-
Omnipotence is linked to Omniscience and Omnipresence. They go together. We cannot separate them out.
Omniscience and Omnipresence are possible only if the relevant Agent is some sort of an inner driving force. Pantheism!
The idea of the String is unavoidable in this context. The String is postulated to be present in everything, and is said to vibrate and transform itself into different elementary particles and thereby into the whole world. That is Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence.
Of course the question arises as to what the String is and how it came about and whether there is any Intent and Will behind it. I don't think we will ever know. We are a product of it and not above it.
-
The idea of the String is unavoidable in this context. The String is postulated to be present in everything, and is said to vibrate and transform itself into different elementary particles and thereby into the whole world. That is Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence...
Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.
All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done. A universe does not know things however. To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory. Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.
-
Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.
All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done. A universe does not know things however. To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory. Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.
I think one of the ideas which occurs in the Perennial Philosophy is that 'knowing' in 'spirituality' is not about objective fact gathering and forming models and concepts etc. It is about 'being' conscious and its expansion into the 'omni' or 'all' is by losing the notion of selfhood. The analogy of a raindrop merging or uniting with an ocean and becoming 'oceanic' comes to mind. The rain drop 'knows' the ocean by becoming one with it not by observing it from an isolated position and conceptualising about it.
-
Moderator:
I've removed some posts that are outwith the ethos of this Board.
Please note that members are free to debate Omnipotence in this thread provided that they don't stray outwith the ethos of this (see About This Board).
-
Sounds more like pseudoscience to me; you're taking a hard-ass mathematical model to derive archaic theistic notions from; very flaky.
All the omni's infer something of the nature of a being and a being implies some bounded entity within a broader context but if the being is everything, then we already have a word for that, universe. A universe is everything and a universe does everything that can be done. A universe does not know things however. To be dissolves the concept of to know, it renders it pointless. A knower, by implication is not everything, it is a limited entity with information about its broader context; therefore omniscience implies omnipresence but we cannot talk about omnipotent beings or omnipresent beings, such things are self-contradictory. Best to stick to 'universe' I think, avoid all treacle.
What is Pseudo about String theory?
I was only pointing out that the idea of Omnipresence and Omnipotence is inherent in the String theory.
-
Except it obviously isn't. I am sure Johnson was a fabulous drinking companion, but as a thinking companion he's not that far above his namesake Boris.
I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.
-
I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum. I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.
it would help if you want to make a case for free will to actually make a case for it. Calling something sterile or obsessive is merely posh name calling. It's possible for someone to be very intelligent and wrong - Linus Pauling is the classic example. Simply to assert that free will exists without any attempt to explain it as a logically coherent proposition as both you and Johnson have done isn't an argument.
-
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?
-
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?
That's mainly an ad consequentiam argument. Can we know objective truth given that we are subjective by definition?
-
L’Eau,
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?
You’ve just tried two* logical fallacies (the fallacy of judgmental language and the argmentum ad consequentiam) that tell us nothing at all about the argument – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.
Why not engage with that rather than throw sand at it in the hope no-one notices?
* Coda: actually three if we include the argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) re how clever Dr Johnson was.
-
I don't think he'd have been much of a drinking companion - he was nearly a teetotaller. As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum.
In some areas, no doubt.
Clearly not all. The famous stone comment and his response to the issue of free will reveal that his was an embarrassingly lacking mind when it came to anything like philosophical thought. If those were what he took to be serious contributions to serious issues, he was to philosophy what James Dean was to road safety.
I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum.
For one it makes him look like a clodhopping clown. For another, a great many people don't regard thinking seriously, carefully and clearly about matters philosophical as "sterile, obsessive ratiocination". I'm not remotely surprised to find you in agreement with him; but if you were trying to persuade people that you don't have a mile-wide anti-intellectual streak and regard "Man has free will because I've said he does" as the last word in philosophical thought on the subject, you need to find a new strategy.
ETA: Buggeration - I've just realised that this is in the FSA rather than the commentary thread on omnipotence so if The Management want to delete or move that's fine by me.
-
Moderator:
It seems clear, in spite of best intentions, that this thread isn't suited to FSA after all - therefore it is being moved to Theism & Atheism.
-
In some areas, no doubt.
Clearly not all. The famous stone comment and his response to the issue of free will reveal that his was an embarrassingly lacking mind when it came to anything like philosophical thought. If those were what he took to be serious contributions to serious issues, he was to philosophy what James Dean was to road safety.
Quite so. Berkeley may well be wide of the mark with his 'philosophy of spirits' and denial of material substance, but his arguments are a bit more subtle than stubbing a toe on a rock might refute. Johnson simply demonstrated that he hadn't a clue what Berkeley meant by 'perception'.
-
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.
I forget who it was (may have been either bluehillside or wigginhall: apologies for the lapse of memory) but only yesterday or the day before somebody remarked that we all instinctively feel that when we touch something - when we sit on a chair for example - we're actually touching it. But we're not: in fact we're only experiencing the repulsive force between our own electron shells and the electron shells of the object. With everything. All the time. Our instinctive feeling is knowably, demonstrably wrong, so it's not a reliable guide to the truth of the matter.
Nietzsche was far from the only philosopher to use the example of criminals in the discussion of free will v. determinism*: but to use this, as Alan Burns has on several occasions, as a strike against determinism is to commit the ad consequentiam fallacy. A thing can be as unpleasant and unappealing as you (don't) like, but your abhorrence of the consequences won't change reality. If it is the case that there is no free will then there's no ultimate justification for punishing criminals: but then, if there's no free will then we can't say that it's unjustified since if the criminal's acts were determined, then so are ours in exactly the same way. In real life however it leaves little or even nothing unchanged: if it could be demonstrated that there was no such thing as truly free will, punishing criminals may still be justified on pragmatic grounds, i.e. as a society-protecting mechanism. The proximate justification, in the absence of an ultimate one, will have to do.
* Spinoza, of whom Nietzsche was a great admirer, also denied free will.
-
The proximate justification, in the absence of an ultimate one, will have to do.
Well argued. But now - anyone fancy a pint?
-
I'm afraid I've left my wallet at home ...
-
, – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.
Ooh I see the vultures gathering for this.
-
Shakes,
I'm afraid I've left my wallet at home ...
Not a problem. An omnipotent god could just leave £20 for you behind the bar.
Unless that is you're going to the Free Will Arms of course, in which case it's "generally agreed" apparently that this god isn't omnipotent at all within its walls.
Only he's still omnipotent really.
Or perhaps not.
Or something.
Hope that clears it up for you.
-
Vlad,
Ooh I see the vultures gathering for this.
If you have a way to reconcile HV's "omnipotent, but sometimes not, but still omnipotent after all 'onest injun" proposal then by all means share.
-
Vlad,
If you have a way to reconcile HV's "omnipotent, but sometimes not, but still omnipotent after all 'onest injun" proposal then by all means share.
Your reply has just made them a bit hungrier. Maybe you'll work it out before they feast on its carcass.
-
Do we have a choice in this free will game?
ippy
-
Vlad,
Your reply has just made them a bit hungrier. Maybe you'll work it out before they feast on its carcass.
That's a "no" then.
Fair enough.
-
ippy,
Do we have a choice in this free will game?
Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.
-
ippy,
Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.
It's odd so much of how we live life is good enough. Thus the 'truth' about touching stuff (as mentioned already), free will, or morality is good enough. We don't need to deal with the the truth because we get by with what is good enough. And that approach is what SteveH in his watery incarnation and Dr Johnson use as a knock out blow to the times when it isn't 'good enough'
-
Is it just that it’s ‘good enough’ though? Or is that that it’s the only way we can get by without driving g ourselves nuts??
-
NS,
It's odd so much of how we live life is good enough. Thus the 'truth' about touching stuff (as mentioned already), free will, or morality is good enough. We don't need to deal with the the truth because we get by with what is good enough. And that approach is what SteveH in his watery incarnation and Dr Johnson use as a knock out blow to the times when it isn't 'good enough'
Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?
Some of us are comfortable with that (revel in it even) but I sometimes wonder of one motivation for religious belief is a craving for certainty - some folks really, really must be sure of their ground, and if a god provides that then well and good.
-
Is it just that it’s ‘good enough’ though? Or is that that it’s the only way we can get by without driving g ourselves nuts??
Agreed, who gets up in the morning and thinks 'Do I have free will?' And in many ways it's boring as well as odd to think about it, but if you discuss stuff like the omnis it is where we end up.
-
NS,
Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?
Some of us are comfortable with that (revel in it even) but I sometimes wonder of one motivation for religious belief is a craving for certainty - some folks really, really must be sure of their ground, and if a god provides that then well and good.
Surely the craving for certainty is a widespread human trait developed by evolution?
-
NS,
Surely the craving for certainty is a widespread human trait developed by evolution?
Perhaps, but I was merely suggesting that the appeal of religious beliefs may in part be due to them providing it.
-
– namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.
Having made this positive assertion can you explain how parts of the UNIVERSE are ring fenced from GOD'S omnipotence?
-
NS,
Perhaps, but I was merely suggesting that the appeal of religious beliefs may in part be due to them providing it.
And yet there are many who have religious beliefs not based on certainty.
-
Vlad,
Having made this positive assertion can you explain how parts of the UNIVERSE are ring fenced from GOD'S omnipotence?
No idea, but as it's not my claim I suggest you take it up with HV (see the OP).
Seems simple to me though - he can have omnipotent, or he can have not omnipotent. What he can't have though is omnipotent, except in the places it's not.
-
NS,
And yet there are many who have religious beliefs not based on certainty.
Indeed there are those people too. There are also though some who, for example, will insist that morality can't be "real" unless it's written in a book they think to be the thoughts on an inerrant, certain god.
-
NS,
Indeed there are those people too. There are also though some who, for example, will insist that morality can't be "real" unless it's written in a book they think to be the thoughts on an inerrant, certain god.
And some who are not religious do the same. So it would appear that religion tells you nothing here
-
NS,
And some who are not religious do the same. So it would appear that religion tells you nothing here
It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.
-
NS,
It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.
Does it? It provides certainty and uncertainty as with most belief systems.
-
Vlad,
No idea, but as it's not my claim I suggest you take it up with HV (see the OP).
Seems simple to me though - he can have omnipotent, or he can have not omnipotent. What he can't have though is omnipotent, except in the places it's not.
So this is really your idea then.
Which places in the UNIVERSE do you think GOD isn't omnipotent?
-
NS,
It tells you that, for those who crave certainty, religion provides a ready source for it - which must I suppose make it more attractive than it would be if it wasn't underpinned with all those "sure and certains" and the like.
It’s a characteristic of some versions of Christianity, certainly. Not all - Spong always said he believed in the hope of an afterlife, nothing more. It’s also not actually a very comfortable way to live if you think faith brings certainty in this life - answer to prayer, protection etc or indeed the certainty of judgement - and this can feed mental health issues hugely, especially anxiety and OCD.
Of course one major faith has at its heart the need to make peace with uncertainty - Buddhism. You can add Taoism to that too.
-
But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?
How did we get onto certainty. Did one of the big swinging members of this board chuck it in and now the Posse are on a certainty hunt or something?
-
But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?
No.
Happy to help.
-
ippy,
Depends what you mean by "we" and "free", but fundamentally no. That it feels as though we do though is good enough for most practical purposes.
It's not a decision worth making from my own point of view, I am able to live in a way that I'm quite happy and content as I am and can't really see if there's any benefit having a long discussion about whether we have free will or not, I suspect that which ever it is whether we have it or not (something not 100% certain either way), will not make the slightest difference to any one of us.
I really suspect that the concept of free will is just another one of those so many ideas connected to religious belief in one way or another, that so often turns out to be just another bit of religious babble.
Regards ippy
-
Quote
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals. All of us were predestined to believe what we believe, so what becomes of objective truth, and out ability to know it, if that is the case? If there is no free-will, how can we possibly know, one way or the other?
L’Eau,
You’ve just tried two* logical fallacies (the fallacy of judgmental language and the argmentum ad consequentiam) that tell us nothing at all about the argument – namely that you can’t have something that’s “omnipotent” and at the same time has parts of the universe that are ring fenced from its omnipotence.
Why not engage with that rather than throw sand at it in the hope no-one notices?
* Coda: actually three if we include the argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) re how clever Dr Johnson was.
I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned. I didn't draw any conclusions.
The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false. I haven't committed that one, either. I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.
Judgemental language? Where?
-
I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned.
The pretentious git.
I didn't draw any conclusions.
You chose two very bad examples of Johnson thinking he was scoring philosophical points and failing dismally - why?
And you did draw a conclusion in any case - in #8 you quoted Johnson saying "Sir, we know our will is free, and there's an end on't" and appended: "Quite right too" - concluding that Johnson was correct.
The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false.
We know; Alan Burns does it with free will v. determinism twice a month regular as clockwork.
I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.
Well yes - it's a useful fiction. (Like time, some of us would say). I don't see the connection between free will (or the lack thereof) and knowing things, though. As far as I can tell it sounds like a variant of that dreary old nonsense, the evolutionary argument against naturalism.
-
As far as I can tell it sounds like a variant of that dreary old nonsense, the evolutionary argument against naturalism.
Sounds like another argument the refutation of which is encrypted with the password only available to the brotherhood of rotary optical New atheists.
Unless you wish to reveal it to us now?
-
We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified,
Perhaps, but also unavoidable.
Anyway, I don't agree. Punishment is justified because part of the context in which a person makes a decision to commit a crime is the knowledge that getting caught will involve punishment.
-
Sounds like another argument the refutation of which is encrypted with the password only available to the brotherhood of rotary optical New atheists.
Unless you wish to reveal it to us now?
Three months behind the curve, old fruit: http://tinyurl.com/y936bowz
-
Three months behind the curve, old fruit: http://tinyurl.com/y936bowz
I'm sorry but how does the relative accuracy of our empirical senses bear any relationship to an evolutionary argument against naturalism? Secondly, you seem to be using science to argue a philosophical point. I'm not sure that is as bad as using Douglas Adams to settle a philosophical point but there you go.
I wonder if you could settle a bet I've had with myself. I think now I won't get either the evolutionary argument against naturalism from you or it's refutation. But I also think I might. What is it going to be?
-
I'm sorry but how does the relative accuracy of our empirical senses bear any relationship to an evolutionary argument against naturalism? Secondly, you seem to be using science to argue a philosophical point. I'm not sure that is as bad as using Douglas Adams to settle a philosophical point but there you go.
I wonder if you could settle a bet I've had with myself. I think now I won't get either the evolutionary argument against naturalism from you or it's refutation. But I also think I might. What is it going to be?
Oh - you don't even know what the EAAN is - why didn't you say?
-
Oh - you don't even know what the EAAN is - why didn't you say?
Go ahead then.
-
http://bfy.tw/ExPx
-
NS,
Does it? It provides certainty and uncertainty as with most belief systems.
You seem to want to pick an argument here over nothing. I have "belief systems", and I'm not certain about any of them. So do lots of people. I merely note that the major religions are heavy on certainty, and lots of people crave it - whey then wouldn't there be an attraction? Morality not being "real" unless it's written in a book – the "gospel truth" – is just one example.
-
Vlad,
So this is really your idea then.
Which places in the UNIVERSE do you think GOD isn't omnipotent?
Again, try reading the OP (and my Reply 14) to see why you've got the backwards. It's HV's idea - I'm the one explaining why it fails.
-
http://bfy.tw/ExPx
Interesting. When Ruse makes a criticism of conflating metaphysical and methodological naturalism one has to take that seriously of course.
Plantigna is I think right to take the ''convictions of man's mind'' quote from Darwin as Darwin talking about the full range of methodological and metaphysical beliefs and of course Lewis's framing as persuasive as ever.
My initial observations though is just because empirical senses have accuracy or reliability that need not have any bearing on metaphysical beliefs. Secondly I don't think you can argue that evolution has led to naturalism and theism or any metaphysical belief and yet only naturalism can be accurate.
That seems like special pleading to me.
To take Ruse's point it seems to me that you are conflating or attempting to between the methodological and metaphysical by making the leap between empirical accuracy and naturalism.
-
Rhi,
It’s a characteristic of some versions of Christianity, certainly. Not all - Spong always said he believed in the hope of an afterlife, nothing more. It’s also not actually a very comfortable way to live if you think faith brings certainty in this life - answer to prayer, protection etc or indeed the certainty of judgement - and this can feed mental health issues hugely, especially anxiety and OCD.
Of course one major faith has at its heart the need to make peace with uncertainty - Buddhism. You can add Taoism to that too.
Indeed, but you only have to read some of the contributors here to see how certain they are in their faith beliefs. That's not to say that there's not a whole tradition of doubting Christianity too, but the literal "gospel truth" part is clearly there.
-
Vlad,
Again, try reading the OP (and my Reply 14) to see why you've got the backwards. It's HV's idea - I'm the one explaining why it fails.
Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.
let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?
-
Vlad,
But isn't physicalism a philosophy of certainty?
How did we get onto certainty. Did one of the big swinging members of this board chuck it in and now the Posse are on a certainty hunt or something?
It's closer to it than materialism (your claim) but what you're actually thinking of is generally referred to a metaphysical naturalism (or a variant of it) - ie, the position that the natural is all there is. I have some sympathy for it because the alternative - "supernaturalism" - is incoherent, but on the ground that I suppose someone might one day come up with a cogent meaning for it I limit myself to materialism - ie, that the materialist model is the most reliable way to model the universe and thus to derive truths because that's all we have that's investigable and verifiable with intersubjective experience.
-
Vlad,
It's closer to it than materialism (your claim) but what you're actually thinking of is generally referred to a metaphysical naturalism (or a variant of it) - ie, the position that the natural is all there is. I have some sympathy for it because the alternative - "supernaturalism" - is incoherent, but on the ground that I suppose someone might one day come up with a cogent meaning for it I limit myself to materialism - ie, that the materialist model is the most reliable way to model the universe and thus to derive truths because that's all we have that's investigable and verifiable with intersubjective experience.
I'm not really happy with the term naturalism since it has evolved into merely an apparent reaction against spirits,ghosts ghoulies nonmaterial substances etc.
I think therefore terms like materialism and physicalism as positives rather than antis are more 'accurate'. They do have the problem though that there could be a physical creator of a universe but supernaturalism aversion smacks of Goddodging.
-
Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.
let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?
That sounds awfully like the NPF getting its morning workout.
-
That sounds awfully like the NPF getting its morning workout.
Sounds like you've awoken from some dream.
We are arguing philosophically here. I don't think there is anything near an NPF here you strange and wonderful man.
-
HV,
I pointed out that Sam the Cham was brainy and learned. I didn't draw any conclusions.
You implied them. Why else would you tell us, “As for thinking, he was more intelligent and learned than you, me, or anyone else on this forum” (Reply 24) if not suggest that he was therefore right and the contributors here wrong to disagree?
The consequentialist fallacy is that of thinking that a belief which is pleasant or has good results is true, and one which is unpleasant or has bad results is false. I haven't committed that one, either. I pointed out that if we have no free will, we were pre4destined to believe what we believe, so how can we know that it's true? In other words, we may or may not have free-will, but if we haven't, we can never know it, or anything else. We all behave as though we can know things, so in practise we all believe in free-will.
No you didn’t. The construction of the argumentum ad consequentiam is, “if X is true, then consequence Y follows, therefore X can’t be true” as if “consequence Y” in some way reaches back into the truth or otherwise of “X”.
That’s what you did with, “We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.” Punishing criminals being “unjustified” (which is isn’t by the way) tells you nothing about the nature of free will
Judgemental language? Where?
Here: “I think his stone-kicking and free-will-asserting were born of his impatience with the kind of sterile, obsessive ratiocination common on this forum” (Reply 24). You might think 2+2=4 to be “sterile, obsessive ratiocination” too, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Anyway, your thesis was that there is a God who’s omnipotent but that there are parts of the universe (human minds for example) that are ring fenced from that. My response is that, definitionally, this god can’t therefore be omnipotent at all then.
Any chance of addressing that?
-
Vlad,
Be still my beating heart...we might be actually be in sweet agreement.
Only if you can now see that it wasn't "my idea" at all. My idea was the opposite of that.
let's see, I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?
No. It fails because you can't have the "omni" bit and at the same time a part of the universe where it doesn't apply.
-
Vlad,
Only if you can now see that it wasn't "my idea" at all. My idea was the opposite of that.
No. It fails because you can't have the "omni" bit and at the same time a part of the universe where it doesn't apply.
Rrrrright, So where in the Universe do you think it does not apply and How can you tell it isn't, er, applied there?
-
Vlad,
I'm not really happy with the term naturalism since it has evolved into merely an apparent reaction against spirits,ghosts ghoulies nonmaterial substances etc.
What you're not happy with is a matter for you. What you don't get to do though is to redefine words to mean something you're happier with in order to attack them.
I think therefore terms like materialism and physicalism as positives rather than antis are more 'accurate'. They do have the problem though that there could be a physical creator of a universe but supernaturalism aversion smacks of Goddodging.
First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.
Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?
Third, you've had the "Goddodging" nonsense falsified countless times - axiomatically you can't "dodge" something you have no good reason to think to be real in the first place.
-
The construction of the argumentum ad consequentiam is, “if X is true, then consequence Y follows, therefore X can’t be true” as if “consequence Y” in some way reaches back into the truth or otherwise of “X”.
That’s what you did with, “We all feel instinctively that we have free will, and if we haven't, then punishment of criminals is unjustified, as they were predestined from all eternity to be criminals.” Punishing criminals being “unjustified” (which is isn’t by the way) tells you nothing about the nature of free will
My point there was that we all behave in various ways as though we have free-will, whatever we believe in theory about it. I wasn't arguing for the reality of free-will.
-
Vlad,
Rrrrright, So where in the Universe do you think it does not apply and How can you tell it isn't, er, applied there?
READ THE FREAKIN' OP!
ACCORDING TO HV it can't apply inside human minds because of "free" will.
I'm the one saying that, if he thinks it can't apply there, then the "omni" but fails necessarily.
Dear god man...
-
Vlad,
READ THE FREAKIN' OP!
ACCORDING TO HV it can't apply inside human minds because of "free" will.
I'm the one saying that, if he thinks it can't apply there, then the "omni" but fails necessarily.
Dear god man...
Just checking....There are those atheists who say God can't be omnipotent because Man has free will.
-
First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.
Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?
Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?
That is a religion.
[/quote]
First, you don't get to conflate "materialism" with "physicalism" as if they mean the same thing.
Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?
Second, if there's a physical creator of the universe then it's not "God" - or at least not the god of any religious faith I'm aware of. Scientology maybe?
That is a religion.
-
God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will. It's not that difficult to understand, so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.
-
Third, you've had the "Goddodging" nonsense falsified countless times - axiomatically you can't "dodge" something you have no good reason to think to be real in the first place.
You have to show you have no good reason and as far as I am aware it has not been done.
On the other hand evasive behaviour caused by controlled references to the word God is observable as in, say, a phobia.
-
God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will. It's not that difficult to understand, so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.
I see where you are coming from but a case can be made that giving us free will does not violate his omnipotence.
I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.
-
L'Eau,
My point there was that we all behave in various ways as though we have free-will, whatever we believe in theory about it. I wasn't arguing for the reality of free-will.
If that was intended to be your point framing it as an argumentum ad consequentiam didn't make it. Behaving as if the "free" of "free will" is actually free though is a commonplace - Johnson's error was thinking that "as if" and "is" are the same thing.
-
Vlad,
Oh dear the dictatorial tone. Go on then what's the difference?
Look it up for yourself.
That is a religion.
Try reading what I said.
-
I think the word is impotent rather than omnipotence, one is looking for in connection with god.
-
I think the word is impotent rather than omnipotence, one is looking for in connection with god.
You've spelt the word important incorrectly.
-
Sounds like you've awoken from some dream.
We are arguing philosophically here. I don't think there is anything near an NPF here you strange and wonderful man.
So when you say ' I think it fails because nothing in the universe can demonstrate that God is not omnipotent do you agree?' what exactly do you mean?
-
A L"Eau,
God is omnipotent in theory, but in practice has voluntarily limited it by giving us free-will.
Then he's not omnipotent at all. You can have omnipotent and unlimited, or you can have not omnipotent and limited. You can't have both though, whether or not you qualify the omnoptence with "in theory". The "in theory" collapses as so as you limit the omnipotence.
It's not that difficult to understand...
Yes it is because it's incoherent.
...so British Home Stores' angry capital letters and general sarcasm are just making him look foolish.
They were used after telling Vlad several times that it was your argument, in reply to which he told me that it was my argument. What other approach would you suggest to get the point across?
-
Vlad,
You have to show you have no good reason and as far as I am aware it has not been done.
That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED
On the other hand evasive behaviour caused by controlled references to the word God is observable as in, say, a phobia.
Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere?
-
Vlad,
I see where you are coming from but a case can be made that giving us free will does not violate his omnipotence.
Then make it.
I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.[/quote
Then you believe wrongly. If L'eau intends a different meaning of "omnipotence" from the usual one, it's up to him to tell us what it is. So far at least though, it seems to be something like "omnipotent but not really omnipotent".
-
Vlad,
That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED
Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere?
There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.
I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.
-
Vlad,
Then make it.
I believe Blue Hillside to be in a bit of trouble vis a vis his usual methodology since Wikipedia gives six definitions of Omnipotence.[/quote
Then you believe wrongly. If L'eau intends a different meaning of "omnipotence" from the usual one, it's up to him to tell us what it is. So far at least though, it seems to be something like "omnipotent but not really omnipotent".
But there is no usual ONE Hillside.
-
You've spelt the word important incorrectly.
HA! HA!
-
There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.
I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.
There have been no credible arguments for god presented on this forum.
-
There have been no credible arguments for god presented on this forum.
Pooh another positive assertion.
I thought NeilDe Grasse Tysons suggestion was pretty Good.
-
Vlad,
There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.
It would be if anyone had said it, yes. Just out of interest though, how did you get to that misrepresentation of what I actually said ("That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED")?
I told you that I'm an atheist because "I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false". Presumably other atheists would say the same. That's not to say that there necessarily isn't an argument for "God" (I'm putting to one side the incoherence of the term here) that isn't hopeless, just that I've never encountered one.
You tried a Courtier's Reply fallacy recently when you dismissed someone for lacking your knowledge of theology. When asked what arguments theology provides for "God" that aren't false though (several times in fact) you were silent. Problem is, so is everyone else. Why you (and they) want to keep its supposed cogent arguments a big secret is anyone's guess, but for as long as you're silent on the matter an atheist I must remain.
I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.
Lying doesn't help you here. When an argument is demonstrated to be logically false, then it's falsified.
-
Vlad,
Pooh another positive assertion.
I thought NeilDe Grasse Tysons suggestion was pretty Good.
No doubt you did. It had bugger all to do with "God" though, as you know full well.
-
Vlad,
No doubt you did. It had bugger all to do with "God" though, as you know full well.
You're fooling yourself.
-
Vlad,
But there is no usual ONE Hillside.
Wrong again. As you seem keen on Wiki, here are the first eight words of the entry on omnipotence:
"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."
Sounds pretty "usual" to me.
-
Vlad,
You're fooling yourself.
Not lying isn't fooling yourself.
You should try it.
-
Vlad,
It would be if anyone had said it, yes. Just out of interest though, how did you get to that misrepresentation of what I actually said ("That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED")?
I told you that I'm an atheist because "I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false". Presumably other atheists would say the same. That's not to say that there necessarily isn't an argument for "God" (I'm putting to one side the incoherence of the term here) that isn't hopeless, just that I've never encountered one.
You tried a Courtier's Reply fallacy recently when you dismissed someone for lacking your knowledge of theology. When asked what arguments theology provides for "God" that aren't false though (several times in fact) you were silent. Problem is, so is everyone else. Why you (and they) want to keep its supposed cogent arguments a big secret is anyone's guess, but for as long as you're silent on the matter an atheist I must remain.
Lying doesn't help you here. When an argument is demonstrated to be logically false, then it's falsified.
Courtiers reply is apparently of the status of an alleged fantasy and was refuted by Feser. Who pointed that any twat without sufficient knowledge can utter the words that's crap.
-
Vlad,
Courtiers reply is apparently of the status of an alleged fantasy...
No it isn't.
...and was refuted by Feser.
No it wasn't.
Who pointed that any twat without sufficient knowledge can utter the words that's crap.
QED
That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?
Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?
-
Vlad,
No it isn't.
No it wasn't.
QED
That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?
Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?
Leave it Vlad I'll answer for you:
BHS I ask the questions, the cheek of you riff raff expecting me to give you answers, whatever next!!
Any time Vlad, regards ippy.
-
ippy,
Leave it Vlad I'll answer for you:
BHS I ask the questions, the cheek of you riff raff expecting me to give you answers, whatever next!!
Any time Vlad, regards ippy.
Uncanny! ;)
-
Vlad,
No it isn't.
No it wasn't.
QED
That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?
Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?
But the Question has always been the sufficiency of Dawkins knowledge. Not very imho.
I'm afraid metaphysical arguments are stuck with that status. Metaphysical. That metaphysical argument which demands arguments to be provable empiricallly being in the direst position in terms of grounds.
-
Vlad,
But the Question has always been the sufficiency of Dawkins knowledge. Not very imho.
Can anyone translate this?
I'm afraid metaphysical arguments are stuck with that status. Metaphysical. That metaphysical argument which demands arguments to be provable empiricallly being in the direst position in terms of grounds.
Or this?
-
Vlad,
Can anyone translate this?
Or this?
I did give this one a thought about answering for Vlad again, then I pulled up a chair sat down and read it properly rather tried to read it properly, ying yong yibberdooly hibbley diddle do niddly niddly pong, yiddlelididdlynadgeroo_____________
-
ipster,
I did give this one a thought about answering for Vlad again, then I pulled up a chair sat down and read it properly rather tried to read it properly, ying yong yibberdooly hibbley diddle do niddly niddly pong, yiddlelididdlynadgeroo_____________
Makes more sense than his post I guess. I saw a documentary many years ago about David Bowie in which he cut up newspaper articles and rearranged the words randomly for his lyrics. I wonder if Vlad is taking the same approach?
You'll notice too that when he flat out misrepresented what I'd said a few posts ago and I corrected him on it he didn't return to it in any way – the lie is forgotten about almost immediately it's said it seems. It's all very Trumpian.
-
ipster,
Makes more sense than his post I guess. I saw a documentary many years ago about David Bowie in which he cut up newspaper articles and rearranged the words randomly for his lyrics. I wonder if Vlad is taking the same approach?
You'll notice too that when he flat out misrepresented what I'd said a few posts ago and I corrected him on it he didn't return to it in any way – the lie is forgotten about almost immediately it's said it seems. It's all very Trumpian.
Yes, I meant what I said, joking aside, I haven't got a masters in written English, difficult to believe, I know, but most of us can stumble at times and write something that's not that brilliant but even so, still understandable, that post of his really was totally meaningless, I still have no idea of what it was he was, I assume, trying to say.
Remember Hope, now he was a quote out of context specialist, Vlads methods are very similar but lacked the amount of educational base Hope had.
Regards ippy
-
ipster,
Yes, I meant what I said, joking aside, I haven't got a masters in written English, difficult to believe, I know, but most of us can stumble at times and write something that's not that brilliant but even so, still understandable, that post of his really was totally meaningless, I still have no idea of what it was he was, I assume, trying to say.
Remember Hope, now he was a quote out of context specialist, Vlads methods are very similar but lacked the amount of educational base Hope had.
I do remember Hope, yes - big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Seems to me though that the gibberish is the lesser of Vlad's problems - the pathological dishonesty is the big one.
Back to cases though, as HV's "omnipotent but not really" schtick seems to have collapsed with barely a whimper I guess this thread has died of natural causes in any case.
-
ipster,
I do remember Hope, yes - big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Seems to me though that the gibberish is the lesser of Vlad's problems - the pathological dishonesty is the big one.
Back to cases though, as HV's "omnipotent but not really" schtick seems to have collapsed with barely a whimper I guess this thread has died of natural causes in any case.
Until I begin to see some substance brought into asserted forays from the direction of these various faith/belief groups, I have great difficulty taking them seriously before the discussion starts.
Regards ippy
-
Just by way of a coda, what's curious too about HV's "OK, God is theoretically omnipotent but he's not really - only he is. Or something" notion as an explanation for evil is that he could just as well have been as irrational about any of the omnis (or about a combination of them) - omniscience for example: "OK, god is theoretically omniscient but there are some things he doesn't know and that's where bad stuff hides" would to the job just as well I'd have thought.
Why then pick one omni over the others for special pleading?
-
Vlad,
Can anyone translate this?
Or this?
It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.
-
Jeremy,
It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.
Oh right - that must be it. Thanks.
-
It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.
I hadn't noticed.
But ....... I was incredibly drunk at the time!
:-[
-
Just by way of a coda, what's curious too about HV's "OK, God is theoretically omnipotent but he's not really - only he is. Or something" notion as an explanation for evil is that he could just as well have been as irrational about any of the omnis (or about a combination of them) - omniscience for example: "OK, god is theoretically omniscient but there are some things he doesn't know and that's where bad stuff hides" would to the job just as well I'd have thought.
Why then pick one omni over the others for special pleading?
If just one body found some form of supporting evidence for this particular facet of omnipotence or any other form of omni powers, without some form of substantiation, we remain on the usual magical, superstitional mystery tour, sorry O C H, (Over Complicated Handle).
Regards ippy.
-
Where's Vlad gone?
Where are you Vlad?
Vlad?
Vlad?
ippy
-
I hadn't noticed.
But ....... I was incredibly drunk at the time!
:-[
Are you Rowley Birkin Q.C. ? If so, do I get a reward for spotting this?
-
Copied from the "If God Exists?" discussion.
L’Eau,
I answered your adolescent sarcasm about omnipotence much more fully than it deserved, two or three times, but you were determined not to understand what I was saying, so I gave up.
Except of course none of that’s – ooh, what’s the word I’m trying to think of here? Oh yeah, true.
What actually happened was that you posited a notion that allows a space for “God” to co-exist with “evil” by suggesting that one of the “omnis” – omnipotence – was only theoretically rather than actually true.
I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.
Second, the fallacy of arbitrariness. You picked one of the omnis (apparently at random) to dilute, when you could equally have done the same with any of the others (or with a combination of them) and also created a space for evil to hide in.
Since then you’ve been entirely unwilling or unable to address the problems you’ve given yourself, preferring instead first silence and now insult.
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.
Your actual response though does you no credit.
-
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.
I think your mistaking a site that can tell you the basics of how logic and argument with one which believes that proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe is different from proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe!
-
I think your mistaking a site that can tell you the basics of how logic and argument with one which believes that proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe is different from proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe!
Six times, yep , six freekin times I've read that and still ,nope , give me a clue.
-
Vlad,
I think your mistaking a site that can tell you the basics of how logic and argument with one which believes that proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe is different from proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe!
No-one has said that.
But you knew that already didn’t you.
-
Walter,
Six times, yep , six freekin times I've read that and still ,nope , give me a clue.
It’s a lie he keeps returning to in the hope that no-one notices the lie part.
Neil de Grasse Tyson posited a conjecture about a universe that’s simulated by a creator. Vlad then corrupts that into meaning theology – ie, a positive claim (not just a conjecture) about the (not just “a”) creator of the (not just “a”) universe.
What he then does is to pretend the fundamental differences don't exist by lying about people supposedly saying two identical things (the NdGT version repeated) are different.
Why he bothers with his trolling is anyone’s guess, but there it is nonetheless.
-
I think your mistaking a site that can tell you the basics of how logic and argument with one which believes that proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe is different from proposing a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe!
Seriously? You still going on about all universe creators being gods?
There is a difference between proposing a god who is described by all sorts of characteristics, one of which is the creation of the universe and proposing that a (simulated) universe would have some sort of intelligent creator or creators.
It is (to the extent it makes any sense at all) an affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) fallacy.
If something is a god, then it creates a universe.
X creates a universe.
Therefore, X is a god.
cf. (from the link)
If someone owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
Get it?
-
Seriously? You still going on about all universe creators being gods?
There is a difference between proposing a god who is described by all sorts of characteristics, one of which is the creation of the universe and proposing that a (simulated) universe would have some sort of intelligent creator or creators.
It is (to the extent it makes any sense at all) an affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent) fallacy.
If something is a god, then it creates a universe.
X creates a universe.
Therefore, X is a god.
cf. (from the link)
If someone owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
Get it?
An intelligent creator who creates a universe is god of that universe
No therefores involved.
Just like Bill Gates owns or owned Microsoft.
Savvy?
-
Vlad,
An intelligent creator who creates a universe is god of that universe
Only if you so corrupt the word "God" to include, say, naturalistic advanced aliens, and only if you're content for this "god" to need to be only a parochial one confined to "a" universe, and only if you're indifferent to whether or not this god is itself merely part of simulated universe of which it's not aware.
None of these things are what theology claims though.
No therefores involved.
Just like Bill Gates owns or owned Microsoft.
The illogic of affirming the consequent has escaped you again.
Savvy?
Do you?
-
Vlad,
Only if you so corrupt the word "God" to include, say, naturalistic advanced aliens, and only if you're content for this "god" to need to be only a parochial one confined to "a" universe, and only if you're indifferent to whether or not this god is itself merely part of simulated universe of which it's not aware.
None of these things are what theology claims though.
The illogic of affirming the consequent has escaped you again.
Do you?
Stranger I believe made several faux pas not least about talking about the inability to argue a multifaceted subject like god without falling foul of affirming the consequent. He has no problem though arguing an Intelligent creator........that's two facets for starters.
It looks to me like mere special pleading on his part.
Another one is identifying Bill Gates. The identity of the God I talk about is not identified in the same way. The intelligent creator is God of the universe it creates just like Bill Gates is the owner of what he owns.
-
An intelligent creator who creates a universe is god of that universe
No therefores involved.
I think I may have overestimated your intelligence in thinking that you might be even trying to use logic. It's actually just a sad, rather childish attempt to appropriate an speculation that has nothing whatsoever to do with theism.
Can you cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent agency at all that creates any sort of universe (real or simulated)"?
Are teams of coders who write games, gods of the 'universe' in the game?
If I set up a 'universe' in the Game of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life) am I a god?
-
Can you cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent agency at all that creates any sort of universe (real or simulated)"?
What? Are you serious?
-
Vlad,
Stranger I believe made several faux pas not least about talking about the inability to argue a multifaceted subject like god without falling foul of affirming the consequent.
He said no such thing. What he actually said was that you had attempted it. That tells you nothing about any other arguments you may have for “a mulitfacted subject like god” that don’t fall fould of arguing the consequent.
He has no problem though arguing an Intelligent creator........that's two facets for starters.
No it isn’t. An intelligent creator (of a universe) is the NdGT conjecture. Theology though entails a positive claim about the intelligent creator of the universe – a very different matter.
It looks to me like mere special pleading on his part.
Presumably because you don’t understand “special pleading” either.
Another one…
You can’t have another one when you don’t have a first one.
…is identifying Bill Gates. The identity of the God I talk about is not identified in the same way. The intelligent creator is God of the universe it creates just like Bill Gates is the owner of what he owns.
You’ve missed the point entirely. Bill Gates was used just to populate an explanation of affirming the consequent. Whether or not, “”The identity of the God I talk about is not identified in the same way” is irrelevant for that purpose.
-
Stranger I believe made several faux pas not least about talking about the inability to argue a multifaceted subject like god without falling foul of affirming the consequent. He has no problem though arguing an Intelligent creator........that's two facets for starters.
That's the point! It's just two facets out of many. God has a whole load of characteristics and just two of them are intelligence and universe creation. That doesn't mean that any intelligent universe creator is a god.
Being god has the consequence that you are intelligent and create a universe.
Owing Fort Knox has the consequence of being rich.
Being rich doesn't make you the owner of Fort Knox.
Being intelligent and creating universes doesn't make you god.
And BTW, I have not argued for an intelligent creator.
-
Vlad,
What? Are you serious?
Of course he is. You have now so re-defined "god" that it includes how your cat would think of you.
It's up to you really. If your theology actually means, "I have a conjecture about a god that could be naturalistic, that could long since have died or disappeared, that could be a tiny cog in a much larger universe or universes, that could itself just be a simulation of a different creator entirely" etc it'd be a pretty whacky version of theology that's uniquely yours I'd have though but fair enough if it works for you.
-
What? Are you serious?
I'll take that as a 'no'...
-
Some,
That's the point! It's just two facets out of many. God has a whole load of characteristics and just two of them are intelligence and universe creation. That doesn't mean that any intelligent universe creator is a god.
Being god has the consequence that you are intelligent and create a universe.
Owing Fort Knox has the consequence of being rich.
Being rich doesn't make you the owner of Fort Knox.
Being intelligent and creating universes doesn't make you god.
Quite. I've explained to him the difference between necessary and sufficient several times now, but it's fallen on deaf ears.
-
I'll take that as a 'no'...
I suggest you consider Wikipedia creator deities and revisit the fact that you and your ilk have been fighting creationism in all its forms which renders you a bit like it would be if Churchill had started arguing half way through WW2 that Adolf wasn't a Naaaaazzzzi
You might also like to revisit the verdict of PZ Myers who categorises this with intelligent design and we know the effort went in to showing that was just back door creationism.
I find the request astounding.Mind you theists everywhere must be laughing their socks off.
-
And BTW, I have not argued for an intelligent creator.
Well then you are in the wrong argument.
-
Vlad,
I suggest you consider Wikipedia creator deities and revisit the fact that you and your ilk have been fighting creationism in all its forms which renders you a bit like it would be if Churchill had started arguing half way through WW2 that Adolf wasn't a Naaaaazzzzi
Utter gibberish.
You might also like to revisit the verdict of PZ Myers who categorises this with intelligent design and we know the effort went in to showing that was just back door creationism.
You've been corrected about this several times now. Why are you still lying about it?
I find the request astounding.
And non-existent.
Mind you theists everywhere must be laughing their socks off.
Only if they're as dimly irrational as you are. It might surprise you though to know that not all of them are.
-
Hillside.
You argue that a proposal of a universe with an intelligent creator is not only not theology but it is naturalism!
-
Vlad,
You argue that a proposal of a universe with an intelligent creator is not only not theology...
Actually that it's not sufficient for theology. This simple point really has got you foxed hasn't it.
...but it is naturalism!
Wrong again - the point rather is that naturalism is all that's necessary for the SU conjecture.
-
I suggest you consider Wikipedia creator deities...
I didn't ask you to cite a definition of god that includes intelligent creation, I asked for source that "defines 'god' as 'any intelligent agency at all that creates any sort of universe (real or simulated)'".
Here is another example, from affirming the consequent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent):
If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.
It's like I asked you for a source that defined the flu (cf. god) as 'a sore throat' (cf. intelligent creation) and you gave me some that say that having the flu includes having a sore throat.
Is any of this sinking in...?
How about stopping to think before replying?
-
Well then you are in the wrong argument.
I'm arguing that a conjecture about simulated universes has nothing to do with theism - that is not the same as arguing for said conjecture.
To you, logic is just something that bothers other people, isn't it? ::)
-
How about stopping to think before replying?
..but that would involve him a) stopping (possible) and b) thinking (unlikely).
You are sooo cruel!
-
Vlad,
Actually that it's not sufficient for theology. This simple point really has got you foxed hasn't it.
Wrong again - the point rather is that naturalism is all that's necessary for the SU conjecture.
I'm afraid as has been pointed out that Bostroms suggestion of windows by which the creator communicates brings further into theistic territory.
The conjecture by itself is apart from anything else sufficient for deism.
The conclusion is therefore that you guys are indulging in doublethink and special pleading.
The conjecture says nothing further about the nature of the creator and so is wrong to say we can think of a teenager in a basement but nothing much more significant or sophisticated but hey having passed over into Goddism you've had your first taste of making God in your own image.
-
I'm afraid as has been pointed out that Bostroms suggestion of windows by which the creator communicates brings further into theistic territory.
In much the same way as me typing on a computer here and you reading it there - hence transferring thoughts from my mind to yours, at a distance and without speech, takes us into the territory of telepathy. ::)
The conjecture by itself is apart from anything else sufficient for deism.
Totally backwards! Deism is sufficient for a universe creator (not the other way around). A universe creator is necessary for deism.
The conjecture says nothing further about the nature of the creator...
Which is why saying it must be a god is so utterly stupid!
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid as has been pointed out that Bostroms suggestion of windows by which the creator communicates brings further into theistic territory.
Why on earth would you think that? It’s only been “pointed out” by you, with no argument of any kind to support the assertion.
The conjecture by itself is apart from anything else sufficient for deism.
No it isn’t. Deism entails supernaturalism (so smart aliens are out), and it entails the universe (so a universe is out too). I also tends to be framed as more than a conjecture.
The conclusion is therefore that you guys are indulging in doublethink and special pleading.
No it isn’t because your “therefore” just collapsed into a non sequitur.
The conjecture says nothing further about the nature of the creator…
Wrong again. It’s a creator (of a universe), not the creator at all. Constantly misrepresenting it isn’t helping you.
… and so…
Another non sequitur.
… is wrong to say we can think of a teenager in a basement but nothing much more significant or sophisticated but hey having passed over into Goddism you've had your first taste of making God in your own image.
And now you’ve collapsed into incoherence. It’s simple enough I’d have thought – the conditions necessary for the NdGT conjecture to be true are qualitatively different from the conditions sufficient for theism to be true. Deal with that instead of reaching for barely understood terms that sound a bit sciency for faux authority for your irrationalism.
-
In much the same way as me typing on a computer here and you reading it there - hence transferring thoughts from my mind to yours, at a distance and without speech, takes us into the territory of telepathy. ::)
Totally backwards! Deism is sufficient for a universe creator (not the other way around). A universe creator is necessary for deism.
Which is why saying it must be a god is so utterly stupid!
Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?
If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.
You at least in deist territory.
However deism comes with the problem since it suggests inability to interfere at any point in its creation. We cannot assert that. Being the Same issue this crops up in simulated universe theory. Hence Bostroms idea of windows from the creator. In theology this is covered by the idea of revelation.
Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance in their disciples I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.
-
Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?
No (as I already pointed out).
If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.
You at least in deist territory.
If I were arguing for the conjecture, no I wouldn't be making anything like the same conjecture. The simulated universe conjecture would share some characteristics with deism, namely a creator of a universe. Just like me accepting computers and the internet shares some characteristics with telepathy, namely communication at a distance and without speech.
I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.
No you can't, because nobody (even if the accept they conjecture) have found themselves to be desist - anymore than you and me have found ourselves to be believers in telepathy because we use the internet.
Please, at least try to engage with the points raised, instead to just repeating the same drivel you started with...
-
Vlad,
Are you arguing an intelligent creator or not?
Of course he isn’t. He’s already told you that. What he is doing though is pointing our the logical dead ends you keep running into.
If you are then you are making the same conjecture that theists and deists do.
He isn’t and, even if he was, he’d be doing no such thing for reasons that have been explained to you many times now but that you just ignore.
You at least in deist territory.
No he wouldn’t be.
However deism comes with the problem since it suggests inability to interfere at any point in its creation.
It’s irrelevant in any case, but no it doesn’t – it makes no claims of any kind about that (“inability” would be a claim).
We cannot assert that.
No-one does.
Being the Same issue this crops up in simulated universe theory.
No it doesn’t, and it’s not a theory – it’s a conjecture or a speculation.
Hence Bostroms idea of windows from the creator.
That’s not what Bostrom suggests at all.
In theology this is covered by the idea of revelation.
No it isn’t. “Revelation” assumes as fact a priori a god, assumes that this god is inerrant, and assumes that this god’s words are accurately recorded in a book. That’s about as far removed from scientific hypotheses and conjectures as you can get.
Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance…
To the contrary, Richard Dawkins and others have encouraged knowing what it is that theology (lots of theologies in fact) have to say.
…in their disciples…
There are no “disciples”.
I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.
No you can’t because the claim is ludicrous.
-
To the contrary, Richard Dawkins and others have encouraged knowing what it is that theology (lots of theologies in fact) have to say.
LOL!!!
Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....You might as well go for it Big Time.
-
Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....
Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?
Technology has realized a lot of ideas that were first thought of as magical or supernatural. Speculation that it might be able to realize more (such as simulated universe creation) doesn't mean accepting the original myths.
Seriously - what is it about this really, really simple concept that you are having such a problem with...?
-
Vlad,
LOL!!!
Which bit is confusing you? RD has said that he wouldn’t be without the King James Bible and for that matter without much else of the Christian legacy besides, and it’s notable how often in debate the atheist knows more about the content of the “holy” books than the theist does.
That’s rather the point in fact – once you know what theology actually says you can identify its paucity of argument for “God” etc as a supposed fact. Unless that is you finally want to share here what knock down arguments it has that your detailed knowledge of it gives you but that you’ve hitherto kept a secret? You know, the bit you went all quiet abut when I asked you the same question several times recently.
Still, if you've declared the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is not a theological idea but a naturalistic one.....You might as well go for it Big Time.
Just out of interest, why do you think lying like this so much helps you?
-
Stranger,
Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?
Either dim or dishonest. I've never really worked out which it is.
-
Here’s Vlad (Reply 152):
Because Dawkins hand others have urged theological ignorance in their disciples I can see the shock horror and will to denial at finding oneself a deist.
Here’s a link to an article Richard Dawkins wrote for the Guardian (titled “Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible”) where he actually says pretty much the opposite of that:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible
LOL indeed.
-
Copied from the "If God Exists?" discussion.
L’Eau,
Except of course none of that’s – ooh, what’s the word I’m trying to think of here? Oh yeah, true.
What actually happened was that you posited a notion that allows a space for “God” to co-exist with “evil” by suggesting that one of the “omnis” – omnipotence – was only theoretically rather than actually true.
I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.
Second, the fallacy of arbitrariness. You picked one of the omnis (apparently at random) to dilute, when you could equally have done the same with any of the others (or with a combination of them) and also created a space for evil to hide in.
Since then you’ve been entirely unwilling or unable to address the problems you’ve given yourself, preferring instead first silence and now insult.
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so. There are people here who readily will help you with the basics of how logic and argument work, and moreover you’ll be better equipped to deal with the world once you do grasp it.
Your actual response though does you no credit.
I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.
-
I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.
Just to point out again that if an omniscient god chooses to act in a way as described, then the question of suffering applies as does everything else. Omniscience makes even the idea of free will pointless, though it already appears nonsensical, (again as raised previously)
-
L’Eau,
I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
What makes you think that replying civilly with reason and logic would get you banned?
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention.
Well, let’s see shall we...
Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do.
First, that says nothing to your use or otherwise of fallacies.
Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have diluted any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:
1. Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there's stuff god doesn’t know about in practice which is where evil can hide.
2. Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.
3. Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.
See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.
If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy
Now go to hell.
That’s a serious anger management problem you have there old son, presumably fuelled by your inability actually to argue your corner.
-
You are guilty of the testiculos loquitur fallacy above - i.e. talking bollocks.
-
Are you really too dim to see that it isn't necessarily either?
Technology has realized a lot of ideas that were first thought of as magical or supernatural. Speculation that it might be able to realize more (such as simulated universe creation) doesn't mean accepting the original myths.
1: Starts with an ad hominem
2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic
3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe. In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.
4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.
-
1: Starts with an ad hominem
Okay, I apologize but I am increasingly frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to actually consider what is said to you, rather than just repeating the same thing.
2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic
Yes, making my point, not yours. We don't have to accept magic as soon as we can see how technology might achieve something that would have previously been regarded as magical.
3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe. In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.
No idea what you think this has to do with it.
4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.
Yes - for various reasons. The main one (as far as this atheist is concerned) being that the various god concepts have no good evidence or arguments to support them (at least none that I have seen).
Now there is a conjecture that makes one aspect (creation of some sort of universe by some sort of intelligence - not THE universe by a specific entity) somewhat more believable; effectively moving the idea (of universe creation, not the whole god package) from pure fantasy to science fiction.
Your problem is that you keep insisting that, because of this one similarity, the conjecture has to be about a god - which is plain silly.
I'll try one more comparison:
Cats kill mice, right? I mean, it's part of what they do; part of being a cat. That does not mean that everything that kills mice is a cat. You must be able to see that, surely?
Now, it may well be true that the gods of theism and deism often create the universe. You could say that's part of their godlike nature.
In the same way that a mechanical mousetrap is not a cat, the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...
-
Okay, I apologize but I am increasingly frustrated by your apparent unwillingness to actually consider what is said to you, rather than just repeating the same thing.
Yes, making my point, not yours. We don't have to accept magic as soon as we can see how technology might achieve something that would have previously been regarded as magical.
No idea what you think this has to do with it.
Yes - for various reasons. The main one (as far as this atheist is concerned) being that the various god concepts have no good evidence or arguments to support them (at least none that I have seen).
Now there is a conjecture that makes one aspect (creation of some sort of universe by some sort of intelligence - not THE universe by a specific entity) somewhat more believable; effectively moving the idea (of universe creation, not the whole god package) from pure fantasy to science fiction.
Your problem is that you keep insisting that, because of this one similarity, the conjecture has to be about a god - which is plain silly.
I'll try one more comparison:
Cats kill mice, right? I mean, it's part of what they do; part of being a cat. That does not mean that everything that kills mice is a cat. You must be able to see that, surely?
Now, it may well be true that the gods of theism and deism often create the universe. You could say that's part of their godlike nature.
In the same way that a mechanical mousetrap is not a cat, the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...
Unfortunately your last point is undone by my last point 4.
In other words Atheism has been arguing against/not believing in an intelligent creator of the universe for centuries. As well as an outside of the universe.
You will find that further thinking on the intelligent creator will be herein indistinguishable from debates that have taken place in theology and in interfaith debate.
You need also to be reminded that Tyson et al talk about This universe being simulated.
You are IMHO guilty of category and linguistic reassignment or piracy and historical revisionism.
Finally Bad analogy. Your argument holds between a natural, non conscious non intelligent creation of the universe and an intelligent creator but that is not the argument in other words there is insufficient difference between an intelligent creator of the universe which is separate and independent of a universe and what is proposed at least in deism.
You have no warrant to declare:
''the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...''
Your argument
'' Me wanna still call a universe created by an intelligent creator Naturalistic'' is charming but childish.
-
Vlad,
1: Starts with an ad hominem
Actually, no it doesn’t. An ad hom goes to an irrelevant characteristic – for example responding to an argument with, “well you’re fat then”. When the critique is relevant though – referring to the protagonist's inability to grasp the argument, to a history of dishonesty etc – then it’s not fallacious at all. For an example of an actual ad hom, here’s you on the “Faith vs Blind Faith discussion:
“Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?”
2: Clarke's Law covers technology and magic
It also supports Stranger’s position. You do realise that right?
3: About myths. Just that they share the basic feature of having intelligent creators who are independent of the universe.
Wrong again. One (theism) requires the universe, the other (SU) requires only a universe.
In fact this feature, in the hands of atheists and agnostics, has given rise to a myth of it's own '' The pimply teenager geek who has created a universe in his basement.'' Dawkins has the good sense to state that given he created the universe he would have to have been a remarkably disciplined spotty teenager.
It’s not a myth it’s a thought experiment, and RD’s point was just about the aptness of the analogy rather than its substance.
4: An intelligent creator independent of the universe they create has been in deism and theism, and argued against, disbelieved or had a lack of belief in by atheists for thousands of years.
Now you’re trying to straddle two horses at once – “an intelligent creator of the universe”: deism and theism require the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture requires only a creator of a universe.
Why is this so difficult for you?
-
Vlad,
Actually, no it doesn’t. An ad hom goes to an irrelevant characteristic – for example responding to an argument with, “well you’re fat then”. When the critique is relevant though – referring to the protagonist's inability to grasp the argument, to a history of dishonesty etc – then it’s not fallacious at all. For an example of an actual ad hom, here’s you on the “Faith vs Blind Faith discussion:
“Is this the Richard Dawkins who compared theology to Leprochology or the Richard Dawkins, the pious and avid promoter of colporteurage and reading of the King James version?”
It also supports Stranger’s position. You do realise that right?
Wrong again. One (theism) requires the universe, the other (SU) requires only a universe.
It’s not a myth it’s a thought experiment, and RD’s point was just about the aptness of the analogy rather than its substance.
Now you’re trying to straddle two horses at once – “an intelligent creator of the universe”: deism and theism require the creator of the universe; the SU conjecture requires only a creator of a universe.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Dear testiculos loquitur
Definition of Ad Hominem : (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
Technology is defined as The employment of knowledge or scientific knowledge for practical ends. How does that help Stranger?
Tyson is talking about the chances being that this universe is simulated.
This universe or a universe or the universe?......This has no relevance.
I am beginning to feel the futility of arguing with somebody who is prepared to argue from the various contradictory standpoints that you do. I am beginning to see you as merely a contrarian for whom one day it is expedient to say that an intelligent creator is a stupid idea and the next that it's reasonable, that one day theology is as worth knowing as leprochology and the next Dawkins is a pious promoter of KJV. That there is no outside of the universe but there is on Wednesdays and I could go on.
-
Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.
-
Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.
If that is correct, now what?
-
Unfortunately your last point is undone by my last point 4.
In other words Atheism has been arguing against/not believing in an intelligent creator of the universe for centuries. As well as an outside of the universe.
No, it isn't. PLEASE try to pay attention. I'm running out of ways to make this simpler.
Atheists have used various arguments against gods - the main one we seem to be discussing here, is that there is no reason to believe any of them. I am aware of no religion whose belief consists of "we believe that some sort of intelligence might have created this universe" and absolutely nothing else at all.
To reiterate the analogy: their gods (cats) make universes (kill mice) but not everything we can dream up (mousetrap) that can make a universe is a god (cat).
Are you really still having trouble with this?
You have no warrant to declare:
''the universe creators of the simulated universe conjecture are not gods...''
Your argument
'' Me wanna still call a universe created by an intelligent creator Naturalistic'' is charming but childish.
Why are you lying about the argument I made?
The conjecture itself is explicitly naturalistic - it is based on the idea that it is feasible to simulate a universe using technology.
Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.
Utter drivel - for the reasons outlined multiple times now...
-
Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.
The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davis puts the difficulties with this very well.
The other main problem with intelligent design is that the identity of the designer need bear no relation at all to the God of traditional monotheism. The 'designing agency' could be a committee of gods, for example. The designer can also be a natural being or beings such as an evolved super-mind or super-civilization existing in a previous universe, or in another region of our universe, which made our universe using super-technology. The designer can also be some sort of superdupercomputer simulating the universe. So invoking a super-intellect as the levitating super-turtle is fraught with problems
My own reason for not believing in a god is quite simple. I see no evidence at all for its existence.
-
Can I make the teeniest of observations here? That suggesting that the idea that an intelligent creator could be responsible for creating a universe it itself is independent of is reasonable rather puts paid to there being no reasons to believe in god or gods.
I also note that you have studiously ignored my questions about the limits of your bizarre idea of godhood.
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
-
Yes, who knows how far humans will be able to go in building complex structures via machine code. Ye shall become as gods in your mother's basement.
Even more interesting is the idea that the brain 'constructs' or synthesizes reality, so you could argue that we already have a universe builder in our cranium. Hence, various views that God is a projection of the creative ability in humans, for example, in C. G. Jung.
-
The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davis puts the difficulties with this very well.
My own reason for not believing in a god is quite simple. I see no evidence at all for its existence.
First of all regarding the intelligent creator. In conversation with Brian Greene Dawkins stated that SU which has intelligent creation in it is ''Hard to refute'' and that the designer involved would have to be ''very disciplined''. Presumably because we have a ''disciplined'' universe.
Any claim of No evidence for intelligent design must cover also SU otherwise special pleading has happened.
That though is a different matter to whether the argument is reasonable. It seems many atheists and agnostics do. Since the argument for an intelligent designer separate and independent from any universe it has created is the same for SU and in at least deism any statement that it is somehow invalid in one of them is specially pleading and unreasonable.
I understand you see no direct or indirect evidence for an intelligent designer/creator but what is your position with regards the reasonableness of it?
-
To reiterate the analogy: their gods (cats) make universes (kill mice) but not everything we can dream up (mousetrap) that can make a universe is a god (cat).
Are you really still having trouble with this?
Because you have no warrant to change definitions since an intelligent creator who creates a universe is at least deism. Since, er, it has created a/the universe.
Making or creating universe is a god thing i'm afraid.
In other words the arguments are the same in at least deism and SU it's just the labels have been changed arbitrarily and with no warrant.
I'm actually glad because not using the word god betrays a purely emotional reaction.
-
Because you have no warrant to change definitions since an intelligent creator who creates a universe is at least deism. Since, er, it has created a/the universe.
Making or creating universe is a god thing i'm afraid.
Like killing mice is a cat thing. You're down to mindless repetition of your unsupported dogma - which I guess is a theist thing.
I'll ask you again to cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent being or beings at all that create any sort of universe" with no further characteristics whatsoever.
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
I'm actually glad because not using the word god betrays a purely emotional reaction.
Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).
-
I understand you see no direct or indirect evidence for an intelligent designer/creator but what is your position with regards the reasonableness of it?
Only insofar as any notion is reasonable if it can be conjectured as possible. In this regard there are many conjectures which are possible but of little or no truth value unless they have at least some evidence to substantiate them beyond mere speculation.
For instance:
anyone of a number of gods may have created our universe-conjecture
a god that we have as yet no knowledge of may have created our universe-conjecture
a naturalistic being or beings may have created our universe-conjecture
-
First of all regarding the intelligent creator. In conversation with Brian Greene Dawkins stated that SU which has intelligent creation in it is ''Hard to refute'' and that the designer involved would have to be ''very disciplined''. Presumably because we have a ''disciplined'' universe.
Any claim of No evidence for intelligent design must cover also SU otherwise special pleading has happened.
I don't know (or care very much) what RD said exactly but the versions of SU conjecture that I've seen don't claim that there is any evidence that our universe has been designed. It's a conjecture based on a set of assumptions.
There is no evidence, that I'm aware of, that the (our) universe was designed.
-
The attributes of gods are an interesting field, and as others have pointed out, not all gods are universe-creators. In fact, there are some that are destructive, and there are those which look after one local area of life, see for example, the lares et penates in Roman culture, which look after the home. I think in Bath you can find remnants of shrines to them.
And as Stranger has shown, the converse fallacy does not permit us to say that if some gods are universe creators, therefore universe creators are gods, just as mice-killers are not cats. Some of them might be human! Well, I meant universe creators, but also it applies to mice-killers.
-
Like killing mice is a cat thing. You're down to mindless repetition of your unsupported dogma - which I guess is a theist thing.
No. Killing mice has occurred through several reasons. In SU and at least Deism there is only one proposal an intelligent creator separate and independent from the universe it has created. At least in deism this has been the definition of God and the existence of such a thing has been argued against or not believed in by atheists and naturalists.
In other words you are guilty of Bad analogy.
-
I'll ask you again to cite a single source that defines 'god' as "any intelligent being or beings at all that create any sort of universe" with no further characteristics whatsoever.
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).
1: You are shifting the goalposts. The definition fits deism and the argument exists in deism. The Oxford history of Christianity states there are two key ways of viewing God in Christianity One way is as Saviour and the other is as creator.
2: That being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creator is a bizarre notion of godhood goes against all the evidence.
I can only therefore assume you are engaging in historical revision and linguistic piracy.
-
Not using the word god for something that quite clearly isn't a god in any normal usage of the word is just speaking the English language. Trying to co-opt an idea to pretend that it has something to do with god is either silly or dishonest (I'm not sure which).
So an intelligent creator of the universe who is not dependent or part of that universe isn't a god in any normal usage then.
You've lost the plot.
-
The attributes of gods are an interesting field, and as others have pointed out, not all gods are universe-creators. In fact, there are some that are destructive, and there are those which look after one local area of life, see for example, the lares et penates in Roman culture, which look after the home. I think in Bath you can find remnants of shrines to them.
And as Stranger has shown, the converse fallacy does not permit us to say that if some gods are universe creators, therefore universe creators are gods, just as mice-killers are not cats. Some of them might be human! Well, I meant universe creators, but also it applies to mice-killers.
First of all Wigginhall some Mice killers ARE cats. So having banged on about fallacies you have proceeded to make the usual mistake of arguing that ''it doesn't necessarily have to be a god...so it isn't.''
Secondly the only people who were in the intelligent universe creator game were religious. They called the intelligent designer and creator of the universe god or gods. Atheists if you hadn't noticed have called this idea unreasonable.
Some though think this is now a reasonable idea but are now apparently hanging on as nominal naturalists presumably because of the mass of ''argument'' they put up that contradicts their new position.
There is therefore historical revisionism, pride, denial, and linguistic redefinition (linguistic fascism) going on.
On another issue.
Is a simulated universe created which shares the physicality of the universe and is made from it a separate universe?
-
Me:
Look, it’s simple enough. If you’re feeling upset that a cherished notion has been undone but so out of your depth that you can’t process it just say so...
L’Eau:
You are guilty of the testiculos loquitur fallacy above - i.e. talking bollocks.
QED
-
No. Killing mice has occurred through several reasons. In SU and at least Deism there is only one proposal an intelligent creator separate and independent from the universe it has created. At least in deism this has been the definition of God and the existence of such a thing has been argued against or not believed in by atheists and naturalists.
Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.
The Oxford history of Christianity states there are two key ways of viewing God in Christianity One way is as Saviour and the other is as creator.
I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?
Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?
Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.
That being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creator is a bizarre notion of godhood goes against all the evidence.
Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.
And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
So an intelligent creator of the universe who is not dependent or part of that universe isn't a god in any normal usage then.
The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).
-
Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.
I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?
Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?
Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.
Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.
And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).
See reply to Wigginhall.
-
Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.
I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?
Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?
Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.
Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.
And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).
Once you have redefined naturalism to include explicitly theological ideas by an act of linguistic piracy can you talk about SU being explicitly naturalistic. So another fail i'm afraid.
-
See reply to Wigginhall.
I did - it did not address any of my points.
-
First of all Wigginhall some Mice killers ARE cats. So having banged on about fallacies you have proceeded to make the usual mistake of arguing that ''it doesn't necessarily have to be a god...so it isn't.''
Secondly the only people who were in the intelligent universe creator game were religious. They called the intelligent designer and creator of the universe god or gods. Atheists if you hadn't noticed have called this idea unreasonable.
Some though think this is now a reasonable idea but are now apparently hanging on as nominal naturalists presumably because of the mass of ''argument'' they put up that contradicts their new position.
There is therefore historical revisionism, pride, denial, and linguistic redefinition (linguistic fascism) going on.
On another issue.
Is a simulated universe created which shares the physicality of the universe and is made from it a separate universe?
For some reason, you are denying the logic of converses. This just means that if a statement is correct, its converse need not be. Hence, cats are mice-killers, but mice-killers need not be cats. Ditto, gods and universe-builders.
It can also be expressed via set logic. The set of mice-killers includes the sub-set of cats, but also other sub-sets, e.g. owls. The set of universe builders includes the sub-set of gods but also other sub-sets, e.g. technologically advanced aliens. You can't equate sub-sets - thus, owls are not cats, even though both kill mice.
-
Deism is an unsupported story about a supernatural god or "supreme being", whereas the SU conjecture is an explicitly naturalistic conjecture about technological civilizations.
I'm sure it does but I didn't ask about ways to view god, did I?
Does it say that being a creator is the only criterion to regard something as the Christian God? No need to be a saviour, or almighty, or all knowing, or good, or just, or anything to do with the Jesus character in the bible?
Unless it explicitly does say that, you still need to cite that source.
Once again you are confusing necessity and sufficiency. To claim that "being an intelligent creator who is independent from it's creation" is sufficient to be god, goes against all the evidence.
And YET AGAIN, you've ignored this question:
I'll also ask you again to define the limits of this bizarre notion of godhood that you are proposing as I note that you ignored it yet again (#173 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg704711#msg704711)).
What sort of 'universe' does one need to create? If I create a Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life), populate it with some initial state, and set it going, I have created a kind of (simple) universe - am I therefore, a god? What about a more complex universe for a computer game - are the coders gods? What about weather or climate simulations?
The word, in any normal usage, implies much more than that. Specifically, it does not, an any normal usage, apply to (for example) a technological collaboration between natural, mortal beings (or to spotty teenagers, for that matter).
An intelligent creator of this universe would be the end of the naturalistic argument i'm afraid. Since Deists could not be proved wrong. You have to think of these things you know.
I recall arguments about the differences between Leprechauns and the Christian God.
Some proposed Leprechauns who were in fact identical to God and then asked if that were the case if Christians would worship or consider Leprechauns God.
The answer of course was sure because Leprechauns and God would be the same thing.
The SU conjecture is the same argument as that for God...an intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe. God therefore is as unsupported as SU no more no less. The only question then is what is this creator like. SU hazards no clues. Deism need say no more.
-
Once you have redefined naturalism to include explicitly theological ideas by an act of linguistic piracy can you talk about SU being explicitly naturalistic. So another fail i'm afraid.
Oh, don't be so utterly silly!
The SU conjecture is explicitly about technological civilizations - its assumptions are based on extrapolations of our current technology. That's why it's so daft to say it's about god.
Just because the deists and theists made up stories about universe creation, doesn't give them some sort of copyright of the idea.
Medical cures for disease aren't supernatural just because the first stories of such cures described them as such.
Get a grip!
-
For some reason, you are denying the logic of converses. This just means that if a statement is correct, its converse need not be. Hence, cats are mice-killers, but mice-killers need not be cats. Ditto, gods and universe-builders.
It can also be expressed via set logic. The set of mice-killers includes the sub-set of cats, but also other sub-sets, e.g. owls. The set of universe builders includes the sub-set of gods but also other sub-sets, e.g. technologically advanced aliens. You can't equate sub-sets - thus, owls are not cats, even though both kill mice.
Even if there was a converse and there isn't because An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.
How does that help atheism? Because the creator could still be God. Indeed there are no reasons to exclude a god.
The trouble with Stranglers analogy is that he proposes mousetraps AND cats. That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed. The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?
Sorry to piss on your bonfire
-
1: You are shifting the goalposts.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
-
...An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.
Citation still missing.
That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed.
Of course there are different categories proposed: technological and supernatural, for starters, then there are subcategories of both of those.
The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?
Drivel. Again, cite a single source that says that that is the only criterion for godhood.
The SU conjecture is the same argument as that for God...an intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe. God therefore is as unsupported as SU no more no less.
The SU conjecture is an 'argument' (actually a conjecture) about technological civilizations (how many more times?), which has bugger all to do with any of the arguments for gods.
An "intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe" is not an argument, it's a conclusion, so your conclusion is a fetid pile of decomposing dingo's kidneys.
This has got way, way too silly......
-
Even if there was a converse and there isn't because An intelligent creator of the universe who is separate from that universe IS a definition of a god or gods.
How does that help atheism? Because the creator could still be God. Indeed there are no reasons to exclude a god.
The trouble with Stranglers analogy is that he proposes mousetraps AND cats. That has nothing to do with the argument which only proposes an intelligent creator who etc. There are no different categories of intelligent creator proposed. The word god or gods being shorthand for the intelligent creator who etc......when was that NEVER the case?
Sorry to piss on your bonfire
Of course, there is a converse, as many statements with 'be' have. Thus, the converse of 'lions are mammals' is 'mammals are lions', again showing its falsity.
With universe builders, we have the same asymmetry. Gods are universe builders does not entail that universe builders are gods.
I think in set theory, it's saying that a sub-set is not normally equivalent to its superset, but correct me if I'm wrong, folks.
-
Citation still missing.
Of course there are different categories proposed: technological and supernatural, for starters, then there are subcategories of both of those.
Drivel. Again, cite a single source that says that that is the only criterion for godhood.
The SU conjecture is an 'argument' (actually a conjecture) about technological civilizations (how many more times?), which has bugger all to do with any of the arguments for gods.
An "intelligent creator of a universe independent of that universe" is not an argument, it's a conclusion, so your conclusion is a fetid pile of decomposing dingo's kidneys.
This has got way, way too silly......
Oh, don't be so utterly silly!
The SU conjecture is explicitly about technological civilizations -
Even if they were
Could something like Mount Olympus not be described as a technological civilisation after all technology is the application of knowledge for practical purposes.
I think you are straw clutching here since SU appears in cosmology as well as in computer studies.
-
Stranger,
I did - it did not address any of my points.
He never will. I’m pretty much of the view that trying to talk logic with Vlad is akin to Scott Weitzenhoffer’s comment about debating with creationists:
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Vlad’s “contribution” here is nihilistic: it consists entirely of lies, misrepresentations, avoidance, ignoring every correction and falsification followed by the repetition of them, re-definitions of terms to suit his purpose and, to crown it all, accusing people who do none of these things of doing them. He’s utterly shameless.
-
Of course, there is a converse, as many statements with 'be' have. Thus, the converse of 'lions are mammals' is 'mammals are lions', again showing its falsity.
With universe builders, we have the same asymmetry. Gods are universe builders does not entail that universe builders are gods.
I'm afraid it does since Creator God or gods is a label or name for intelligent creators of universes etc. In other words the argument is the same for SU's and creator gods. Not to refer to a club promoted to a premier league club as a premier league club because it was in the first division last season is an analogy for what you are trying to say.
I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.
The argument is therefore Mammals are mammals.
-
Stranger,
He never will. I’m pretty much of the view that trying to talk logic with Vlad is akin to Scott Weitzenhoffer’s comment about debating with creationists:
“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
Vlad’s “contribution” here is nihilistic: it consists entirely of lies, misrepresentations, avoidance, ignoring every correction and falsification followed by the repetition of them, re-definitions of terms to suit his purpose and, to crown it all, accusing people who do none of these things of doing them. He’s utterly shameless.
I'm not talking about evolution. So another category ballsup Johnny.
You are the one's redefining terms.
If you think SU reasonable then i'm afraid you are negating a career spanning years
of arguing against it's central argument an intelligent creator who creates a universe and is independent of it. Which is the central argument of deism at least.
Also in the words of the song:
Weitzenhoffer?, Weitzenhoffer? who the fuck is Weitzenhoffer?
I don't know about outside this universe but I think the evidence is that not many intelligent or creative people can be looking in on the microcosm of religionethics.
-
Vlad,
I'm not talking about evolution. So another category ballsup Johnny.
You are the one's redefining terms.
If you think SU reasonable then i'm afraid you are negating a career spanning years
of arguing against it's central argument an intelligent creator who creates a universe and is independent of it. Which is the central argument of deism at least.
Also in the words of the song:
Weitzenhoffer?, Weitzenhoffer? who the fuck is Weitzenhoffer?
I don't know about outside this universe but I think the evidence is that not many intelligent or creative people can be looking in on the microcosm of religionethics.
What do you get out of turning up at a message board to tell lies?
-
Ah Scott D Weitzenhoffer. He argues for evolution. He has chosen wisely....
S.T. Ranger He argues that the religious have not argued for an intelligent designer or that atheists have argued against it. He has chosen foolishly.
-
It's getting heavily personal and hanging around to act as a spittoon for certain folks is not obligatory.
M'off.
Have a nice day y'all.
-
M'off.
Indefinitely?
-
I think in set theory, it's saying that a sub-set is not normally equivalent to its superset, but correct me if I'm wrong, folks.
Yes, in general a subset is not the same as its superset, although the subsets of a set are taken to include the set itself - and the empty set - it makes a lot of stuff more straightforward and (for the same reason) leads to the neat conclusion that a set of N elements has 2N subsets.
But I digress (although, I would argue that that is somewhat more interesting than anything Vlad is saying at the moment).
-
I'm tempted to give that post the answer it deserves, but I'm not getting suspended or banned for you.
I have not committed either of the fallacies you mention. Omnipotence is the "omni" that needs squaring with the existence of suffering, not the others, so that's what I was attempting to do. If I was committing some basic fallacies, then so are some eminent theologians and philosophers of religion - and that's not the fallacy of appeal to authority, smart-arse, because I'm not basing any claim on it, simply mentioning the fact.
Now go to hell.
I'm not specially pleading, either: I defined omnipotence as "able to do anything that can be done", which is simply the definition of it.
-
I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.
-
I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.
Sad you haven't anything better to do? ::)
-
L’Eau,
I'm not specially pleading, either: I defined omnipotence as "able to do anything that can be done", which is simply the definition of it.
Yes you are and no it isn’t. “Omnipotence” is actually defined as “the quality of having unlimited power”. If you want to try the “anything that can be done” line then the question is, “that can be done by whom?” I can lift the cup of tea in front of me, but I can’t pick up my car. Thus for me “anything that can be done” excludes car lifting. Does that mean that I too am theoretically omnipotent nonetheless?
If you want to posit an omnipotent god, “anything that can be done” means anything at all. Suggesting that your god is omnipotent but, say, couldn’t have pushed back the Boxing Day tsunami because that was a really, really big wave so was beyond “His” capabilities is special pleading. It’s also arbitrary by the way – how would you propose to distinguish between the stuff that god can do and the stuff that’s a bit too hard for him?
-
L’Eau
I'm going to go through all your posts from now on with a fine tooth comb, and if I ever find a fallacy in any of them, I am going to publish it in giant, red, capital letters on every single thread. Well, maybe not, because the mods'd be a bit cross, but I'm watching, all the same.
It’s “fine-tooth comb” and that’s a bit creepy, but by all means give it a go. In the event that you do manage to find one though, then the decent thing for me to do would be either to withdraw it or to counter-argue (for example by explaining why it’s not a fallacy at all, as I did recently here in respect of Vlad’s misunderstanding of the ad hom).
Do you agree that that would be the decent thing to do?
Good. Then perhaps you’d extend to me the same courtesy when the arguments you attempt are falsified rather than just ignore the problem. Here for example a while back I explained:
“Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have re-defined any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:
1. “Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there stuff god doesn’t know in practice which is where evil can hide.”
2. “Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.”
3. “Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.”
See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.”
"Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy"
Rather than spit the dummy, why not engage with the argument? If you think I'm wrong, tell us why you think that.
-
I'm afraid it does since Creator God or gods is a label or name for intelligent creators of universes etc. In other words the argument is the same for SU's and creator gods. Not to refer to a club promoted to a premier league club as a premier league club because it was in the first division last season is an analogy for what you are trying to say.
I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.
The argument is therefore Mammals are mammals.
Well, you seem to be saying that advanced aliens who can build universes qualify as gods. Does this mean that you envisage multiple gods scattered around, all building universes, which may themselves contain gods, also building universes? This is an exciting addition to theology, I say, and polytheism is due its day in the sun.
-
L’Eau
It’s “fine-tooth comb” and that’s a bit creepy, but by all means give it a go. In the event that you do manage to find one though, then the decent thing for me to do would be either to withdraw it or to counter-argue (for example by explaining why it’s not a fallacy at all, as I did recently here in respect of Vlad’s misunderstanding of the ad hom).
Do you agree that that would be the decent thing to do?
Good. Then perhaps you’d extend to me the same courtesy when the arguments you attempt are falsified rather than just ignore the problem. Here for example a while back I explained:
“Second, it’s wrong in any case. As I explained to you (but you just ignored) you could have re-defined any of the other omnis and equally created a space for “evil”. Look, I’ll show you:
1. “Omniscience is only theoretical, therefore there stuff god doesn’t know in practice which is where evil can hide.”
2. “Omnipresence is only theoretical, therefore there are places god can’t access in practice which is where evil can hide.”
3. “Omnibenevolence is only theoretical, therefore there are bad things god doesn’t care about in practice which is where evil can hide.”
See? It “works” regardless of which one you arbitrarily pick.”
"Actually yes it is (if some “eminent theologians” like it, so what?) and it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam too – (yet) another fallacy"
Rather than spit the dummy, why not engage with the argument? If you think I'm wrong, tell us why you think that.
I've answered all that.
-
Well, you seem to be saying that advanced aliens who can build universes qualify as gods. Does this mean that you envisage multiple gods scattered around, all building universes, which may themselves contain gods, also building universes? This is an exciting addition to theology, I say, and polytheism is due its day in the sun.
I can't add much to that.
-
I've answered all that.
And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here. (https://luminousdarkcloud.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/open-theism-process-theology-and-suffering/)
-
I believed I referenced Stranger to the article on creator gods. He seems to think that some strange how they are not referring to an intelligent creator who creates a universe but is not part of it/independent of it.
Not sure why I'm bothering but this is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.
I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes - but as several people have pointed out, that doesn't mean that all intelligent creators of universes are gods (cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats). You have still not supplied a single source that says that universe creation alone qualifies an entity or entities for godhood.
You seem (in other posts) to be suggesting that 'gods' is just another term for intelligent creators of universes but (quite apart from you being unable to back it up with a reference) that is obvious nonsense because some gods aren't universe creators (as wiggs has pointed out).
You seem terribly confused.
PS: And you still haven't answered my question about what sort of universe one needs to create in order to qualify for godhood in your bizarre cult.
-
And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here. (https://luminousdarkcloud.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/open-theism-process-theology-and-suffering/)
Past, present and future could be on a circular timeline, and each of us plays out part on our particular area of the circle.
-
And another thing: God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here. (https://luminousdarkcloud.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/open-theism-process-theology-and-suffering/)
Had to laugh at "irreducibly free actions of agents" - how do they work?
Either reality (including minds) is deterministic or it isn't and those aspects that are not determined must be random because random means not determined by anything (as has been extensively discussed on the "Searching for GOD..." topic).
Free will in the sense that most people think of it and in the way you seem to be using the idea, is logically incoherent.
-
Not sure why I'm bothering but this is a blatant misrepresentation of my position.
I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes - but as several people have pointed out, that doesn't mean that all intelligent creators of universes are gods (cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats). You have still not supplied a single source that says that universe creation alone qualifies an entity or entities for godhood.
You seem (in other posts) to be suggesting that 'gods' is just another term for intelligent creators of universes but (quite apart from you being unable to back it up with a reference) that is obvious nonsense because some gods aren't universe creators (as wiggs has pointed out).
You seem terribly confused.
PS: And you still haven't answered my question about what sort of universe one needs to create in order to qualify for godhood in your bizarre cult.
Your analogy of mouse killing was poor. First of all SU merely proposes a mouse killer. Somehow your analogy manages to conjure up a cat and mousetrap. SU does not afford that luxury because cats and mouse traps are subject to science. We know for sure we have an option there.
Secondly theism has got their first and labelled the intelligent creator. That you seem to think the idea of an intelligent creator isn't a central theme in religion shows how shockingly ignorant you are of theology. I think you've been influenced there by New Atheism.
You make a fair point by asking what constitutes a universe. Here we can go with Tyson who hazards basically that there is a high probability that this universe is simulated. So we could go with this universe as the model. Where the simulator seems to be separate and independent from it.
This is distinguished from simulations which are built inside and share materiality and physicality of a universe and are therefore part of the same universe as the simulator.
-
Past, present and future could be on a circular timeline, and each of us plays out part on our particular area of the circle.
How does a line contain an area?
-
L'Eau,
I've answered all that.
No you haven't, at least not unless you think that telling someone to go to hell is an answer.
The offer to help you with a basic understanding of reason and logic stands by the way despite your behaviour.
-
L'Eau,
And another thing...
You can't have another thing when you don't have a prior thing.
... God doesn't know the future, because it hasn't happened yet, but God is still omniscient, because God knows everything that can be known. Click here.
If the universe is deterministic and causal, why couldn't this god of your calculate every possible future event in order to know precisely the future? Even as a practical matter, it would make the whole answering prayers schtick highly risky if he couldn't I'd have thought. Say for example that Hitler's mum had prayed for her baby to be cured from some life-threatening illness – unless this god knew the consequences how would he know whether acceding was a good idea or not?
"One baby vs six million Jews? Hmmm..."
-
L'Eau,
Just had a quick look at your link and found this:
...but ultimately the future includes irreducibly free actions of agents, which might defy odds and expectations
...so stopped reading there. He's really not a thinker this chap is he.
Coda: Just noticed that Stranger got to the same point. Sorry for the repetition.
-
Your analogy of mouse killing was poor. First of all SU merely proposes a mouse killer. Somehow your analogy manages to conjure up a cat and mousetrap. SU does not afford that luxury because cats and mouse traps are subject to science. We know for sure we have an option there.
I wasn't referring to that analogy in the post you are ostensibly replying to, but to run with it anyway; even if you insist the SU only suggests a mouse killer (universe creator), then you are insisting that it's a cat (god).
In fact it's worse than that because SU proposes a naturalistic, technological civilization and theism proposes a supernatural being.
Secondly theism has got their first and labelled the intelligent creator. That you seem to think the idea of an intelligent creator isn't a central theme in religion shows how shockingly ignorant you are of theology. I think you've been influenced there by New Atheism.
Firstly, what part of "I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes" are you finding difficult? I've also never denied that an intelligent creator is a central theme in many religions.
Secondly, this isn't a kindergarten game - you can't bagsy a concept just because you arrived at it first. As I said before, medical cures for previously incurable diseases don't have to be described as supernatural because religions had stories of them being miraculously cured first.
Thirdly, you still haven't provided a single reference that says that all universe creators are gods rather than gods being universe creator.
Fourthly, you haven't addressed the point that gods and universe creators cannot mean the same thing because some gods aren't universe creators.
You make a fair point by asking what constitutes a universe. Here we can go with Tyson who hazards basically that there is a high probability that this universe is simulated.
The "high probability" is based on a set of assumptions and is anyway irrelevant to my question.
So we could go with this universe as the model. Where the simulator seems to be separate and independent from it.
This is distinguished from simulations which are built inside and share materiality and physicality of a universe and are therefore part of the same universe as the simulator.
Sorry but I can't make any sense of that. A simulation would have to run on something (a computer or something equivalent) and that something would have to be in the same universe as the simulator. The 'physicality' of the simulation would be, err... simulated.
My point was that humans already run (limited, partial*) simulations of this universe and explore 'universes' based on simple rules - like the Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life) that can actually contain self-replicators and Turing machines - despite it's simple rule set ('physicality' or 'basic physics', if you like).
PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.
* And if we are in a simulation, we can't be sure that it is a complete simulation of the/our universe.
-
Stranger,
PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.
Again, he never will. Never, ever, ever, ever...
Did I mention the "never ever" part?
-
Fortunately, there are quite a few of us who do read andenjoy reading the posts which are not by Vlad!!
-
I can't add much to that.
So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes. I think this is exciting. Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.
-
Wiggs,
So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes. I think this is exciting. Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.
Not only that, but these "gods" need only be flesh and blood (or whatever) aliens - there's no requirement for the "supernatural" stuff at all!
I wonder if old Vlad has been a scientologist or similar all along?
-
Just musing on the "theoretically omniscient but not really because God doesn't know what will happen next" notion L'Eau recently attempted (and posted a link to). Seems to me that the problems that would give to the idea of an interventionist god idea are pretty devastating. On the one hand we're asked to believe that there's a god who, if the right pleas and propitiations are made, will intervene in human affairs in ways that would not otherwise have happened, but on the other we're also told to accept that he doesn't know what the consequences of those interventions will be ("because they haven't happened yet").
This is "god as kid in a shopping centre with a loaded Kalashnikov" scenario seems very strange to me.
-
So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.
-
So you are proposing a polytheistic universe, or universes, full of gods creating other universes. I think this is exciting. Presumably, God is capo de tutti capi.
First of all I think you might be engaging in argumentum ad ridiculing or horse laugh fallacy.As the responsible person around here it is my duty to tell you that.
Polytheism is an inevitable possibility in SU. How could we know and why as a monotheist do I not propose polytheism? Isn't it all fun.
-
NS,
So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.
Nor I suspect has L'Eau - there are contradictions in the claims everywhere you look.
-
Wiggs,
Not only that, but these "gods" need only be flesh and blood (or whatever) aliens - there's no requirement for the "supernatural" stuff at all!
I wonder if old Vlad has been a scientologist or similar all along?
OR it just means that the 16th century division into natural and supernatural was shit and its 21st century iteration is even shitter.
-
I wasn't referring to that analogy in the post you are ostensibly replying to, but to run with it anyway; even if you insist the SU only suggests a mouse killer (universe creator), then you are insisting that it's a cat (god).
In fact it's worse than that because SU proposes a naturalistic, technological civilization and theism proposes a supernatural being.
Firstly, what part of "I've never said that (some) gods aren't intelligent creators of universes" are you finding difficult? I've also never denied that an intelligent creator is a central theme in many religions.
Secondly, this isn't a kindergarten game - you can't bagsy a concept just because you arrived at it first. As I said before, medical cures for previously incurable diseases don't have to be described as supernatural because religions had stories of them being miraculously cured first.
Thirdly, you still haven't provided a single reference that says that all universe creators are gods rather than gods being universe creator.
Fourthly, you haven't addressed the point that gods and universe creators cannot mean the same thing because some gods aren't universe creators.
The "high probability" is based on a set of assumptions and is anyway irrelevant to my question.
Sorry but I can't make any sense of that. A simulation would have to run on something (a computer or something equivalent) and that something would have to be in the same universe as the simulator. The 'physicality' of the simulation would be, err... simulated.
My point was that humans already run (limited, partial*) simulations of this universe and explore 'universes' based on simple rules - like the Game of Life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life) that can actually contain self-replicators and Turing machines - despite it's simple rule set ('physicality' or 'basic physics', if you like).
PS: Please take your time a read the above think about the points before replying.
* And if we are in a simulation, we can't be sure that it is a complete simulation of the/our universe.
Of course I shall take time reading this.
In the meantime I am interested to know why you find you cannot apply the word god to a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe given that that creator is the necessary entity and the universe is the contingent?
I'm taking it that you seem happy philosophically to admit that some gods are universe builders. Am I right,
-
Polytheism is an inevitable possibility in SU.
So's leprechaunism.
So's anything.
-
So's leprechaunism.
So's anything.
A completely non productive statement..........so no change there.
-
So's leprechaunism.
True......in a pantheon somebody would have to be responsible for the NewAtheists.
The little chaps are certainly whimsical enough for that.
-
Of course I shall take time reading this.
Thank you.
In the meantime I am interested to know why you find you cannot apply the word god to a creator of a universe who is independent of that universe given that that creator is the necessary entity and the universe is the contingent?
Basically, the notion doesn't accord with any definition of the term 'god' that I'm aware of. I've invited you to supply one that would cover the technological simulation of a universe by ordinary, mortal beings but you haven't done so to date. I mean, I guess you could stretch the colloquial meanings to cover any being who has that degree of control over something but to seriously associate it with theology seems nonsensical. The starting points, arguments, and conclusion are all different in substantive ways; the only similarity at all is the notion of some intelligent agency creating something that is in some sense a 'universe'.
I used scare quotes around 'universe' because its definition in the context is still not clear. If we are simulations, then it is perfectly possible that most of our universe is not being simulated to anything like the detail that our immediate surroundings are - and that most of its past might never have actually happened (even in the simulated sense). It would all depend on what the simulation was for. If the purpose was to study the (simulated) universe as a whole (and we are an accident), we might expect it to more more complete than if the purpose was to study (say) scenarios for the development of intelligent life.
I'm taking it that you seem happy philosophically to admit that some gods are universe builders. Am I right,
I don't quite see what philosophy has to do with it - it's a simple matter of historical record that many god stories involve universe creation.
Again - take your time - I don't suppose I'll be back again until tomorrow anyway.
-
Thank you for your reply. I am still working up my reply to yours.
May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.
-
May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.
Other forums are available for you to join and spend your valuable time.
Indefinitely.
-
Vlad,
A completely non productive statement..........so no change there.
I’ll leave you to work out where you went wrong there.
Or not.
-
Vlad,
Thank you for your reply. I am still working up my reply to yours.
May I say that the comprehensive quality of your post and you gracious offer of time to digest makes a refreshing departure for this forum.
He’ll learn. Perhaps if you didn’t lie so relentlessly others would extend to you the same courtesy?
Good bye.
-
So presumably L'Eau's not really omniscient god is bound by time and exists within it? And is only omnipresent now? I have no idea what is being claimed for this god.
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.
-
L’Eau,
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.
Stop digging! If this omniscient “God” of yours “has complete knowledge of the present” as you put it, then he knows every possible sub-sub-sub (down to bedrock) particle of matter and force there is, in which case he can also calculate exactly how they’ll interact and thus what they’ll produce in the future!
If you do want to get of this hook of your own making, you’ll have to drop either (or both) contradictory position: posit a god who knows quite a bit but isn’t omniscient at all, or posit a god who is omniscient and thus knows everything that has been, that is, and that will be (in which case he has an awful lot to answer for).
Just now what you have is a bugger’s muddle – an “omniscient” god who’s actually just a sort of smart bookie with a stubby pencil and a pork pie hat: pretty good at working out the odds, but every now and then a rank outsider will come up on the rails and take him unawares.
Is “I believe in an omniscient god who can be surprised” really where you want to be?
Really though?
-
Copied from the "If God Exists?" discussion.
L’Eau,
.
I explained to you (neither adolescently nor sarcastically) that you’d fallen foul of two logical fallacies. First, the fallacy of special pleading: you took a specific claim (omnipotence) and diluted it to “theoretical” while ignoring the problem that you’d thereby fundamentally re-defined what “omnipotence” actually means.
That is not special pleading. This is. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) It is applying a different standard to yourself than to other people.
-
L’Eau,
Stop digging! If this omniscient “God” of yours “has complete knowledge of the present” as you put it, then he knows every possible sub-sub-sub (down to bedrock) particle of matter and force there is, in which case he can also calculate exactly how they’ll interact and thus what they’ll produce in the future!
If you do want to get of this hook of your own making, you’ll have to drop either (or both) contradictory position: posit a god who knows quite a bit but isn’t omniscient at all, or posit a god who is omniscient and thus knows everything that has been, that is, and that will be (in which case he has an awful lot to answer for).
Just now what you have is a bugger’s muddle – an “omniscient” god who’s actually just a sort of smart bookie with a stubby pencil and a pork pie hat: pretty good at working out the odds, but every now and then a rank outsider will come up on the rails and take him unawares.
Is “I believe in an omniscient god who can be surprised” really where you want to be?
Really though?
Wrong again - quantum uncertainty.
-
L'Eau,
That is not special pleading. This is. It is applying a different standard to yourself than to other people.
Presumably because you can't process the reasoning that undoes you. Why not at least try though?
-
L'Eau,
Wrong again -
You can't have an "again" when you don't have a previous.
...quantum uncertainty.
OK Deepak - how exactly do you think quantum uncertainty gets you off the hook?
-
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. God does not know the future for certain, but can make very accurate predictions about it, because of God's complete knowledge of the present.
This is just repeating your assertion, I was looking at the implications of it which seem to posit a 'god in time'. Does this mean that you see your idea of a god as subject to time? Or are you saying that it has chosen, like your idea of free will, to somehow limit its abilities by deciding to be subject to time? If it is subject to time, why isn't it also subject to other dimensions? Or if it has chosen to be subject to time, why didn't it chose that with other dimensions?
-
L'Eau,
You are as stupid...
The irony of that will be lost on you, but ok...
...as you are unpleasant and childish.
Using reason and logic to unpick arguments isn't unpleasant and childish. Telling people to "go to hell" when you can't process that reason and logic is.
If there is quantum uncertainty, God can't know exactly what is going to happen.
Then he's not omniscient.
-
Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?
Indeed, but such is the nature of a reality that's probabilistic. How could we ever be certain of anything?
-
You are as stupid as you are unpleasant and childish. If there is quantum uncertainty, God can't know exactly what is going to happen.
Did your god create quantum uncertainty? If so, why? If not, is your god somehow subject to quantum effects that it cannot stop?
-
L'Eau,
The irony of that will be lost on you, but ok...
Using reason and logic to unpick arguments isn't unpleasant and childish. Telling people to "go to hell" when you can't process that reason and logic is.
Then he's not omniscient.
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet. How difficult is that to understand?
-
Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?
While I'm sure blue regards himself a mighty fine fellow - I don't think he thinks he's a god, so I fail to the relevance of your point.
-
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet? How difficult is that to understand?
Why can't the future be known with certainty? How does the future occur? What generates it? Is it impossible then to be outside of time?
-
This is just repeating your assertion, I was looking at the implications of it which seem to posit a 'god in time'. Does this mean that you see your idea of a god as subject to time? Or are you saying that it has chosen, like your idea of free will, to somehow limit its abilities by deciding to be subject to time? If it is subject to time, why isn't it also subject to other dimensions? Or if it has chosen to be subject to time, why didn't it chose that with other dimensions?
Do the future or the past actually exist?........or to put it another way, where have they put last Tuesday?
-
Do the future or the past actually exist?........or to put it another way, where have they put last Tuesday?
Dunno, timey wimey stuff is inherently difficult, but I'm not the ones making claims about a god being constrained in some way by it, but not other dimensions as L'eau is. Indeed your question is problematic for him since it challenges the idea of knowledge of the past if next Tuesday isn't where you last saw it.
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. As you seem keen on Wiki, here are the first eight words of the entry on omnipotence:
"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."
Sounds pretty "usual" to me.
The Wikipedia article
goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done". There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.
-
Dunno, timey wimey stuff is inherently difficult, but I'm not the ones making claims about a god being constrained in some way by it, but not other dimensions as L'eau is. Indeed your question is problematic for him since it challenges the idea of knowledge of the past if next Tuesday isn't where you last saw it.
If only the present exists then God could be said to be omniscient don't you think?
-
If only the present exists then God could be said to be omniscient don't you think?
Does the present exist? Surely it's even less of a thing since it's here today, this hour, this picosecond etc and then is gone? Was it ever?
-
The goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done". There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.
Thanks for that L'Eau, looks like he has been selective in his choice of cherries.I did point out that there were at least 6 definitions.
-
L'Eau,
God is omniscient because God knows everything that can be known. The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet? How difficult is that to understand?
Very, because it's gibberish. Specifically, the "because" is a non sequitur (yet another fallacy by the way).
Just chucking in a terms you don't understand like "quantum uncertainty" because it sounds, like, you know, all sciency and stuff doesn't help you at all. This'll be lost on you, but an omniscient god could still know every possible thing and QU be preserved provided he keeps schtumm about it. Indeed he'd have to if he was to be omniscient. From our perspective the uncertainty would be preserved - the probability wave function wouldn't collapsed to use the jargon - so all would be fine and dandy in the real world.
The alternative you (inadvertently?) posited - a god who can't be surprised but can be surprised - is just incoherent.
-
Moderator Various posts which were derails by simply being insults with no substantive point, or were discussing moderation have been removed. Please refer to the Forum Rules on this http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=7765.0.
Should you wish to discuss Moderation Decisions then please PM the Moderation team. If you think a post has broken then rules, then please use the Report to Moderator Function for the post.
If a similar spat derails this thread again, then the thread will be locked and removed.
-
Does the present exist? Surely it's even less of a thing since it's here today, this hour, this picosecond etc and then is gone? Was it ever?
I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.
-
L'Eau,
Remind me, British Home Stores - who wrote this earlier on the thread?
You presumably think you've made a point there but I'm blowed if I know what it's meant to be?
-
I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.
But anything you measure isn't the present, and by the time you've looked at what the measurement is -. That you think it's an ontological nonsense doesn't illustrate anything. And as you are a long term critic of empiricism as establishing philosophical reality I'm surprised you want to use the idea of empirical tests even leaving aside the problem noted to back up a position.
-
But anything you measure isn't the present, and by the time you've looked at what the measurement is -. That you think it's an ontological nonsense doesn't illustrate anything. And as you are a long term critic of empiricism as establishing philosophical reality I'm surprised you want to use the idea of empirical tests even leaving aside the problem noted to back up a position.
I think your introduction of it was as an evasion of the issue whether the past or future exist.
Somewhere in the above statement which firmly gets hold of the wrong end of sticks I think is a tacit declaration that the past is as real as the present.
If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.
In your post you are also confusing empirical tests with empiricism.
-
I tend to think that the question " does the present, the "is", exist ?" A bit of ontological nonsense.
Empirical science measures what is there after all. In view of that then, and the premium placed on science. The question of the future and past existing are more pertinent to this discussion.
if god is master of the three OMNIs , the implication is this ; all that was, all that is and all that will be are happening simultaneously throughout the universe , time passes only locally .
This is not some wild idea I've made up and when I can remember who I read regarding this ill let you know . It is a very important concept and difficult to get your head around .
-
I think your introduction of it was as an evasion of the issue whether the past or future exist.
Somewhere in the above statement which firmly gets hold of the wrong end of sticks I think is a tacit declaration that the past is as real as the present.
If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.
In your post you are also confusing empirical tests with empiricism.
What are you referring to as my 'introduction' here? You asked me a question about their existence and I said I don't know, and I don't see that we can make a claim that the present exists either, whereas you seem to think it does.
You haven't made the case that the present is real, or the past, or the future.
You haven't defined what real means here. Given all of this your sentence 'If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.' is filled with things you have no definition for, appears to be meant to be a question but has no question mark, and begs the question that things called the past and the present are 'real'
And no I'm not confusing the tests with empiricism, that was you by talking about scientific test as a justification to declare what is real, and becoming an empiricist because of your confusion.
-
L’Eau
…goes on to qualify that in various ways, including versions similar to my "able to do everything that can be done".
None of which help you:
“The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[1]”
This just relocates the problem. The choice precedes the action, but it doesn’t mean that any action at all isn’t possible if this “God” so chooses a priori. It’s a matter of choice, not of the possibility or otherwise of the action.
“2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).”
See above. The “it’s nature” precedes the action but it doesn’t mean the action itself is impossible.
“3. It is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[2]”
That’s called begging the question. Why just assume that “it’s part of a deity’s nature to be consistent”, particularly when the claims of the religious suggest pretty much the opposite of that – the capriciousness with which prayers are apparently answered and ignored for example?
“4. A deity can bring about any state of affairs which is logically possible for anyone to bring about in that situation.”
So? The “logically possible” I covered (but you ignored – four-sided triangles and all that) and surely it’s not for “anyone to bring about” there when it should be “for anyone thought to be omnipotent to bring about”.
“5. A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan.”
Circular reasoning. You’d have to argue omniscience or argue omnipotence first, not make them co-dependent. It’s also begging the question again.
“6. Every action performed in the world is 'actually' being performed by the deity, either due to omni-immanence, or because all actions must be 'supported' or 'permitted' by the deity.”
So? What does that tell you about actions this supposedly omnipotent god can’t do?
There is a quotation from Thomas Aquinas to that effect, more or less, and an explanation of the God of Process theology, which says that God can persuade but not compel.
Is all process theology as daft as this? If, say, I’m driving one day and fiddling with the radio when a kid steps out and “God” decides to intervene (maybe he’s having a break from giving malaria to African babies) does he “compel” me to turn the steering wheel, or does he just “persuade” me – perhaps by popping into my head with a, “sorry to trouble you old chap, but would you mind awfully – you know, if it’s not too much trouble – not running over that kiddie I’ve just brought to your attention? Thanks everso”?
-
Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,- if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.
-
What are you referring to as my 'introduction' here? You asked me a question about their existence and I said I don't know, and I don't see that we can make a claim that the present exists either, whereas you seem to think it does.
You haven't made the case that the present is real, or the past, or the future.
You haven't defined what real means here. Given all of this your sentence 'If the future does not exist and God has all knowledge of past and present then God would be omniscient.' is filled with things you have no definition for, appears to be meant to be a question but has no question mark, and begs the question that things called the past and the present are 'real'
And no I'm not confusing the tests with empiricism, that was you by talking about scientific test as a justification to declare what is real, and becoming an empiricist because of your confusion.
No I gave a benchmark Sane. That that which is subject to empirical measurement is real. I have never argued otherwise. Also it doesn't make one an empiricist/ philosophical empiricist. You were wrong to bring it up.
Given that Context then I accept an argument for the 'has existed'. But the future in this scheme doesn't and never has existed. I move therefore that if God knows what is happening and perfectly knows what has happened then He is omniscient.
-
No I gave a benchmark Sane. That that which is subject to empirical measurement is real. I have never argued otherwise. Also it doesn't make one an empiricist/ philosophical empiricist. You were wrong to bring it up.
Given that Context then I accept an argument for the 'has existed'. But the future in this scheme doesn't and never has existed. I move therefore that if God knows what is happening and perfectly knows what has happened then He is omniscient.
Thanks for this, that's a lot clearer. And it deserves a proper response. I don't have time to do that just now so will pick up later.
-
Susan,
Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,- if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.
Not sure - the style is familiar ("I get really offended by arguments that undermine my faith belief but I can't counter then, so I'll get angry instead") but I can think of several previous incarnations that would fit. The "I'm offended" line is a common theistic trope by the way, to which Christopher Hitchens' "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument" and "Stephen Fry's "So f****** what?" seem to me to be perfectly good replies.
-
Susan,
Not sure - the style is familiar ("I get really offended by arguments that undermine my faith belief but I can't counter then, so I'll get angry instead") but I can think of several previous incarnations that would fit. The "I'm offended" line is a common theistic trope by the way, to which Christopher Hitchens' "I'm still waiting for you to make an argument" and "Stephen Fry's "So f****** what?" seem to me to be perfectly good replies.
Apparently Stephen Fry was due to appear but couldn't go on stage because he felt a bit funny. His manager told him to get on quick before it wore off.
-
The future can't be known with certainty, because it doesn't exist yet. How difficult is that to understand?
Regarding this and some subsequent posts about the past and future - is this discussion somehow taking place in the nineteenth century?
There is certainly no such thing as a universal 'now' that is valid for all observers see: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
We don't have all the answers about time but the quaint Newtonian idea that we can divide everything neatly into past, present and future is dead.
-
Bluehillside
Thank you.
On a general point, I don't think I ever realised, until I joined message boards over ten years ago, just how much ignorance of evolution abounds.
-
Would someone please tell me who l'Eau was before,- if he was, as Synthetic Dave finds this very difficult to pronounce, and I have no idea who he is/was. Thank you.
He was SteveH.
[I'm assuming that doesn't break any rules as it's easy enough for any forum member to find out.]
-
On a general point, I don't think I ever realised, until I joined message boards over ten years ago, just how much ignorance of evolution abounds.
Is it covered in schools? I'd be surprised. It wasn't when I was at school and I'm not that old.
It's never touched upon in any documentaries either as far as I'm aware - that evolution is a reality is stated but exactly how it works is never gone into in any detail, probably because the specifics are very complex and to understand them you do need some fairly thorough genetics under your hat.
-
Stranger
Thank you for your post.
Shaker
I was thinking more in general terms, not detailed biological terms.
-
Shaker
I was thinking more in general terms, not detailed biological terms.
I didn't mean quite as much detail as perhaps my previous post suggested - but even so, I can't think of any broad platform for the general public that covers it.
It's not something that most people think about often or indeed ever I suppose - trouble is, neither do the ones who make the most noise about it.
-
It's never touched upon in any documentaries either as far as I'm aware - that evolution is a reality is stated but exactly how it works is never gone into in any detail, probably because the specifics are very complex and to understand them you do need some fairly thorough genetics under your hat.
Darwin managed to formulate the theory without knowing any genetics at all. The specifics may be complex but the basic idea of natural selection is really very simple and it's one of the few theories in modern science that you don't need complex maths for.
-
Regarding this and some subsequent posts about the past and future - is this discussion somehow taking place in the nineteenth century?
There is certainly no such thing as a universal 'now' that is valid for all observers see: Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
We don't have all the answers about time but the quaint Newtonian idea that we can divide everything neatly into past, present and future is dead.
For observers with location We must agree but this discussion is marked God who is omnipresent.
So the question is is this discussion taking place in some God resistant chamber buried deep within the earth?
-
Darwin managed to formulate the theory without knowing any genetics at all.
Not quite as simple as that. He had to hypothesise - invent - some as yet unknown unit of biological inheritance by which heritable traits could be passed along for NS to work. He called it a gemmule ... a hundred-odd years before somebody called it a gene.
-
For observers with location We must agree but this discussion is marked God who is omnipresent.
Being omnipresent at a particular (single) moment wouldn't make much sense - there is no universal concept of 'now'.
-
Not quite as simple as that. He had to hypothesise - invent - some as yet unknown unit of biological inheritance by which heritable traits could be passed along for NS to work. He called it a gemmule ... a hundred-odd years before somebody called it a gene.
He managed to write On the Origin of Species without ever mentioning them.
My point is that you can get across the basic idea of natural selection without to going into that sort of thing (as Darwin did in Origin).
-
He managed to write On the Origin of Species without ever mentioning them.
True - though his hypothesis was in place in his next book nine years later.
My point is that you can get across the basic idea of natural selection without to going into that sort of thing (as Darwin did in Origin).
Absolutely. Doesn't seem to be done, though.
-
Being omnipresent at a particular (single) moment wouldn't make much sense - there is no universal concept of 'now'.
It makes no sense from the point of view from a located observer but that is not the case for an omnipresent observer.
Also what located observer would not have a present and a past and a non existent future?
That must be the case wherever you are in the universe.
-
Where in the universe has the future already happened?
-
Where in the universe has the future already happened?
That depends on the theory of time that you happen to adhere to. Some people would say: everywhere.
-
That depends on the theory of time that you happen to adhere to. Some people would say: everywhere.
''Tis true.
-
It makes no sense from the point of view from a located observer but that is not the case for an omnipresent observer.
The problem is that there is no place to put an omnipresent observer in space-time. Even ignoring general relativity and just concentrating on special relativity, space and time are a single continuum and it doesn't have a single time direction through it.
The geometry is Minkowski not Euclidean but you can see the problem if we just assume it is Euclidean (that's ordinary school geometry).
Imagine space is just two dimensional and that we represent space-time with a third direction. The Newtonian picture would have moments of time like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other with the future being in (say) the up direction. Then something can be omnipresent just by being on the sheet that represents 'now'.
The problem is that with relativity, there is no absolute future direction. If we consider one observer, and try to divide space-time into moments with the stack of paper again, that division is only true for that observer. Another observer (moving relative to the first) would have their stack of moments at an angle to the first - so their present extends into the first observer's past and future. There is no way to say that one observer is 'right' or privileged - so where/when are you going to put your omnipresent being's 'now'?
-
Great stuff, Stranger. There is a notion in Buddhism of no point of view, which obviously is not located! But it's very difficult to grasp intellectually, as we just seem rooted in the body, and its point of view. The issue then is letting go - famous koan, there is no time, what is memory?
-
The problem is that there is no place to put an omnipresent observer in space-time. Even ignoring general relativity and just concentrating on special relativity, space and time are a single continuum and it doesn't have a single time direction through it.
The geometry is Minkowski not Euclidean but you can see the problem if we just assume it is Euclidean (that's ordinary school geometry).
Imagine space is just two dimensional and that we represent space-time with a third direction. The Newtonian picture would have moments of time like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other with the future being in (say) the up direction. Then something can be omnipresent just by being on the sheet that represents 'now'.
The problem is that with relativity, there is no absolute future direction. If we consider one observer, and try to divide space-time into moments with the stack of paper again, that division is only true for that observer. Another observer (moving relative to the first) would have their stack of moments at an angle to the first - so their present extends into the first observer's past and future. There is no way to say that one observer is 'right' or privileged - so where/when are you going to put your omnipresent being's 'now'?
Two points. That there is no place for an omnipresent is surely a given because it is everywhere.
No absolute future direction.......is that the same as no existent future which is what I've been arguing for.
I think talking about what is true for a located observer has no bearing for an omnipresent one. In which case could I respectfully ask you to limit yourself to what might be true for an omnipresent observer.
-
Two points. That there is no place for an omnipresent is surely a given because it is everywhere.
Perhaps I should have said no time for an omnipresent observer. Omnipresent would be a two dimensional sheet in our picture of 3d space-time - representing one moment in time and everywhere in space. Yes?
There is no way to determine what said sheet's orientation should be in the (3d in our model) space-time. Wherever you put it, only one frame of reference will consider it to be now - to other observers it would extend into their past and futures.
You simply can't separate space from time in relativity. There is no single concept of 'now' that divides an absolute past from an absolute future.
No absolute future direction.......is that the same as no existent future which is what I've been arguing for.
Nothing like it at all. You have to think of space-time as a block - in the Newtonian picture one direction would be time. In relativity one observer's "arrow of time" points in a different direction to another observer's.
I think talking about what is true for a located observer has no bearing for an omnipresent one. In which case could I respectfully ask you to limit yourself to what might be true for an omnipresent observer.
I am specifically talking about an omnipresent observer - or rather the impossibility of such a being. Located observers have their own ideas of 'now' that is well defined for each of them (even though they don't agree).
-
Perhaps I should have said no time for an omnipresent observer. Omnipresent would be a two dimensional sheet in our picture of 3d space-time - representing one moment in time and everywhere in space. Yes?
There is no way to determine what said sheet's orientation should be in the (3d in our model) space-time. Wherever you put it, only one frame of reference will consider it to be now - to other observers it would extend into their past and futures.
You simply can't separate space from time in relativity. There is no single concept of 'now' that divides an absolute past from an absolute future.
Nothing like it at all. You have to think of space-time as a block - in the Newtonian picture one direction would be time. In relativity one observer's "arrow of time" points in a different direction to another observer's.
I am specifically talking about an omnipresent observer - or rather the impossibility of such a being. Located observers have their own ideas of 'now' that is well defined for each of them (even though they don't agree).
I suspect a bit of a leap from the science to the impossibility of an omnipresent observer not least since you are still talking about two located observer. The impossibility you talk of still looks like a put up job.
An omnipresent observer would be in all places and all nows surely.
We cannot talk about two locations relative to each other and also talk about there being no place.
An omnipresent observer would not be subject to relativity since what would it be relative to?
But I also have a scientific query or perhaps one raised by scientists.
A few years ago Krauss raised the question of the possibility of man hastening the end of the universe as we know it by mans observations of it.Tegmark stated that I believe the effect would be negligible since the universe had been observing itself.
The universe is surely then an omnipresent observer
Looking forward to your response and appreciate your posts.
-
An omnipresent observer would be in all places and all nows surely.
I first commented on this because it was suggested that god wouldn't know the future because it hadn't happened. My point is that there is no such thing as a universal now, so not knowing the future doesn't make sense - with no universal now*, there is no universal future to not know.
The idea of a god who knows the whole of space-time actually makes more sense - although that would be yet another blow (as if more were needed) to any notion of 'free will' from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
An omnipresent observer would not be subject to relativity since what would it be relative to?
Well as soon as you try to give it a 'now' you are trying to embed it in space-time which is governed by relativity. The idea of a moment in time (such as 'now') doesn't make sense unless it is relative to something (in some frame of reference relative to other stuff) and, as you say, what would an omnipresent observer be relative to - how would you define its frame of reference? Which is exactly the problem I've been trying to describe.
But I also have a scientific query or perhaps one raised by scientists.
A few years ago Krauss raised the question of the possibility of man hastening the end of the universe as we know it by mans observations of it.Tegmark stated that I believe the effect would be negligible since the universe had been observing itself.
Sounds more like a quantum mechanics question than a relativity one (perhaps relating to the vexed question of what constitutes an observation?). It rings a vague bell but I don't recall any details, do you have a link?
* There is actually no concept of 'now' in accepted physics at all - what I'm talking about is identifying a single moment in time that might be regarded as now. As far as physics is concerned 'now' has no more significance than 'here' (the two being bound together in space-time).
-
I first commented on this because it was suggested that god wouldn't know the future because it hadn't happened. My point is that there is no such thing as a universal now, so not knowing the future doesn't make sense - with no universal now*, there is no universal future to not know.
The idea of a god who knows the whole of space-time actually makes more sense - although that would be yet another blow (as if more were needed) to any notion of 'free will' from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
Well as soon as you try to give it a 'now' you are trying to embed it in space-time which is governed by relativity. The idea of a moment in time (such as 'now') doesn't make sense unless it is relative to something (in some frame of reference relative to other stuff) and, as you say, what would an omnipresent observer be relative to - how would you define its frame of reference? Which is exactly the problem I've been trying to describe.
Sounds more like a quantum mechanics question than a relativity one (perhaps relating to the vexed question of what constitutes an observation?). It rings a vague bell but I don't recall any details, do you have a link?
* There is actually no concept of 'now' in accepted physics at all - what I'm talking about is identifying a single moment in time that might be regarded as now. As far as physics is concerned 'now' has no more significance than 'here' (the two being bound together in space-time).
I take your points and certainly God knowing the whole of space and time is a trope in theology.
Nevertheless I have talked about all nows in acknowledgement of possible differences.
What I don't find clear is whether any location has an actual future and whether that future actually exists. Therefore my general point is that the future does not exist even for an omnipresent observer.
Are we perchance in agreement.
-
Nevertheless I have talked about all nows in acknowledgement of possible differences.
I'm obviously not getting this across. I assume by all 'nows' you mean god would know everything about every observer's now. Here is the problem: if we consider one reference frame at one point in time - call it X - then the immediate future of X (say X in ten minutes time) is already in the past of another (equally valid) reference frame.
There is an example that illustrates the point. If two people, A and B, walk past each other on Earth at a time T, their relative velocities mean that what happened simultaneous to T in the Andromeda galaxy in A's reference frame differs from B's reference frame by several weeks*. So if T is 'now' - when is the 'now' in Andromeda that an omnipresent (but time located) god would be aware of?
It all makes sense for located observers because of the causality structure of space-time - no information can travel faster than light. An omnipresent observer screws that up bigtime and leads to contradictions. Information travelling faster than light leads to the same sort of problems as time travel (because it is time travel in a sense).
What I don't find clear is whether any location has an actual future and whether that future actually exists. Therefore my general point is that the future does not exist even for an omnipresent observer.
Are we perchance in agreement.
As I put in a footnote in a previous post - there really is no concept of a now in any fundamental physical theory. Even in Newtonian physics, 'now' has no more status that 'here'.
General Relativity stands as the theory of space and time (and it is very well tested) and it treats space-time as a manifold. Space and time are not separate - there is no flow of time and no 'now'. It's sometimes referred to as the 'block universe' picture, where all of space-time (the manifold) just is.
Of course, GR is still to be reconciled with quantum field theory so it isn't the last word, but the evidence supporting it means that it is at least a very, very good approximation to how space, time and gravity work.
* I don't guarantee the exact figures - I haven't done the sums or looked it up again - and I'm working from memory.
-
Cracking post, that, Stranger ;)
-
I'm obviously not getting this across. I assume by all 'nows' you mean god would know everything about every observer's now. Here is the problem: if we consider one reference frame at one point in time - call it X - then the immediate future of X (say X in ten minutes time) is already in the past of another (equally valid) reference frame.
There is an example that illustrates the point. If two people, A and B, walk past each other on Earth at a time T, their relative velocities mean that what happened simultaneous to T in the Andromeda galaxy in A's reference frame differs from B's reference frame by several weeks*. So if T is 'now' - when is the 'now' in Andromeda that an omnipresent (but time located) god would be aware of?
It all makes sense for located observers because of the causality structure of space-time - no information can travel faster than light. An omnipresent observer screws that up bigtime and leads to contradictions. Information travelling faster than light leads to the same sort of problems as time travel (because it is time travel in a sense).
As I put in a footnote in a previous post - there really is no concept of a now in any fundamental physical theory. Even in Newtonian physics, 'now' has no more status that 'here'.
General Relativity stands as the theory of space and time (and it is very well tested) and it treats space-time as a manifold. Space and time are not separate - there is no flow of time and no 'now'. It's sometimes referred to as the 'block universe' picture, where all of space-time (the manifold) just is.
Of course, GR is still to be reconciled with quantum field theory so it isn't the last word, but the evidence supporting it means that it is at least a very, very good approximation to how space, time and gravity work.
* I don't guarantee the exact figures - I haven't done the sums or looked it up again - and I'm working from memory.
No I get it however :
1: Is it relevant that observers A's frame of reference is ten minutes in front of observer Bs ?
2: In reality any observer is multilocated. Giving a simple example your left eye is in a different location to your right eye. Therefor, following your argument one eyes future will be ahead of the other.
3: If the above is true then we cannot argue that their cannot be omnilocation due to time difference
4: I agree that the frames of reference of all locations are not adequately represented by a flat sheet but they still can be linked to some kind of surface like a brane perhaps......or a manifold?
-
1: Is it relevant that observers A's frame of reference is ten minutes in front of observer Bs ?
If you want your omnipresent observer to have a defined 'now' then, yes.
I wrote quite a lot but then realized I wasn't really sure what your misunderstanding is, so please can you consider the question again? The A and B example wasn't about ten minutes, it was weeks - but if we consider a point even further away than Andromeda or things travelling much faster than walking pace, it can be as long as you want - years, decades, centuries, millennia even.
I'll repeat it here:-
There is an example that illustrates the point. If two people, A and B, walk past each other on Earth at a time T, their relative velocities mean that what happened simultaneous to T in the Andromeda galaxy in A's reference frame differs from B's reference frame by several weeks. So if T is 'now' - when is the 'now' in Andromeda that an omnipresent (but time located) god would be aware of?
In other words, if our omnipresent friend's now includes T, when is it's now in Andromeda?
I'll try to explain more, if there's anything you don't understand.
-
If you want your omnipresent observer to have a defined 'now' then, yes.
I wrote quite a lot but then realized I wasn't really sure what your misunderstanding is, so please can you consider the question again? The A and B example wasn't about ten minutes, it was weeks - but if we consider a point even further away than Andromeda or things travelling much faster than walking pace, it can be as long as you want - years, decades, centuries, millennia even.
I'll repeat it here:-
There is an example that illustrates the point. If two people, A and B, walk past each other on Earth at a time T, their relative velocities mean that what happened simultaneous to T in the Andromeda galaxy in A's reference frame differs from B's reference frame by several weeks. So if T is 'now' - when is the 'now' in Andromeda that an omnipresent (but time located) god would be aware of?
In other words, if our omnipresent friend's now includes T, when is it's now in Andromeda?
I'll try to explain more, if there's anything you don't understand.
I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.
For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer. You haven't even seem to notice that I have stopped using the word now because it vexes you so!
We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.
-
I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.
For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer.
We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.
I belive that your "notional omnilocated observer" is the equivalent of sticking your bare arse up at your car window whilst the bus load of pensioners drive past.
-
I belive that your "notional omnilocated observer" is the equivalent of sticking your bare arse up at your car window whilst the bus load of pensioners drive past.
That would be a fair representation of the space time manifold involved.
-
I am not questioning your science Stranger but you seem to have abandoned my interest in it for your interest in it. I feel you have ignored my points.
For example my point about an observer being effectively multilocated since they have two eyes in two locations has been lost by you. The multi location of a single observer allows IMV a notional omnilocated observer. You haven't even seem to notice that I have stopped using the word now because it vexes you so!
We are now talking at cross purposes therefore. I believe you are what they call "showing off on the beach" I'm impressed but it isn't the point.
It's up to you Vlad, but I'm genuinely trying to explain something to you.
The point with all observers be multi-located is to do with scale. There is an absolute scale involved that is defined by the speed of light. The natural 'fuzziness' in our perception of 'now' caused by the time it takes to gather and process information is far, far larger than any relativistic effects. This is because the time it takes for light to travel between our ears (or eyes) is far, far less than the aforementioned processing time.
In that sense our notion of 'now' is spread out over time.
If you want your omnipresent observer to have information gathering and processing times comparable with the time it takes light to travel across the entire universe, then the same could be true of it - but I'm assuming that you want your god to be able to perceive and think somewhat faster than that?
The basic problem is that space and time aren't separate things. Things can only be located in time to the extent that they are located in space. The bigger something is, the more the notion of a single moment for it is 'spread out' in time - the concept of a single moment will diverge across its spacial dimensions.
So please, if you are actually interested it would help if you tried to answer the question. Alternatively, ask another of your own or give up.
-
It's up to you Vlad, but I'm genuinely trying to explain something to you.
The point with all observers be multi-located is to do with scale. There is an absolute scale involved that is defined by the speed of light. The natural 'fuzziness' in our perception of 'now' caused by the time it takes to gather and process information is far, far larger than any relativistic effects. This is because the time it takes for light to travel between our ears (or eyes) is far, far less than the aforementioned processing time.
In that sense our notion of 'now' is spread out over time.
If you want your omnipresent observer to have information gathering and processing times comparable with the time it takes light to travel across the entire universe, then the same could be true of it - but I'm assuming that you want your god to be able to perceive and think somewhat faster than that?
The basic problem is that space and time aren't separate things. Things can only be located in time to the extent that they are located in space. The bigger something is, the more the notion of a single moment for it is 'spread out' in time - the concept of a single moment will diverge across its spacial dimensions.
So please, if you are actually interested it would help if you tried to answer the question. Alternatively, ask another of your own or give up.
I have no issue with any of the above.
None of it though negates multi and omnilocation. Secondly we don't know that not having a single moment rather it being spread out over time is a problem. Given that we are multiilocated and you have acknowledged that....it seems to present no problem with us. Since God is in all locations and is a unity God is omniscient under these circumstances.
And there is still the question of the universe being its own observer.
Thank you for your exposition of the science though which has inspired me to revisit reading around the subject.
A most refreshing and rewarding discussion.
-
Secondly we don't know that not having a single moment rather it being spread out over time is a problem. Given that we are multiilocated and you have acknowledged that....it seems to present no problem with us. Since God is in all locations and is a unity God is omniscient under these circumstances.
Now I'm confused.
Surely the point of all this was the notion that god might not know the future? If its 'now' is spread out over vast amounts of time (possibly all of time - it gets complicated with the whole universe, which may be infinite in extent), then at least all of human history would all be in its 'now' which rather negates the point, doesn't it?
-
Now I'm confused.
Surely the point of all this was the notion that god might not know the future? If its 'now' is spread out over vast amounts of time (possibly all of time - it gets complicated with the whole universe, which may be infinite in extent), then at least all of human history would all be in its 'now' which rather negates the point, doesn't it?
That would not be a bad summary of omnipresence nor omniscience. In fact that is where I think I came in.
Since this is mainly a science mash with some divine attributes I still find myself fascinated still by the future.
We have hazarded that an omni located observer would have all of history in its now. If all of history is all there is Then by that observer if it is known then we have omniscience. If there is an existent future though we may not. But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.
-
That would not be a bad summary of omnipresence nor omniscience. In fact that is where I think I came in.
Since this is mainly a science mash with some divine attributes I still find myself fascinated still by the future.
We have hazarded that an omni located observer would have all of history in its now. If all of history is all there is Then by that observer if it is known then we have omniscience. If there is an existent future though we may not. But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.
the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist
Stephen Hawking
-
the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist
Stephen Hawking
I'm inclined to agree.
-
I'm inclined to agree.
hmmm, whether you agree or not is irrelevant, 'andles.
-
But does the future exist? How do we know there is one monolithic block of past, present, future or whether it is a growing block.
Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?
-
the future only exists in our minds, the laws of physics allows for the whole universe to suddenly without warning, to instantaneously no longer exist
Stephen Hawking
Assuming this is a genuine Hawking quote, some context would probably help (reference perhaps?).
-
Assuming this is a genuine Hawking quote, some context would probably help (reference perhaps?).
no, its me paraphrasing , should have made that more clear . I think its in his book A Brief History of Time , which I cant lay my hands on at the moment.
-
Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?
Never mind back to the start. Does your/theirs/anybody's theory establish that anybody's future exists?
And if it does exist how can it be examined empirically?
-
Stranger,
Back to the start. Relativity is the only tested theory of space, time, and gravity we have and it suggests the block universe (a four dimensional manifold). The problem with a growing block is, as there is no universal time, how do we define a 'now' from which it can grow?
Quite. When someone talks about the "now", "past" and "future" in this context I always want to ask whose "now", "past", and "future"?
I concur with torri by the way - a fist class series of posts from you recently. Thank you.
-
Does your/theirs/anybody's theory establish that anybody's future exists?
At the risk of repeating myself...
In terms of the science we have General Relativity as the theory of space and time*. The structure of the theory is such that it is impossible to divide the whole space-time manifold up into past, present and future.
Even if we pick one event (point in space-time), although we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past, we are left with a whole region of events that are space-like separated from it and might be in its future or past depending on what reference frame we look at things from.
Since we can't even identify "The Future", it is difficult to se how we could give it a different status from the past or present.
And if it does exist how can it be examined empirically?
It's not that we can empirically examine the future, it's that our empirical investigation of the nature of space and time has led us to construct a model that rules out assigning a different status to "The Future" simply because "The Future" isn't actually a thing.
* Leaving aside some eccentric conjectures, even hypotheses aimed at unifying GR with QFT (string theory, loop quantum gravity etc.) approximate to GR at 'low' energies.
-
At the risk of repeating myself...
In terms of the science we have General Relativity as the theory of space and time*. The structure of the theory is such that it is impossible to divide the whole space-time manifold up into past, present and future.
Even if we pick one event (point in space-time), although we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past, we are left with a whole region of events that are space-like separated from it and might be in its future or past depending on what reference frame we look at things from.
Since we can't even identify "The Future", it is difficult to se how we could give it a different status from the past or present.
It's not that we can empirically examine the future, it's that our empirical investigation of the nature of space and time has led us to construct a model that rules out assigning a different status to "The Future" simply because "The Future" isn't actually a thing.
Hang on a) This seems to evade a straight answer to the question does it exist b) surely if the future is not empirically examinable it doesn't exist as such. c) if the space time manifold is inscrutable in common sense terms i.e. it proposes existence i.e. ''past, present and future are indistinguishable in the space time manifold'' of some element blended with the space time manifold which is unable to be empirically examined!
If we are to accept something like this then we can chuck out empiricism!!!
-
At the risk of repeating myself...
if we pick one event (point in space-time), ............. we can identify other events that are unambiguously in its future and others that are unambiguously in its past,
Can you provide an example of this?
-
Stranger,
Don't say I didn't warn you. You can explain why "the" future is a misnomer until you're blue in the proverbial, but he'll keep repeating it as if you'd said nothing at all.
-
Stranger,
Don't say I didn't want you. Is this an appropriate place for personal affairs?
You can explain why "the" future is a misnomer until you're blue in the proverbial, but he'll keep repeating it as if you'd said nothing at all.
A misnomer for what?......and yes I am testing your grasp of what stranger has said.
-
Hang on a) This seems to evade a straight answer to the question does it exist b) surely if the future is not empirically examinable it doesn't exist as such. c) if the space time manifold is inscrutable in common sense terms i.e. it proposes existence i.e. ''past, present and future are indistinguishable in the space time manifold'' of some element blended with the space time manifold which is unable to be empirically examined!
If we are to accept something like this then we can chuck out empiricism!!!
I think you've misunderstood the nature of the scientific method. General Relativity is a good empirical theory because it makes accurate predictions of the results of experiments and observations. The most recent being the detection of gravity waves.
Modern scientific theory is full of concepts that are "inscrutable in common sense terms" and constructs that cannot be directly examined. If you're having trouble with GR, I'm assuming you've never tried to understand quantum mechanics, in which the most fundamental description of a system, the wave function, is inherently unobservable and laughs in the face of "common sense".
The test - the only test - of a scientific theory, is that it makes falsifiable predictions that can distinguish it from any rival hypotheses and that said predictions are proved to be correct. The more such tests it is subjected to, the more confidence we can have in the theory.
In those terms, GR is a very good theory indeed.
Can you provide an example of this?
I have to go get on with life now - I'll see if I can dig out a diagram or something later...
-
I think you've misunderstood the nature of the scientific method. General Relativity is a good empirical theory because it makes accurate predictions of the results of experiments and observations. The most recent being the detection of gravity waves.
Modern scientific theory is full of concepts that are "inscrutable in common sense terms" and constructs that cannot be directly examined. If you're having trouble with GR, I'm assuming you've never tried to understand quantum mechanics, in which the most fundamental description of a system, the wave function, is inherently unobservable and laughs in the face of "common sense".
The test - the only test - of a scientific theory, is that it makes falsifiable predictions that can distinguish it from any rival hypotheses and that said predictions are proved to be correct. The more such tests it is subjected to, the more confidence we can have in the theory.
In those terms, GR is a very good theory indeed.
I have to go get on with life now - I'll see if I can dig out a diagram or something later...
Again the science of what you are saying is sound but as it is not relevant to some of the points I am making i.e. not all my questions have received answers. it is as they say ''showing off on the beach''.
It seems convenient that you seem to have wrapped up past, present and future indistinguishably in the space time manifold which itself must be the mother and father of mysteries wrapped up in an enigma.....having said that I think we are leaning towards futureS.....since there is no ''the'' future....... being theoretical at present.
-
. not all my questions have received answers
Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............
-
Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............
Phew......assurance that no antitheist comedians are around.
-
Again the science of what you are saying is sound but as it is not relevant to some of the points I am making i.e. not all my questions have received answers. it is as they say ''showing off on the beach''.
Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.
It seems convenient that you seem to have wrapped up past, present and future indistinguishably in the space time manifold which itself must be the mother and father of mysteries wrapped up in an enigma...
It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.
...having said that I think we are leaning towards futureS.....since there is no ''the'' future....... being theoretical at present.
Futures is a bit more like it.
I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg705539#msg705539):-
Space-time Event (http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sr-F-04-04.gif)
Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.
It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E1 is in O's future, whereas E3 can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.
As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.
-
Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.
It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.
Futures is a bit more like it.
I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg705539#msg705539):-
Space-time Event (http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sr-F-04-04.gif)
Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.
It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E1 is in O's future, whereas E3 can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.
As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.
Stranger, he can't even get his head around secularism and now you're trying to explain relativity to Vlad, I wish you the very best of luck with that one.
If you do manage to give him a basic understanding of relativity, it might be a good idea for you to set yourself up as a deity of some kind, I'd certainly think about joining.
Kind regards ippy
-
Have you thought that it might be you not being very clear about what you are asking? The problem is that you keep on saying stuff like "the science of what you are saying is sound" or something else that implies that you get what I'm saying and then you ask something that suggests that you don't get it at all.
It's somewhat counter-intuitive is all - it's the epitome of clarity compared to QM/QFT. It's a perfectly self-consistent mathematical construct that predicts the results of experiments and observation with incredible accuracy.
Futures is a bit more like it.
I found this diagram that illustrates what I was saying in #317 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14800.msg705539#msg705539):-
Space-time Event (http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sr-F-04-04.gif)
Obviously 'space' has been reduced to one dimension in order to fit space-time on a 2d diagram.
It depicts a space-time event O (a single point in space at a single instant in time), and its relationship with space and time. The fixed points of reference are the paths that light takes (marked "light-like"), not fixed space and time axes (which are always relative to an observer). The upper time-like region is O's unambiguous future, the lower time-like region is its past. Any events in the space-like region are not unambiguously in O's past or future, it depends on the observer's reference frame. So E1 is in O's future, whereas E3 can be in its future or its past depending on the observer.
As you can see, the further into O's future you go, the more 'space' is included - its unambiguous future spreads out at the speed of light. Likewise, the further away from the event you go, the more 'time' the space-like region incorporates.
Who doesn't get it when you talk about no real universal future and unambiguous futures?
-
Seb,
Hahahahahahahahahahauahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...............
Actually Vlad’s post was something of a collector’s piece in that he actually got something right – not all his posts have been replied to. I’d guesstimate that about 95% are though (as opposed to the 0% of question that he answers) which he then either ignores or misrepresents so as to attack his own straw men. That’s what trolls rely on – replies – while never, ever contributing anything themselves.
-
He was SteveH.
Who elsewhere started a thread on "Non-realist Christianity", stating that "this was where he was nowadays". So WTF he's arguing about 'omnipotence' seems to say the least, surprising. Okay for a thought experiment or a bit of nerdy intellectualism, but if you're not actually arguing for something you believe in yourself, a bit onanistic.
This thread has at least generated some interesting comments.
Just to remind you:
Let's face it - in this scientific age, the arguments for the existence of God don't bear much scrutiny, and the arguments against are hard to counter, in particular the existence of suffering: not all suffering, which is probably inevitable in a material universe, but the built-in suffering, such as parasitic worms, some of which cause hideous suffering to their hosts, but have to do so in order to live themselves; also horrendous genetic diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy, epidermolysis bullosa, and proteus syndrome.
However, human beings have a religious capacity and need (not every single human, before some smart-arse says "I dont!", but humans in general), so why not practice religion - Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever - without pretending that it is a true account of the world: treat it, as it were, as artrather than science? That, essentially, is the non-realist position, espoused by Don Cupitt and others, and foreshadowed by Paul Tillich, and is where I am nowadays.
Thoughts? Come on, traditionalists - try to argue me back into belief in an objectively-existing God!
(A L'Eau c'est l'heure)
-
Who elsewhere started a thread on "Non-realist Christianity", stating that "this was where he was nowadays". So WTF he's arguing about 'omnipotence' seems to say the least, surprising. Okay for a thought experiment or a bit of nerdy intellectualism, but if you're not actually arguing for something you believe in yourself, a bit onanistic.
This thread has at least generated some interesting comments.
Just to remind you:
(A L'Eau c'est l'heure)
I started this thread to ponder what omnipotence might mean. I don't think I said that I actually believed in the objective existence of an omnipotent (in any sense) God. However, I tend to drift between non-realism and process theology - sometimes one, sometimes the other.