Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

*No brainer.

Vlad’s latest member name reincarnation perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lucretius, Bentham, Spinoza, Hume, Mill, Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche, Russell, Einstein…

As far as I know Russell was very much ''don't go there on this question''. Did Marx have a cosmology?, Not sure about that.
Admit it you are just realing off the atheist ''philosophers'' again

[Walt Zingmatilder]

His answer was actually philosophy. However, as philosophers are divided on the subject, that doesn't seem to be working out very well either. His favoured example, Edward Feser, is a bit of a joke.

For those who have an hour and five minutes to kill, here is Feser's video outlining the so called argument being discussed: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD.

I can't say I recommend it because it's very tedious and contrived but it shows the sort of BS that takes in Vlad and (one assumes) other theists who imagine philosophy can justify their beliefs.

What is truly telling of the contrived nature of Feser's 'arguments' is that his 'reasoning' for the characteristics of god (intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, omniscience) would apply just as well (badly) to the mathematical laws of physics (theory of everything, whatever that may be) if we were to take them as fundamental.

It's interesting to compare to Max Tegmark's mathematical universe conjecture. Despite some claims, this appears to be totally untestable and unfalsifiable, so hardly counts as science. However, at least its logic is self-consistent and uncontrived. Mathematics (or perhaps just self-consistency) also seems (to me, at least) a far more reasonable candidate for Feser's "end to the hierarchy" or "uncaused cause"...

What we need from you Stranger is a video of the refutation of Feser or any refutation. But you've already admitted there is nothing that has more power since as you say philosophers are divided. You are shaking hands with the argument that any counterargument is a knockdown one.

Besides which you seem to completely rubbish Feser on slender evidence in one part of the post and agree that there may be an end of hierarchy. You seem to be in two minds about how bollocks Feser is.

In terms of laws of physics Feser does talk about the logical errors of people who see them as the end of the hierarchy. This is on his own website

[bluehillside Retd.]

Well I'm sure your fan base on this forum love this kind of excursion from what we are discussing.

In which Vladdo made a statement about Russell, was shown to be wrong, then dismissed the correction as an "excursion".

Worse, though he rests his claims entirely on some vary bad arguments - first cause, objective morality etc - and then ignores or lies about their falsifications when they're given to him, he would in fact find them to be falsified too in the Russell lecture had he bothered to read it. Then again, as he shows no signs ever of having read even the authors he attempts to corral in support (or at least to have understood their arguments) that should surprise no-one I suppose.

Still, fun as it was watching him self-immolate once more, I'm off to find something more intellectually nourishing that Vladdism - YouTube videos of cats playing pianos perhaps.       

[Stranger]

What we need from you Stranger is a video of the refutation of Feser or any refutation.

...

Besides which you seem to completely rubbish Feser on slender evidence in one part of the post and agree that there may be an end of hierarchy. You seem to be in two minds about how bollocks Feser is.

I've already explained why Feser's argument is fundamentally flawed. He makes a very convoluted argument (probably because, for some reason, he wants to closely follow the Aristotelian argument) that basically boils down to "there must be some reason why things exist and change" - all the talk of cups being held up on tables and coffee cooling - is explained by physics, so we are left with a physical universe, following laws with no obvious reason why it exists.

He then makes a stab at characterizing the fundamental reason but the argument descends into total farce as soon as he tries to ascribe the attributes of god to said reason. It really is utterly ridiculous.

I have already pointed out that I could make a similar argument that this "end of hierarchy" is evil or amoral - that is every bit as valid as his argument that it is perfect.

I have also pointed out that if we just stop at the laws of physics, the so called 'arguments' he uses for intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience would apply just as 'well' to said laws - that are obviously not any of those things.

There is also the fact that he contradicts himself: if this "ultimate reason" has anything resembling a mind (as would be required for the Christian god), then he previously argued that even a lone mind would need the hierarchy to support it.

In summery, he points out a fundamental mystery of existence but it all falls apart and becomes total bollocks (as you put it) when he tries to identify the answer to this mystery with the Christian god.

But you've already admitted there is nothing that has more power since as you say philosophers are divided. You are shaking hands with the argument that any counterargument is a knockdown one.

In English?

In terms of laws of physics Feser does talk about the logical errors of people who see them as the end of the hierarchy. This is on his own website

He mentions this at the end of the talk I linked. However, his claim that the mathematical laws of physics only describe what exists and changes, doesn't rule out the Tegmark speculation that the mathematical laws are all there is - and Tegmark's reasoning doesn't decend into farce and self-contradiction.

I'm not saying that Tegmark is right but I am saying that Feser's argument is farcical from the point at which he tries to identify his "end of hierarchy" with the Christian god (or any other god in the normal sense of a being, who judges, plans, intervenes etc.).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've already explained why Feser's argument is fundamentally flawed. He makes a very convoluted argument (probably because, for some reason, he wants to closely follow the Aristotelian argument) that basically boils down to "there must be some reason why things exist and change" - all the talk of cups being held up on tables and coffee cooling - is explained by physics, so we are left with a physical universe, following laws with no obvious reason why it exists.

So you are knocking Feser for saying there must be some reasons for things and then proudly declare that physics wonderfully provides reasons for things.
Feser is on about the overall reason for the universe. Which you yourself acknowledge might not itself be end of the hierarchy which you call ''the unknown.''

In any case how far on is 'the ''No reason'' argument.

Also puzzlingly contradictory is your attempt to knock Feser for explaining this reason but tegmark is to be praised. God vilified, Mathematics OK.

So much for your refutation.

I move that the difficulties of Tegmark's thinking are at least of the same order as Feser. Since maths has similar properties to the classical philosophical God.
It is perfect, It is transcendent in that it is more than our observable universe, it is not affected by physical considerations, and the practice of mathematics in pure maths resembles religion.

Both Feser and Tegmark have the issue of how maths or god gives rise to a material universe although Feser is probably more cogent at this point and successful that such a thing is logical.

Of course, now you have the difficulty of saying that nothing like this exists when it's given the name God. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

So you are knocking Feser for saying there must be some reasons for things and then proudly declare that physics wonderfully provides reasons for things.

In which Vladdo misrepresents what Stranger actually said - there was no claim to an ultimate reason.

Feser is on about the overall reason for the universe. Which you yourself acknowledge might not itself be end of the hierarchy which you call ''the unknown.''

In which Vladdo conflates a claim of fact that something (“God”) is with the acknowledgement that anything might be and hopes no-one notices.   

In any case how far on is 'the ''No reason'' argument.

In which Vladdo collapses into incoherence.

Also puzzlingly contradictory…

In which Vladdo falsely asserts his premise to have been demonstrated.

…is your attempt to knock Feser for explaining this reason but tegmark is to be praised. God vilified, Mathematics OK.

In which Vladdo falsely conflates a claim of fact (Feser) with a hypothesis (Tegmark) and again hopes no-one notices.

So much for your refutation.

In which Vladdo gives both feet both barrels.

I move that the difficulties of Tegmark's thinking are at least of the same order as Feser. Since maths has similar properties to the classical philosophical God.

In which Vladdo repeats his earlier mistake, and fails to notice too that the Tegmark hyopthesis has at least the advantage over the Feser claim of fact of coherence.

It is perfect, It is transcendent in that it is more than our observable universe, it is not affected by physical considerations, and the practice of mathematics in pure maths resembles religion.

NURSE! NURSE!!!!

Both Feser and Tegmark have the issue of how maths or god gives rise to a material universe although Feser is probably more cogent at this point and successful that such a thing is logical.

Hysterical. Tegmark is logical; Feser is incoherent, contradictory and logically hopeless.

Of course, now you have the difficulty of saying that nothing like this exists when it's given the name God.

In which Vladdo commits his frequent error of adding the prefix “of course” when he’s about to make a particularly egregious mistake – in this case the shifting of the burden of proof. It’s the theist’s job to make a cogent argument for “God”, not the other way around.

Apart from all that though…

[Stranger]

So you are knocking Feser for saying there must be some reasons for things and then proudly declare that physics wonderfully provides reasons for things.
Feser is on about the overall reason for the universe. Which you yourself acknowledge might not itself be end of the hierarchy which you call ''the unknown.''

I can't help thinking this is either going over your head or that you are being deliberately obtuse.

The laws of nature do indeed explain things like cups being held up on tables and coffee cooling and all the other extraneous stuff that Feser seems to feel the need to include in his convoluted journey towards the basic question of existence.

We are then left with the question as to why these laws and why (as Steven Hawking put it) they go to all the trouble of existing. That is the unknown.

Also puzzlingly contradictory is your attempt to knock Feser for explaining this reason but tegmark is to be praised. God vilified, Mathematics OK.

So much for your refutation.

Both ideas can be nothing but guesswork - but (for about the fifth time) Feser's arguments are (as soon as he gets to the point of ascribing the attributes of god to his end of hierarchy) ridiculous, contrived, and self-contradictory. Tegmark's are straightforward and logically consistent.

I move that the difficulties of Tegmark's thinking are at least of the same order as Feser. Since maths has similar properties to the classical philosophical God.
It is perfect, It is transcendent in that it is more than our observable universe, it is not affected by physical considerations...

However, mathematics cannot be said to be morally good, omnipotent or omniscient, neither can it make plans, issue commandments, perform miracles, be incarnated as a man, sit in judgement, or provide a means of forgiveness.

Your definition of god seems to change to suit whatever argument is at hand; do actually have any idea at all of what you believe in?

...and the practice of mathematics in pure maths resembles religion.

Drivel.

Both Feser and Tegmark have the issue of how maths or god gives rise to a material universe although Feser is probably more cogent at this point and successful that such a thing is logical.

Feser is contradictory and ridiculious - and I've explained why several times now. Unless you are going to tackle what I've said directly, making the claim that Feser is more cogent is the equivelant of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA - I'M NOT LISTENING!

Of course, now you have the difficulty of saying that nothing like this exists when it's given the name God.

You are free to call a total unknown 'god' if you really want to but it would be hypocritical in the extreme after ascribing very specific attributes to god by agruing about its forgiveness through Jesus, sin and so on, as you were doing just a few posts ago...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Unless you are going to tackle what I've said directly...

He never will. Believe me, I've tried many, many times to get him to answer even a simple question but to no avail - it's a wonder he doesn't have terminal concussion what with the swing door hitting the back of his head every time he makes a quick exit when the going gets problematic. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't help thinking this is either going over your head or that you are being deliberately obtuse.

The laws of nature do indeed explain things like cups being held up on tables and coffee cooling and all the other extraneous stuff that Feser seems to feel the need to include in his convoluted journey towards the basic question of existence.

We are then left with the question as to why these laws and why (as Steven Hawking put it) they go to all the trouble of existing. That is the unknown.

Both ideas can be nothing but guesswork - but (for about the fifth time) Feser's arguments are (as soon as he gets to the point of ascribing the attributes of god to his end of hierarchy) ridiculous, contrived, and self-contradictory. Tegmark's are straightforward and logically consistent.

However, mathematics cannot be said to be morally good, omnipotent or omniscient, neither can it make plans, issue commandments, perform miracles, be incarnated as a man, sit in judgement, or provide a means of forgiveness.

Your definition of god seems to change to suit whatever argument is at hand; do actually have any idea at all of what you believe in?

Drivel.

Feser is contradictory and ridiculious - and I've explained why several times now. Unless you are going to tackle what I've said directly, making the claim that Feser is more cogent is the equivelant of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA - I'M NOT LISTENING!

You are free to call a total unknown 'god' if you really want to but it would be hypocritical in the extreme after ascribing very specific attributes to god by agruing about its forgiveness through Jesus, sin and so on, as you were doing just a few posts ago...

Fesers aim is to not go nuclear and demonstrate that in the hierarchy which has a top end he describes there is a bottom rung explanation and explains what the characteristic of that must be. These things are necessary to outline what is in the hierarchy.
Like the naughty or dim pupil you either did not pick up on that or you are suppressing that aspect. Fesers end of hierarchy is in the end of hierarchy.
Tegmark recapitulates Feser because mathematics has the same attributes in Tegmarks scheme of things as what Feser derives. You yourself have noticed the similarities between Feser and Tegmark.

You seem to not be aware of this.
Also if maths has the same characteristics as God you cannot argue that the same attributes cannot exist if instead of the word maths we use the word God.

Your entertainment of Tegmark is what puts you in opposition to Hillside who I'm sure will be horrified if he knew what Tegmark was proposing.

In other words this is another iteration that the multiverse suffers the same problems as God.

Feser also is what they call a neo aristotelean.

You are trying to gussy up ''the unknown'' into a knockdown argument. That isn't a good sign.

You say Tegmark is logically coherent but haven't said how he gets from maths to physics?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo misrepresents what Stranger actually said - there was no claim to an ultimate reason.

In which Vladdo conflates a claim of fact that something (“God”) is with the acknowledgement that anything might be and hopes no-one notices.   

In which Vladdo collapses into incoherence.

In which Vladdo falsely asserts his premise to have been demonstrated.

In which Vladdo falsely conflates a claim of fact (Feser) with a hypothesis (Tegmark) and again hopes no-one notices.

In which Vladdo gives both feet both barrels.

In which Vladdo repeats his earlier mistake, and fails to notice too that the Tegmark hyopthesis has at least the advantage over the Feser claim of fact of coherence.

NURSE! NURSE!!!!

Hysterical. Tegmark is logical; Feser is incoherent, contradictory and logically hopeless.

In which Vladdo commits his frequent error of adding the prefix “of course” when he’s about to make a particularly egregious mistake – in this case the shifting of the burden of proof. It’s the theist’s job to make a cogent argument for “God”, not the other way around.

Apart from all that though…

Unfortunately Stranger has misrepresented what Feser is saying (see my response). There is no reference to a rebuttal of Feser available to you Stranger's rebuttals have been demonstrated to be flawed by me.
Tegmark effectively is making similar claims to Feser. It is not a hypothesis Hillside. If it were an hypothesis he would be able to test it.
Therefore Tegmark is actuallycovering the same ground as Feser and therefore will not be able to avoid the same conclusions.
regarding Tegmark's coherence how does he proposed the physical came about from the mathematical.

[Stranger]

Tegmark recapitulates Feser because mathematics has the same attributes in Tegmarks scheme of things as what Feser derives.

Once again, you've ignored what I said. Mathematics does not have the attributes that Feser artificially contrives to give his end of hierarchy (intelligence, omnipotence, omniscience, thoughts, etc.), in order to fit with his pre-decided end point.

Also if maths has the same characteristics as God...

It doesn't - not unless you strip god of the characteristics you were arguing about just a few posts ago: judgement, forgiveness via Jesus, moral goodness and so on. Neither is it (in any normal sense of the words) omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, or have any 'thoughts' (despite the fact that Feser's contrived arguments for these attributes are equally (in)applicable to it.

You are trying to gussy up ''the unknown'' into a knockdown argument. That isn't a good sign.

Drivel - I have explained multiple times why I think Feser is wrong and you continue to ignore it - just as bluehillside predicted you would.

You say Tegmark is logically coherent but haven't said how he gets from maths to physics?

It's a simple enough idea: our entire description of physics at its most basic level is mathematics - his proposal is just that it might actually be mathematics and in fact that all mathematical systems exist.

As I said, it's untestable and unfalsifiable (so not science as yet) but it is self-consistent, straightforward, and consistent with what we observe. It is not ridiculously contrived and self-contradictory, like Feser.

There is no reference to a rebuttal of Feser available to you Stranger's rebuttals have been demonstrated to be flawed by me.

This is a blatantly untrue - you have not even addressed my criticisms of Feser, you've just ignored them.

I do not intend to repeat myself endlessly to someone who ignores what I say and then falsely claims to have shown it to be flawed. You need to work on your comprehension, reading skills, or honesty because one or more of them is severely lacking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, you've ignored what I said. Mathematics does not have the attributes that Feser artificially contrives to give his end of hierarchy (intelligence, omnipotence, omniscience, thoughts, etc.), in order to fit with his pre-decided end point.

It doesn't - not unless you strip god of the characteristics you were arguing about just a few posts ago: judgement, forgiveness via Jesus, moral goodness and so on. Neither is it (in any normal sense of the words) omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, or have any 'thoughts' (despite the fact that Feser's contrived arguments for these attributes are equally (in)applicable to it.

Drivel - I have explained multiple times why I think Feser is wrong and you continue to ignore it - just as bluehillside predicted you would.

It's a simple enough idea: our entire description of physics at its most basic level is mathematics - his proposal is just that it might actually be mathematics and in fact that all mathematical systems exist.

As I said, it's untestable and unfalsifiable (so not science as yet) but it is self-consistent, straightforward, and consistent with what we observe. It is not ridiculously contrived and self-contradictory, like Feser.

This is a blatantly untrue - you have not even addressed my criticisms of Feser, you've just ignored them.

I do not intend to repeat myself endlessly to someone who ignores what I say and then falsely claims to have shown it to be flawed. You need to work on your comprehension, reading skills, or honesty because one or more of them is severely lacking.

Your approach forbids Feser from using what we observe to build the case So yet again you've ended up with what is lionised in Tegmark is a vice in Feser.

Again if Tegmark's was what you claim for it, self-consistent, straightforward, and consistent with what we observe,  he will have an explanation of how the physical arises from the mathematical.
You have failed to present which indicates you are misrepresenting Tegmark as well as Feser..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a simple enough idea: our entire description of physics at its most basic level is mathematics - his proposal is just that it might actually be mathematics and in fact that all mathematical systems exist.

Pathetic attempt to show anything that might justify his proposal. We are still left wondering how all this is logical and consistent and not vague wooly and evasive as your presentation of it.

Having said that I like Tegmark and what he needs is a bit of Feser.......and with that, I'm off for a cocoa. Nice rapping with you

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fesers aim is to not go nuclear and demonstrate that in the hierarchy which has a top end he describes there is a bottom rung explanation and explains what the characteristic of that must be.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that there’s no “must be” about it (and certainly not by assertion), and that any characteristics there “must be” are special pleading that may as well be applied to “the universe”.

These things are necessary to outline what is in the hierarchy.

In which Vladdo hopes once again that assertion can take the place of argument.

Like the naughty or dim pupil you either did not pick up on that or you are suppressing that aspect. Fesers end of hierarchy is in the end of hierarchy.

Like a troll or an even dimmer pupil, here Vladdo drives a coach and four through rational analysis. Again.

Tegmark recapitulates Feser because mathematics has the same attributes in Tegmarks scheme of things as what Feser derives.

In which Vladdo just lies and hopes no-on will notice. Tegmark’s hypothesis has none of the characteristics of Feser’s claims of fact about a supposed god.   

You yourself have noticed the similarities between Feser and Tegmark.

In which Vladdo just lies again, apparently indifferent to the fact that the lie is readily checked – in this case by reading that the only comments have been about the differences between them, not any supposed similarities.   

You seem to not be aware of this.

In which Vladdo hopes that asserting the lieswill somehow stop it being a lie.

Also…

In which Vladdo yet again assumes his premise – there is no “also”…

…if maths has the same characteristics as God…

In which Vladdo posits a ludicrousness that no-one but him has proposed. Will Maths cure little Timmy of rickets if his parents pray to it hard enough?

…you cannot argue that the same attributes cannot exist if instead of the word maths we use the word God.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that a failed premise leads to a failed conclusion.

Your entertainment of Tegmark is what puts you in opposition to Hillside who I'm sure will be horrified if he knew what Tegmark was proposing.

In which Vladdo returns as a dog to its vomit to one of his favourites, the straw man.

In other words this is another iteration that the multiverse suffers the same problems as God.

In which Vladdo fires up the random word generator once again…

Feser also is what they call a neo aristotelean.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that philosophy has developed hugely since Aristotle.

You are trying to gussy up ''the unknown'' into a knockdown argument. That isn't a good sign.

In which Vladdo hopes that flat out lying (again) will help him. It won’t.

You say Tegmark is logically coherent but haven't said how he gets from maths to physics?

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that physics essentially is maths, applied to the natural world.

Epic, epic fail even by Vladdo’s dismal standards.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Unfortunately Stranger has misrepresented what Feser is saying (see my response).

Vladdo’s response has been seen, and found to be entirely false. Stranger has done no such thing.

There is no reference to a rebuttal of Feser available to you…

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that Feser’s efforts have been readily (and comprehensively) rebutted here several times.

Stranger's rebuttals have been demonstrated to be flawed by me.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that asserting arguments to be flawed is not the same as demonstrating them actually to be flawed, especially when those assertions rest entirely on lies and misrepresentations.
 

Tegmark effectively is making similar claims to Feser.

In which Vladdo still hopes that lying will come to his rescue.

It is not a hypothesis Hillside. If it were an hypothesis he would be able to test it.

In which Vladdo demonstrates that he doesn’t know what “hypothesis” means, and ignores too the additional problem of Feser skipping the stage entirely to go straight to (supposed) fact.

Therefore…

In which yet again Vladdo assumes his premise. There is no “therefore”.

Tegmark is actuallycovering the same ground as Feser and therefore will not be able to avoid the same conclusions.

Wouldn’t it be nice if Vladdo could at least try to stop lying – just this once maybe?
 

…regarding Tegmark's coherence how does he proposed the physical came about from the mathematical.

In which Vladdo fails to understand that maths is a tool that describes, models and predicts the material.   

[Robbie]

Thought you'd left.

[Stranger]

Your approach forbids Feser from using what we observe to build the case So yet again you've ended up with what is lionised in Tegmark is a vice in Feser.

Untrue in every respect.

Once again you've totally misrepresented what I've said and completely ignored my actual arguments. I don't know why I'm bothering but here it is again...

I can live with Feser's convoluted and unnecessary stuff about tables, cups, and coffee, which is just a longwinded way of saying that something exists and is (apparently) following some (mathematical) laws of nature.

We don't know what it is, why it exists, or why it behaves as it does but, presumably, there must be a reason. That is the mystery he then takes on. From this moment on, we are into speculation, which is not a bad thing per se, and some of what he says about this 'end of hierarchy' is fair enough.

It's when he tries to attribute the characteristics of thoughts, intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience to it that it becomes hopelessly contrived. One can see that it is flawed from the fact that logically, his 'arguments' for these attributes could be applied, with equal (in)validity, directly to the laws of nature themselves and, quite clearly, a set of abstract laws do not have those attributes in any normal sense of the words.

Those characteristics (if we were to accept them) pretty much define this 'end of hierarchy' as a mind - and if we then add the other attributes of the Christian god that he doesn't mention (morally good, able to plan, sit in judgement, offer forgiveness, be incarnated as a man, and so on), we are clearly dealing with a mind. This is a direct contradiction of one of his starting points, where he argues that even a lone, disembodied mind needs the hierarchy, that this god is supposed to be the end of.

Those are my objections to Feser - none of which apply to Tegmark's speculation, that the mathematical laws are all that there is and that all mathematical systems exist (a sort of Platonism).

I'm not trying to argue that Tegmark is right - just that he addresses the same mystery without the hopelessly contrived and obviously wrong attributes and without the contradiction.

That's it. I'll clarify if you don't understand anything and ask questions but I'm not going to go on repeating it just because you ignore it or misrepresent it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robbie,

Thought you'd left.

Me? I have - only Matron lets me have the key to the computer room once a week provided I don't wake the other residents by tripping over their slippers, discarded copies of The Racing Post etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Is maths contingent or necessary?

and another.

If everything in the universe is dependent on everything else, where can the universe draw it's independence from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

I'll clarify if you don't understand anything and ask questions but I'm not going to go on repeating it just because you ignore it or misrepresent it.

I admire your optimism...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Is maths contingent or necessary?

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that maths is just a human endeavour (poodles don’t do it) that concerns using patterns to devise conjectures and to determine their truth or otherwise. When mathematical models approximate observed phenomena, they can be used to describe nature.

and another.

If everything in the universe is dependent on everything else, where can the universe draw it's independence from?

In which Vladdo teeters on the brink of an argument from incredulity while failing to grasp that the rules of cause and effect that apply within a universe need not necessarily apply to a universe, and moreover that he may as well ask where his God "draws his independence from".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that maths is just a human endeavour (poodles don’t do it) that concerns using patterns to devise conjectures and to determine their truth or otherwise. When mathematical models approximate observed phenomena, they can be used to describe nature.

In which Vladdo teeters on the brink of an argument from incredulity while failing to grasp that the rules of cause and effect that apply within a universe need not necessarily apply to a universe, and moreover that he may as well ask where his God "draws his independence from".

Yep, thought so Hillside doesn't understand Tegmark yet praises his logic and coherence.
You couldn't make it up. I wonder if there's any more he doesn't really understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Untrue in every respect.

Once again you've totally misrepresented what I've said and completely ignored my actual arguments. I don't know why I'm bothering but here it is again...

I can live with Feser's convoluted and unnecessary stuff about tables, cups, and coffee, which is just a longwinded way of saying that something exists and is (apparently) following some (mathematical) laws of nature.

We don't know what it is, why it exists, or why it behaves as it does but, presumably, there must be a reason. That is the mystery he then takes on. From this moment on, we are into speculation, which is not a bad thing per se, and some of what he says about this 'end of hierarchy' is fair enough.

It's when he tries to attribute the characteristics of thoughts, intelligence, perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience to it that it becomes hopelessly contrived. One can see that it is flawed from the fact that logically, his 'arguments' for these attributes could be applied, with equal (in)validity, directly to the laws of nature themselves and, quite clearly, a set of abstract laws do not have those attributes in any normal sense of the words.

Those characteristics (if we were to accept them) pretty much define this 'end of hierarchy' as a mind - and if we then add the other attributes of the Christian god that he doesn't mention (morally good, able to plan, sit in judgement, offer forgiveness, be incarnated as a man, and so on), we are clearly dealing with a mind. This is a direct contradiction of one of his starting points, where he argues that even a lone, disembodied mind needs the hierarchy, that this god is supposed to be the end of.

Those are my objections to Feser - none of which apply to Tegmark's speculation, that the mathematical laws are all that there is and that all mathematical systems exist (a sort of Platonism).

I'm not trying to argue that Tegmark is right - just that he addresses the same mystery without the hopelessly contrived and obviously wrong attributes and without the contradiction.

That's it. I'll clarify if you don't understand anything and ask questions but I'm not going to go on repeating it just because you ignore it or misrepresent it.

Or mind is an analogy of what God is though working in real time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yep, thought so Hillside doesn't understand Tegmark yet praises his logic and coherence.
You couldn't make it up. I wonder if there's any more he doesn't really understand.

In which yet again Vladdo conflates assertion with argument.