Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which yet again Vladdo conflates assertion with argument.

That God is a disembodied mind operating in real time therefore needing a hierarchy is not then Hillside?

[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.

Feser establishes a hierarchy with a beginning and an end in which there are derived and actual .
That is an unbroken logical chain. Feser never denies current science Tegmarkis actually saying the same thing since he says the universe is derived from maths.

You cannot deny to Feser what you are allowing in Tegmark.

Feser does have a party piece on disembodied brains rather than minds. I'm not sure what his Schlick is on that but a disembodied brain is not a disembodied mind.

[torridon]

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

I don't think the idea of God as disembodied mind makes sense.   Mind is a form is specialised and focused sentience that emerges from the collective sentience of its constituent parts; a God would not have parts.  Mind is subjective in a subject/object context.  This makes no sense where the subject is nul. That I am conscious is possible because there is a me to be a focal point of consciousness.

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-body-is-the-missing-link-for-truly-intelligent-machines

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which having been caught out (again) in a string of lies, misrepresentations, mistakes, fallacies and general gibberish old Vladdo just ignores all that and spits the dummy instead.

Surely there must be theists out there possessed of functioning intellects and arguments worthy of the name mustn't there?

Mustn't there?

A prime example of D W Sloans thesis that the New Atheistm is a stealth religion because of its distortion of reality.

[Gordon]

A prime example of D W Sloans thesis that the New Atheistm is a stealth religion because of its distortion of reality.

Any chance of a link?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any chance of a link?

https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-new-atheism-as-a-stealth-religion-five-years-later/
Should give you a flavour

[ProfessorDavey]

https://evolution-institute.org/article/the-new-atheism-as-a-stealth-religion-five-years-later/
Should give you a flavour

Interesting article - but the problem is the pejorative and selective use of the term 'Stealth Religion', plus of course similar for 'New Atheism' (not capitals), which is a term entirely invented by detractors.

But back to 'Stealth Religion' - David Sloan Wilson defines this as:

'any belief system that distorts the facts of the real world for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors'

Now, that definition, would apply to countless beliefs, from of vegetarianism, through Brexit (£350 million for the NHS) and indeed those brexiteers could throw the same accusation at remainers (project fear), through to committed fans of virtual any football team of teen-idol pop stars you might name.

So the key weapon in Wilson's hand is to accuse some atheists of being actually just another form of what they (in the eyes of some) despise, i.e. religion. But with a definition so broad as to comfortably cover hardened fans of Justin Beiber, the term becomes toothless and pointless. If everyone who is a rather blinkered advocate of something is a member of a 'Stealth Religion' then the attack is meaningless. But this distorts the normal use of the word 'religion' which requires some supernatural element to the worship. And once that word is used properly the Beiber fans (however blinkered), the Brexiteers (however wrong) and Dawkins etc aren't members of a religion, stealth or otherwise.

So Wilson can attack Dawkins and others - that's fine, but to call their movement a religion is muddled thinking.

[Stranger]

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

Whatever this is supposed to mean doesn't change the logical problem that Feser's 'arguments', for those aspects of god that he mentions, are equally (in)applicable to a set of abstract rules, so he totally fails to establish them in any meaningful way. Nor does it address all the other aspects of the Christian god that he conveniently doesn't mention. Neither does it address the fact that his 'end of hierarchy' would definitely be omni-responsible and amoral (if we were daft enough to accept his other nonsense and treat it as anything like the god he wants us to).

You cannot deny to Feser what you are allowing in Tegmark.

I'm not. You're ignoring my arguments again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whatever this is supposed to mean doesn't change the logical problem that Feser's 'arguments', for those aspects of god that he mentions, are equally (in)applicable to a set of abstract rules, so he totally fails to establish them in any meaningful way. Nor does it address all the other aspects of the Christian god that he conveniently doesn't mention. Neither does it address the fact that his 'end of hierarchy' would definitely be omni-responsible and amoral (if we were daft enough to accept his other nonsense and treat it as anything like the god he wants us to).

I'm not. You're ignoring my arguments again.

Firstly a set of abstract rules would not give rise to anything.
Secondly Feser is not trying here to say that this argument explains Christianity but theism. That it scotches the assertion that belief in God is unreasonable. This he makes clear in his blog. Trying to strip God of his traditional theological attributes in an act of historical revisionism is a standard antitheist ploy.
The argument is for theism not Christianity.

Finally you say Tegmark is platonic. Early Christian philosophy has a huge neo platonic component in it.
You cannot again allow one thing in Tegmark and announce its conclusions as a vice in Christian thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting article - but the problem is the pejorative and selective use of the term 'Stealth Religion', plus of course similar for 'New Atheism' (not capitals), which is a term entirely invented by detractors.

But back to 'Stealth Religion' - David Sloan Wilson defines this as:

'any belief system that distorts the facts of the real world for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors'

Now, that definition, would apply to countless beliefs, from of vegetarianism, through Brexit (£350 million for the NHS) and indeed those brexiteers could throw the same accusation at remainers (project fear), through to committed fans of virtual any football team of teen-idol pop stars you might name.

So the key weapon in Wilson's hand is to accuse some atheists of being actually just another form of what they (in the eyes of some) despise, i.e. religion. But with a definition so broad as to comfortably cover hardened fans of Justin Beiber, the term becomes toothless and pointless. If everyone who is a rather blinkered advocate of something is a member of a 'Stealth Religion' then the attack is meaningless. But this distorts the normal use of the word 'religion' which requires some supernatural element to the worship. And once that word is used properly the Beiber fans (however blinkered), the Brexiteers (however wrong) and Dawkins etc aren't members of a religion, stealth or otherwise.

So Wilson can attack Dawkins and others - that's fine, but to call their movement a religion is muddled thinking.

No, it isn't. A religion has certain characteristics shared by its followers. Wilson outlines what these characteristics are. You surely cannot not have heard the news that many many commentators of all persuasion have detected evangelical tendencies.

Wilso just firms that up and another thing is that just because lots of things have the same features doesn't mean that the stealth religion idea is wrong, Just that there are a lot of them.

I think we can say that the new atheism can be said to be a stealth world religion in that by its nature it has set itself up as a computer with other world views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A prime example of D W Sloans thesis that the New Atheistm is a stealth religion because of its distortion of reality.

In which Vladdo, having not only had his various lies, misrepresentations, fallacies etc explained to him line-by-line, and not only ignored all that as if it hadn't happened, and not only had the fact that he had ignored all that pointed out, then decides to accuse the person who undid him of a "distortion of reality".

You couldn't make it up!

Oh hang on though - he just did...

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it isn't. A religion has certain characteristics shared by its followers.

Which as a defining feature requires a supernatural element.

So, if you have a hugely strong, arguably blinkered political belief that doesn't make it a religion unless there is an element of the supernatural associated with it. So to be defined as a religion the 'characteristics shared by its followers' isn't its fervour, or even its blinkered-ness (although that may or may not be present) it is a belief in the supernatural. Without that it is completely inappropriate to describe a set of people with a strong (or even a weak) belief as a religion - otherwise Leeds United supporters would constitute a religion, as would Keynsian monetarists, or environmentalists - yet none are a religion as there is no required belief in a supernatural element defining those groups.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Which as a defining feature requires a supernatural element.

So, if you have a hugely strong, arguably blinkered political belief that doesn't make it a religion unless there is an element of the supernatural associated with it. So to be defined as a religion the 'characteristics shared by its followers' isn't its fervour, or even its blinkered-ness (although that may or may not be present) it is a belief in the supernatural. Without that it is completely inappropriate to describe a set of people with a strong (or even a weak) belief as a religion - otherwise Leeds United supporters would constitute a religion, as would Keynsian monetarists, or environmentalists - yet none are a religion as there is no required belief in a supernatural element defining those groups.

Quite. A religion requires a belief in and the worship of one or more supernatural entities. Vladdo is trying to junk that bit so as to stretch the meaning to include any polemical position - presumably as an exercise in whataboutism: "OK, religion might be idiotic but you're doing it too". It's desperate stuff, but hey...

[Stranger]

Firstly a set of abstract rules would not give rise to anything.

How do you know? We are talking about the reason for existence, nobody actually knows anything at all about it.

Secondly Feser is not trying here to say that this argument explains Christianity but theism. That it scotches the assertion that belief in God is unreasonable. This he makes clear in his blog. Trying to strip God of his traditional theological attributes in an act of historical revisionism is a standard antitheist ploy.
The argument is for theism not Christianity.

The point is that as soon as you add the characteristics of the Christian god - or any other interventionist god that interacts with its creation, makes moral judgements, answers prayer, and generally displays any characteristics of a thinking mind - you make Feser's argument self-contradictory.

You can't accept Freser's argument and believe in the Christian god. If his argument is valid (which it isn't - see below) then it would be an argument for deism not theism. Theism contradicts the argument.

Finally you say Tegmark is platonic. Early Christian philosophy has a huge neo platonic component in it.
You cannot again allow one thing in Tegmark and announce its conclusions as a vice in Christian thinking.

Once again, I'm not doing that, as I've explained several times.

We can actually use Tegmark to refute Feser. All you need to accept is that Tegmark's notion that we are actually in a Platonic mathematical structure (because all such structures exist) is a logical possibility. It doesn't need to be true or even probable, just logically possible.

I stand to be corrected but I can't see a way to logically rule it out.

We can then refute Feser using a reductio ad absurdum.
 
Remember that Feser is supposedly deducing the necessary characteristics of his 'end of hierarchy' without reference to what it is, so if mathematics can logically fit into that role, his arguments should apply to mathematics.

We do indeed find that some of his characteristics do fit (with the Platonic view of mathematics) - independent of space and time and so on. However, his supposed arguments for thoughts, intelligence, omnipotence, and omniscience should also apply.

This is plainly ridiculous. Mathematics doesn't know anything at all, it has no will, so cannot exercise any power at all. It plainly cannot think and is not intelligent in any way. It's a set of (necessary, in the Platonic view) logical constructs.

Therefore, Feser's arguments for these properties are invalid because they clearly do not apply to any possible 'end of hierarchy'; mathematics is a counterexample.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know? We are talking about the reason for existence, nobody actually knows anything at all about it.

We know because of definition Stranger. The description doesn't fit.
Secondly, If you are allowing an abstract law to be the prime actuator then you've run up the white flag since you've allowed an actuator. That it opens the door to abstract laws it allows holy writ and magic spells to be acceptable.

Platonic philosophy is not as counter to Aristotelian philosophy and both can be bedfellows.
They certainly are in the Christian tradition.

Fesers argument definitely does not support deism since the argument talks about an actuator for every moment. That is not deism.
Tegmark makes no contrary claim to theism in fact there is a way from Tegmark to theology.

[ippy]

Surly it doesn't matter how brilliant Vlad thinks any philosopher is, the philosopher can't be that brilliant if they think and actually believe there are some sort of supernatural arrangements involved with how life has started and carries on.

Most would think especially when spending so much time and effort on ideas that have little, nothing, or as near as you can get to zero evidence for any of these supernatural, hocus pocus ideas in the first place, that could, if there were any evidence for them, which in turn would make these so called philosophers efforts worth the trouble if they had in fact found anything to support them that was verifiable.

I don't see any value in trying to complete the thankless task of trying to persuade Vlad about any of the inns and outs about the thoughts these philosophers have unless it can be established, the said god of these people and the theists imagination really does provably exist. 

As I said before if these so called philosophers had anything even approaching a breakthrough we'd have heard about it.

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

Once again Vlad totally ignores the argument presented and resorts to unsupported assertion...

Fesers argument definitely does not support deism since the argument talks about an actuator for every moment. That is not deism.

As soon as this 'end of hierarchy' does anything like make a deliberate action, the argument becomes self-contradictory.

Tegmark makes no contrary claim to theism in fact there is a way from Tegmark to theology.

I have explained why the logical possibility of Tegmark's ideas refute Feser - unless you are going to address that and point out the errors and then provide the detail of how you think the two can be reconciled, this statement isn't worth its screen space...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,
 
A fair summation of all Vlad’s efforts here. I find the thought processes of a troll bewildering: does he see the rebuttals of his multiple mistakes and think, “oh bugger, I’ve crashed and burned again. OK, time to shift to standard operating procedure of just ignoring it, lying about it, insulting the person who said it” etc, or can he simply cannot process the words (Alan Burns style) so when his negative proof fallacies, argumenta ad consequentia, straw men etc (and wearyingly etc) are explained all he sees is white noise?

It’s very odd either way.

Nobody knows what it is is not exactly a knock down argument. Tegmark proposes a reason for the universe which is not subject to the universe and Stranger proposes that an abstract set of laws can give rise to the universe leaving the door open for Holy Writ and Dumbledore's book of Advanced Spells.

 The white flag has been run up Hillside.....

Now the last time that something like this happened when atheism took a nasty blow to the cojones , I seem to remember was when Neil De GrasseTyson proposed( fade up end signiature tune)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

A fair summation of all Vlad’s efforts here. I find the thought processes of a troll bewildering: does he see the rebuttals of his multiple mistakes and think, “oh bugger, I’ve crashed and burned again. OK, time to shift to standard operating procedure of just ignoring it, lying about it, insulting the person who said it” etc, or can he simply cannot process the words (Alan Burns style) so when his negative proof fallacies, argumenta ad consequentia, straw men etc (and wearyingly etc) are explained all he sees is white noise?

It’s very odd either way.

Vladdo: 

Nobody knows what it is is not exactly a knock down argument. Tegmark proposes a reason for the universe which is not subject to the universe and Stranger proposes that an abstract set of laws can give rise to the universe leaving the door open for Holy Writ and Dumbledore's book of Advanced Spells.

The white flag has been run up Hillside.....

Now the last time that something like this happened when atheism took a nasty blow to the cojones , I seem to remember was when Neil De GrasseTyson proposed( fade up end signiature tune)

QED

[Stranger]

...leaving the door open for Holy Writ and Dumbledore's book of Advanced Spells.

 The white flag has been run up Hillside.....

Now the last time that something like this happened when atheism took a nasty blow to the cojones , I seem to remember was when Neil De GrasseTyson proposed( fade up end signiature tune)

Unmitigated drivel.

Every time you ignore the actual arguments put to you and post idiotic drivel like this or empty assertions (like your previous post) instead, you are demonstrating your total lack of ability to engage in discussion at this level.

Your continued appeal to philosophy appears to be nothing but an empty affectation. You demonstrate no understanding of the actual arguments whatsoever.

As for deGrasse Tyson - your silly attempt at linking it to theism was comprehensively trashed. In addition it demonstrated (as has this discussion about Feser) that you appear to have no actual fixed idea about the god you believe in - it just changes to fit whatever you think you might be able to get away with in the context of the discussion at hand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Now the last time that something like this happened when atheism took a nasty blow to the cojones , I seem to remember was when Neil De GrasseTyson
proposed( fade up end signiature tune)

To adapt Scott D. Weitzenhoffer’s famous quote, attempting to debate with Vladdo, “…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.”

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread is now returned but minus around 20 posts which we judged to be excessively confrontational beyond what we felt was fair comment, in that they contained various pejoratives that were thinly disguised personal attacks where the exchanges involved were often more akin to disruptive spats than they were to robust discussion.

Could those involved please make an effort of be less confrontational in future, and especially in the use of pejoratives to refer to other members, since the disruptive effect of spats is a breach of the rules (rule 2.d) and in future we intend to treat such exchanges using the same approach that we apply to outright personal insults: where posts are likely to be removed and repeat offenders risk suspension.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know? We are talking about the reason for existence, nobody actually knows anything at all about it.

The point is that as soon as you add the characteristics of the Christian god - or any other interventionist god that interacts with its creation, makes moral judgements, answers prayer, and generally displays any characteristics of a thinking mind - you make Feser's argument self-contradictory.

You can't accept Freser's argument and believe in the Christian god. If his argument is valid (which it isn't - see below) then it would be an argument for deism not theism. Theism contradicts the argument.

Once again, I'm not doing that, as I've explained several times.

We can actually use Tegmark to refute Feser. All you need to accept is that Tegmark's notion that we are actually in a Platonic mathematical structure (because all such structures exist) is a logical possibility. It doesn't need to be true or even probable, just logically possible.

I stand to be corrected but I can't see a way to logically rule it out.

We can then refute Feser using a reductio ad absurdum.
 
Remember that Feser is supposedly deducing the necessary characteristics of his 'end of hierarchy' without reference to what it is, so if mathematics can logically fit into that role, his arguments should apply to mathematics.

We do indeed find that some of his characteristics do fit (with the Platonic view of mathematics) - independent of space and time and so on. However, his supposed arguments for thoughts, intelligence, omnipotence, and omniscience should also apply.

This is plainly ridiculous. Mathematics doesn't know anything at all, it has no will, so cannot exercise any power at all. It plainly cannot think and is not intelligent in any way. It's a set of (necessary, in the Platonic view) logical constructs.

Therefore, Feser's arguments for these properties are invalid because they clearly do not apply to any possible 'end of hierarchy'; mathematics is a counterexample.

If mathematics cannot exercise any power then it cannot be at the bottom of any hierarchy since the bottom is the thing which has actual rather than derived power. Maths is the thing from which the physical owes its existence

Alternatively, to use your own argument. How do we know maths does not have any power.

So again how does maths give rise to the physical? If you say we don't know it is a mystery then we have rung up the white flag.

[Stranger]

If mathematics cannot exercise any power then it cannot be at the bottom of any hierarchy since the bottom is the thing which has actual rather than derived power.

What do you mean by "exercise any power"? If you are talking about anything like the deliberate actions of a mind then, once again, you have made Feser's argument self-contradictory.

Maths is the thing from which the physical owes its existence

If Tegmark is correct, the physical is mathematics.

Alternatively, to use your own argument. How do we know maths does not have any power.

Again, what do you mean by "power"?

So again how does maths give rise to the physical? If you say we don't know it is a mystery then we have rung up the white flag.

If the physical is mathematics, there is no need for it to give rise to anything else.

It is also worth noting that Feser says nothing substantive on this point. He makes some general points about his "end of hierarchy" (which are fair enough speculation) and then descends into laughable nonsense when he tries to shoehorn the attributes of god into it.

There really is no getting away from the utter silliness of that part of the 'argument'.

You didn't even attempt to address the reductio ad absurdum that follows simply from the logical possibility of mathematics being the end of the hierarchy.

The point is that the mystery Feser (and Tegmark) are talking about is how come stuff exists and behaves the way it does. Trying to use anything like a being - with will, thoughts, plans and the like - as the explanation is just daft; that is exactly the sort of thing we need to explain (as Feser actually says at the start), it can't also be the explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by "exercise any power"? If you are talking about anything like the deliberate actions of a mind then, once again, you have made Feser's argument self-contradictory.

If Tegmark is correct, the physical is mathematics.

Again, what do you mean by "power"?

If the physical is mathematics, there is no need for it to give rise to anything else.

It is also worth noting that Feser says nothing substantive on this point. He makes some general points about his "end of hierarchy" (which are fair enough speculation) and then descends into laughable nonsense when he tries to shoehorn the attributes of god into it.

There really is no getting away from the utter silliness of that part of the 'argument'.

You didn't even attempt to address the reductio ad absurdum that follows simply from the logical possibility of mathematics being the end of the hierarchy.

The point is that the mystery Feser (and Tegmark) are talking about is how come stuff exists and behaves the way it does. Trying to use anything like a being - with will, thoughts, plans and the like - as the explanation is just daft; that is exactly the sort of thing we need to explain (as Feser actually says at the start), it can't also be the explanation.

The physical is mathematics.
I love stuff like that so bold, so catastrophic, so brute fact or, in this case, brute unproven fact.
There is of course one problem, either all of maths is evident physically in this universe and the idea is testable. Or some maths is physical in the multiverse. Tegmarks level 4 multiverse.........in which case there is probably no way to test the idea.

You are quoting tegmark yes, but his own level 4 multiverse would preclude a test.

Other failings are that if maths is the physical and there is nothing else this cannot be a platonic theory as you claimed.

And there is at least a third problem. The physical changes and interacts. Your speed might change but one plus one is always going to be two no matter how fast you are going.

Still I would encourage you to crack on with your project.