Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see no necessity to involve human mythology in this discussion, as I have clearly stated that I am considering gods which may exist independently to humans.

I define god as an intelligent creator.

You can consider any god fiction you want. It doesn't change the fact you are discussing fiction.

 

[punshhh]

How do you add complexity to actions? That makes no sense.

A complex entity choosing an action.

Sure you could call some event more complex than another event if you went by how many 'ingredients' are needed. But in that case it would suffice to take three chemicals and their (re-)actions in order to best the "complex way" of two chemicals.

Next up identity. Just a matter of how closely you look at things. IOW, three chemicals that (re-)act unlike any other combination of three chemicals.

Et voilà, three chemicals make intelligence. After all, there is a more complex way than two chemicals, plus it is of a kind not seen anywhere else. No, that does just not seem right.

Perhaps there is a sliding scale here between two chemicals(particles) performing an action and an infinitely* complex entity performing a one off(in eternity) event.

For example the entity in question could be a virus, an ant, a dog, a human, a planet, a star, a galaxy, a universe etc etc.

"Not normally". Again identity.

I assure you, you could in theory explore billions of universes and not find one keyboard. However if you did find some keyboards, humans or some similar entity would also be found nearby.

 

[punshhh]

Do you also say that humanity cannot claim there is a god ?

Yes, until proof of one is found.

 

[punshhh]

If you can look at mankind and think there was any intelligence behind it then you do have the faith that can move mountains.

But we would not be in a position to speculate on the intelligent purpose of the entity in question.

 

[punshhh]

So we're talking miracles after all. When all the talk and the shuck and jive are done you're left with godidit.

godidit/aliendidit.

 

[punshhh]

In other words, where you write infinite, you mean finite. Got it.

Well yes and know, I am skeptical of any application of infinity to reality. Infinity is a numerical abstraction invented by humans and may not exist in any other form.

 

[punshhh]

A. What gap are you talking about?

B. Why do you simply ignore all the arguments I make?

Sorry, I have been busy elsewhere the last few days and your posts take longer to get to grips with.

By gap I am referring to some aspect of existence which we do not understand or are ignorant of. I accept that we are essentially monkeys and may well not have the intellectual capacity to address questions regarding creators of universes or existence. Rather like the ant running across your mobile phone. It is not aware of what exactly it is(or the implications of that) which passes under its feet.

 

[punshhh]

Everybody knows that infinity just means a really big number.

Quite!

 

[punshhh]

Did you miss the rest of the sentence starting just before moot point?

Can you explain why the point was moot?

 

[punshhh]

You can consider any god fiction you want. It doesn't change the fact you are discussing fiction.

No I am discussing what might or might not exist which can be approximated to an intelligent creator.

I accept that most(if not all) of the contents of the human mind can be viewed as fiction. Nevertheless, fiction can be about things that may exist.

 

[punshhh]

So by that definition, whatever creates us needs to be more complex than us (I am more complicated than a keyboard). If you regress that thought you need more and more complex creators all the way back and you run into the irreducible complexity problem.

Thankyou for the link, a usefull reference point. I will however go beyond standard logical arguments, as again these are machinations of the human mind, a mind which came up with infinity

I don't see a requirement for a creator to be more complex than its creation as in the case of humanity and the keyboard. I would envisage a spectrum of varying degrees of complexity both in the creator and the creation.

There is a problem with the god that was always there. The first problem is that because of the complexity required you are positing a more improbable god and then willing it into existence. From our observation that god would have to be very very simple (to sidestep irreducible complexity), something that could not even be called a god by any human definition. It would simply be a set of laws that operates on some matter.

Yes, I see these two positions as polar opposites. I see a tendency in considering eternity along with infinity to veer off into polarities like this. I see this as primarily a limitation of humanity rather than of existence.

The other problem is that you redefine what it means to be infinite. The difference between finite and infinite is infinite You can't approach infinity and be finite. There is an infinity of difference. That concept is self contradictory.

Yes, I doubt any attempts to apply infinity to anything which exists, however I accept that existence may be infinite and so I have developed a concept of a value of such an enormous size that from our humble perspective it is equivalent to an infinite value, a horizon of sorts.

Without infinite*, considering infinity in this context is like balancing on the head of a pin(along with all those angels).

Still another issue is that the mirror analogy creates a sort of wheel of time in which we sort of become the god of the past. The wheel has the same sort of problems with regression and the finite limit to infinity does not solve that.

Yes I see the point about the god of the past. I don't see it as a problem though, rather I see issues regarding the idea of regression itself to be the problem here.

While I would agree with you that we can't make the positive claim of there is no god, it would only be out of scientific honesty (intellectual fig leaf as piggy puts it) of not being able to prove a negative. For all practical purposes I would be comfortable in claiming that there is no god. The concept of god has no use in the world we live in and it doesn't seem to add any explanatory power. When invoked, it provides unfalsifiable claims that add nothing and hinder progress. We are better off pushing our boundaries of knowledge with the assumption that there is no god. If at the end we run into god, then we would all then be believers in that god since we would be dissecting it by that point

Yes the existence or not of gods is insignificant in our everyday lives. However I would not be happy in defining my reality in terms of relevance, as I am a truth seeker by nature.

For example one look into it and I realized a point that I should have been making. Manipulating is not creating. We do no create keyboards. We manipulate existing matter to arrange it into a keyboard. I don't poof a keyboard into existence.

Yes, For this line of reasoning I am regarding creating as manipulating. We may come onto other uses later.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A complex entity choosing an action.

"Choosing?" That is new.

Perhaps there is a sliding scale here between two chemicals(particles) performing an action and an infinitely* complex entity performing a one off(in eternity) event.

For example the entity in question could be a virus, an ant, a dog, a human, a planet, a star, a galaxy, a universe etc etc.

But this all traces back to the question how you define intelligence. I mean, originally it was about more complexity than two chemicals and complexity not found "anywhere else in its local environment".

Going by that, which of the entities that you enumerate here would now pass muster as intelligent? According to the poster PDoug (sp.) it is indeed so that bacteria, viruses and so on are intelligent -- IIRC. I think we can safely forget that. Dogs, maybe. Humans definitely. But that is not the right 'kind' of intelligence. Too contingent upon a functioning body. After all, we don't think of dead people as intelligent any more. Galaxies, stars, universes. Hrmph.

I assure you, you could in theory explore billions of universes and not find one keyboard. However if you did find some keyboards, humans or some similar entity would also be found nearby.

I am not interested in humans or similar entities.

I am rather interested in Gods and similar entities. Especially in what it means to define God as an intelligent creator.

 

[laca]

Well yes and know,

Parser error.

I am skeptical of any application of infinity to reality. Infinity is a numerical abstraction invented by humans and may not exist in any other form.

Non sequitur.

 

[laca]

Quite!

Sarcasm detector fail.

 

[laca]

Thankyou for the link, a usefull reference point. I will however go beyond standard logical arguments, as again these are machinations of the human mind, a mind which came up with infinity

What are you trying to say? What does "beyond standard logical arguments" mean? Why do you think that it is a bad thing coming up with infinity?

I don't see a requirement for a creator to be more complex than its creation as in the case of humanity and the keyboard. I would envisage a spectrum of varying degrees of complexity both in the creator and the creation.

Yes, we know that your imagination is wild. Got anything to back that up?

Yes, I see these two positions as polar opposites. I see a tendency in considering eternity along with infinity to veer off into polarities like this. I see this as primarily a limitation of humanity rather than of existence.

Gibberish.

Yes, I doubt any attempts to apply infinity to anything which exists, however I accept that existence may be infinite and so I have developed a concept of a value of such an enormous size that from our humble perspective it is equivalent to an infinite value, a horizon of sorts.

Without infinite*, considering infinity in this context is like balancing on the head of a pin(along with all those angels).

More inane gibberish.

Yes I see the point about the god of the past. I don't see it as a problem though, rather I see issues regarding the idea of regression itself to be the problem here.



Yes the existence or not of gods is insignificant in our everyday lives. However I would not be happy in defining my reality in terms of relevance, as I am a truth seeker by nature.

Yes, For this line of reasoning I am regarding creating as manipulating. We may come onto other uses later.

You don't get to redefine words, sorry.

 

[dlorde]

* where I write infinite*, I am describing an infinity which is finite while being infinitely* similar/close/approximate to a true infinity, but not actually infinite.

We've been through this. There isn't 'true' infinity or 'false' infinity, it's just infinity; and something can't be infinitely similar/close/approximate to infinity. Either it's infinite or it isn't. If it isn't, infinity is infinitely greater. You are still demonstrating a fundamental failure to grasp the concept.

It may be that you're incapable of grasping it, but I suspect you're simply not prepared to put in the necessary effort to read up on it or think it through. This isn't mysticism - you can't just make up what you like with minimum thought and effort and expect to be taken seriously.

I use a concept in which I approach infinity through an infinite* reflection.
I visualise this as a mirror (or 2 planes), what you see in the mirror is infinitely analogous to a true infinity.

Parallel mirror optical regression isn't 'analogous' to infinity - it is, in principle, an infinite regression. In practice it isn't infinite and doesn't 'approach' infinity.

Fail.

 

[dlorde]

Well yes and know, I am skeptical of any application of infinity to reality.

So your whole 'thesis' involving infinity (and your misunderstanding of it) was not intended to apply to reality? Just another fiction.

Makes as much sense as anything else you've made up.

 

[dlorde]

Yes, For this line of reasoning I am regarding creating as manipulating. We may come onto other uses later.

So if God is an intelligent manipulator, from where does it get the material to manipulate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you explain why the point was moot?

Why, does the following not explain my point? "But the point is moot because it in no way supports your argument anyway. AI if/when developed by humans will not have developed de novo."

Does the bolding help or do you need a definition for de novo?

de novo (Latin) [diː ˈnəʊvəʊ]
adv
from the beginning; anew

Adv. 1. de novo - from the beginning

Your claim is that the intelligent creator could have come first. All the evidence we have of the Universe supports the conclusion things evolve from less complex to more complex. You are claiming we should hypothesize one most complex part of a life form, intelligence, could have come first. You have not one single shred of anything other than your personal fiction to support this position. JK Rowling has a great imagination. That is not evidence that Potter's Hogwarts is possibly real.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No I am discussing what might or might not exist which can be approximated to an intelligent creator.

AKA, fiction.

I accept that most(if not all) of the contents of the human mind can be viewed as fiction. Nevertheless, fiction can be about things that may exist.

Yes, fiction can, when it is based on something real. I can speculate about future space travel because there is current travel. I can speculate about future medicine because we have medicine.

You are claiming it is valid to speculate about known fiction for which there is no basis in reality to tie it to. That is no different that speculating fairies might exist because someone drew pictures of them.