Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[The Norseman]

I disagree. The complexity and the number of interrelationships and coincidences of nature and of how human beings work becomes more apparent (and increases as our knowledge of it increases). This makes the claim that God created the universe and the processes in it more valid and even opens up the concept of occasional intervention.

How?

That is because you are looking with a mind already made up. And there are no tests that can find God. There may be tests that could find some of His actions, but God is outside the realm of science.

Science does not involve itself with the existence of God. Individual mental experience can be personal evidence (not reproducible or testable) that makes a sufficient reason for believing in God.

I don't know what God has always been. But if God manifests Himself to people, if He makes His works apparent, then I agree that would be amenable to scientific inquiry.

God's existence is outside the realm of science. And God just is, he doesn't have our sort of existence.

God concepts are certainly not outside the realm of science. But, at any rate it doesn't matter in certain respects. If god-concepts are not disproven via science, they are very much disproven logically. Epicurus's short rationale is probably the most famous example of this though by no means the only example.

 

[laca]

Yes I also see it as a thing, I was using "spacetime" in its common usage, ie extension and temporal progression.

The trouble I have from this point is that I use finely crafted concepts to model ideas tackling such questions and words don't easily convey the concept.

This should be fun...

I will have a go and see if it makes any sense;

Imagine a forcefield in the form of a flat plain, rather like a membrane(this is the universe). God is on one side and an observer is on the other side.

The observer cannot detect anything in front of him because the membrane is a uniform flat surface and transparent like glass. He can't see God either because God is invisible.

God blows(or speaks) and the observer notices fine ripples appearing out of nowhere(in the membrane which he can see due to slight deformations in the surface of the membrane).

As he watches the ripples become more pronounced until suddenly one ripple escapes the surface and becomes a sphere or particle and floats off into the void. This particle on its own has no size, position, velocity, spin or time as these quantities are relative and until there is more than one particle such things are meaningless.

Except you got a god with a location (that incidentally blows...), a membrane, an observer and several ripples. Your argument fails.

Gods breath is inside this particle as a bit of it was captured in the particle as it formed as a hollow sphere.

Inside? How is it inside if it has no size? Fail again, I'm afraid.

Now God blows again(from inside the particle) and the particle divides into numerous other particles. From that precise moment of division size, position, velocity, spin and time are all present for each particle relative to the whole group of particles.

Now, wasn't god on the other side of the membrane? Is god its own breath?

Now we have space and time and entropy and the rest is history.

The one substance is this first particle.

Well, punshhh, your incoherent gibberish is certainly entertaining at times. It certainly proves time after time that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and most likely lack the necessary intellectual skills to form a coherent thought that goes beyond making and executing a grocery list involving more than two shopping locations.

 

[punshhh]

Um. No you don't. As I've been saying -- and Piggy as well, far better than I -- the term 'god' is meaningless as you use it. There's nothing "finely crafted" at all about throwing around the term as you have and then making some vague definitions which do nothing to address what exactly this 'god' thing is.

You say, "God is invisible." I then ask, "What is this God that has the capacity to be invisible?"

You say, "God blows (or speaks)." I then ask, "What is this God that has the capability to blow or speak?"

You say, "God is on one side..." I then ask, "What is this God that 'is' (i.e., exists)?"

What no one has been able to come up with is what is the primary attribute? The primary attribute of the thing which may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way.

This is exactly what Piggy has been saying but suggesting using Venn diagrams as a way to illustrate this idea.

The problems arise when people attempt to answer the question by wild speculation and imagination in a vain attempt at keeping their personal god-concept away from all inquiry and investigation.

Norseman I am well aware of what Piggy has been saying.

Are you not aware of what a concept is?

All your responses here don't address what I'm saying. I am saying imagine this scenario in order to convey an idea to you which is not easy to put across in plain english.

The details or things I put in the concept are what I say they are and bare no relation to anything else. The God and the forcefield are entirely hypothetical.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Patterns.

You're welcome.

'Patterns' is just a description of what we see. It does not tell me what thing actually is. The point is that we can't see things 'in themselves'; we can't access 'ultimate reality'. That is why god can hide there.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes I also see it as a thing, I was using "spacetime" in its common usage, ie extension and temporal progression.

The trouble I have from this point is that I use finely crafted concepts to model ideas tackling such questions and words don't easily convey the concept.

I will have a go and see if it makes any sense;

Imagine a forcefield in the form of a flat plain, rather like a membrane(this is the universe). God is on one side and an observer is on the other side.

The observer cannot detect anything in front of him because the membrane is a uniform flat surface and transparent like glass. He can't see God either because God is invisible.

God blows(or speaks) and the observer notices fine ripples appearing out of nowhere(in the membrane which he can see due to slight deformations in the surface of the membrane).

As he watches the ripples become more pronounced until suddenly one ripple escapes the surface and becomes a sphere or particle and floats off into the void. This particle on its own has no size, position, velocity, spin or time as these quantities are relative and until there is more than one particle such things are meaningless.

Gods breath is inside this particle as a bit of it was captured in the particle as it formed as a hollow sphere.

Now God blows again(from inside the particle) and the particle divides into numerous other particles. From that precise moment of division size, position, velocity, spin and time are all present for each particle relative to the whole group of particles.

Now we have space and time and entropy and the rest is history.

The one substance is this first particle.

Um, but you already have God and a forcefield. If they exist and are not 'the ultimate substance' then you have two or three substances. When we have more than one substance we've got an interaction problem.

You've also 'created' a particle and then done something to it. That implies a sequence which means time, so time must precede the first particle. Furthermore you seem to have god in a particular location, so space already exists.

 

[tsig]

'Patterns' is just a description of what we see. It does not tell me what thing actually is. The point is that we can't see things 'in themselves'; we can't access 'ultimate reality'. That is why god can hide there.

What is this 'ultimate reality'? How do you know that the world that you see isn't what actually is?

 

[punshhh]

Um, but you already have God and a forcefield. If they exist and are not 'the ultimate substance' then you have two or three substances. When we have more than one substance we've got an interaction problem.

You've also 'created' a particle and then done something to it. That implies a sequence which means time, so time must precede the first particle. Furthermore you seem to have god in a particular location, so space already exists.

Yes these aspects of the concept which you refer to are only tools or abstractions used to frame the idea. they can each be discussed separately through other concepts.

The point I am focussing on is the one particle which represents the precursor to spacetime.

Look at its qualities, it has no measurable size.

This can be represented as the diameter of the particle = 1 + or - infinity(where 1 can be any length).

It has no position or location(lets say it is now an infinite distance from the forcefield, or God has now removed the force field). Any other thing that there is is an infinite distance away, or doesn't exist

Its velocity is 1 + or - infinity( where 1 can be any velocity).

Its spin likewise and there is no time because time is what happens when particles interact or move.

All the laws of physics emerge when the particle multiplies.

Now all the aspects of the concept before the particle multiplies are essentially abstractions. It is only after this point that the concept relates to anything and it relates to the laws of physics.

On consideration of this particle it is analogous to the universe at the initial stages of the Big Bang Event.

 

[annnnoid]

What is this 'ultimate reality'? How do you know that the world that you see isn't what actually is?

...does a dog 'see' what you 'see'? Do radio waves 'see' what you 'see'? Does a child 'see' what you 'see'? Does a blind man 'see' what you 'see'? I believe it was St. Paul who said something like '...we all see as though through a glass darkly...' St. Paul, apparently, was not an idiot. What does it mean...not to be an idiot? Likely something to do with 'seeing'.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What is this 'ultimate reality'? How do you know that the world that you see isn't what actually is?

That's the point. We can't. Ultimate reality here does not refer to some other plane of existence or anything weird like that but only to the basic nature of the single substance if monism is correct. So, for instance, we know that the world is made of atoms, made of quarks, etc. All particles are vibrating strings of energy if string theory is correct. But we've also got space-time to contend with; so whatever the single substance is it has to account for both vibrating strings of energy and space-time at the very least. We don't know what that *thing* is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes these aspects of the concept which you refer to are only tools or abstractions used to frame the idea. they can each be discussed separately through other concepts.

The point I am focussing on is the one particle which represents the precursor to spacetime.

Look at its qualities, it has no measurable size.

This can be represented as the diameter of the particle = 1 + or - infinity(where 1 can be any length).

It has no position or location(lets say it is now an infinite distance from the forcefield, or God has now removed the force field). Any other thing that there is is an infinite distance away, or doesn't exist

Its velocity is 1 + or - infinity( where 1 can be any velocity).

Its spin likewise and there is no time because time is what happens when particles interact or move.

All the laws of physics emerge when the particle multiplies.

Now all the aspects of the concept before the particle multiplies are essentially abstractions. It is only after this point that the concept relates to anything and it relates to the laws of physics.

On consideration of this particle it is analogous to the universe at the initial stages of the Big Bang Event.

You've essentially described a singularity; so why have god blowing on a plane, even metaphorically, since that implies another substance? If there is a god and that god is not the singularity, then you've got two substances at least -- and that means substance dualism.

 

[annnnoid]

That's the point. We can't. Ultimate reality here does not refer to some other plane of existence or anything weird like that but only to the basic nature of the single substance if monism is correct. So, for instance, we know that the world is made of atoms, made of quarks, etc. All particles are vibrating strings of energy if string theory is correct. But we've also got space-time to contend with; so whatever the single substance is it has to account for both vibrating strings of energy and space-time at the very least. We don't know what that *thing* is.

….which, as I noted in my previous entry, according to the most current research, is informational in nature. In other words…everything derives from information (a thing which, presumably, has the ability to define itself...thus we find the uber turtle)…matter, energy, time…and us. Undeniably speculative, but what, apparently, is not is the fundamental informational nature of whatever exists as fundamental. Applying, generally speaking, what we know about what we know…the most parsimonious conclusion would be idealism. We have a ‘thing’ profoundly ‘informational’ in nature. What other equivalent ‘thing’ do we know of? Mind (…. which, however exuberant the atheist, cannot by any stretch of the imagination claim to be understood; IOW…it can be said that there is substantial evidence to suggest that mind is directly influenced by brain…but there is also substantial evidence to suggest that there are a great many weird things that happen for which mind=brain is completely indequate). Energy and time are not fundamental realities any more than their equivalent concepts are. The concepts are functions of mind, and the ‘realities’ are, apparently, functions of a fundamental ‘informational’ substrate. As to how, what, why etc. this fundamental substrate occurs / exists etc…perhaps at a level of such ultimate definition it is reasonable to assume that the concepts we apply to order our understanding become undefined. Perhaps Wittgenstein found himself in just such a place when he admonished '...there is that which must be passed over in silence...'.

As you previously suggested…at this level, concepts are not applied, they are created. Our inquiry cannot comprehend such values, merely attempt to imagine features of such comprehension (to comprehend is to ‘know’ and an experience that re-defines the process by which intelligibility is intelligible is fundamentally insane…but why should we automatically conclude that sanity is fundamentally sane? [perhaps because anarchy just sucks!]).. Perhaps it is through what are typically known as ‘altered states of being’ (which are widely, historically, and well documented but just as surely dismissed by almost the entire JREF community) that such comprehension is achieved (what, after all, is comprehension…or ‘seeing’ ability?). What is interesting to note about whatever support exists for what is regarded as a conventional state of being is that this support is derived almost exclusively from evidence provided by and derived from what are indisputably dysfunctional creatures. In other words…we conclude that an unquestionably dysfunctional state of being somehow conclusively represents a definitive condition. Just slightly contradictory.

 

[FattyCatty]

The argument, with P=an elephant here, seems to be:

Premise 1: I don't see P
Premise 2: P could be hidden
Conclusion: I don't know whether or not there's P

I think this is a valid, sound deductive argument.

Sorry, but I must LOL. "I don't know whether or not there's P" is translated into "P or ~P" which can hardly be called a conclusion of anything, much less of a valid, sound deductive argument.

Thank you for the correction and at least it provided some amusement. I am still learning about logical arguments, and the only place I have to try doing it and get feedback is this forum. I'm certainly getting the E in JREF.

I don't understand why that conclusion doesn't work. Could you please explain if it is ever valid and sound to have a conclusion that says, "I don't know" in some form? In that example, I don't know (P or ~P) seems the only possible answer, and certainly the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Anyway, seeing you're into logical arguments, how about defining your god in a logical framework so we can take it from there?

Ah, you're hoping for more amusement, perhaps? It's funny, but this is an example from the classes I'm watching:

Premise 1: The universe is like a pocketwatch
Premise 2: Pocket watches have designers
Conclusion: The universe must have a designer. (I would say "The universe probably has a designer.)

I would have been thinking along these lines:

Premise 1: The prerequisites for life as we know it included many fine tunings in the universe
Premise 2: The chances of all these fine tunings occurring by chance is slim
Premise 3: Therefore, it is more likely that the universe was created with these prerequisites in place
Premise 4: A creation requires a creator
Conclusion: The universe had a creator

And God just is, he doesn't have our sort of existence.

True, he has no existence.

You misread what I said: "...he doesn't have our sort of existence."

I'm not sure that this is what you meant, but first I would explain to the alien about God as I understand Him. I would tell the alien that God is beyond our comprehension and we can't really know Him.

The alien is still laughing his ass off...

You are assuming that the alien would be like you.

Based on what I've been learning, this is an invalid deductive argument, as the truth of the premise doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. So if you are claiming certainty for the conclusion, your argument doesn't work.

If you meant it as an inductive argument, the conclusion would be "p is more or less likely". The "more or less" would depend on your evidence.

Well, let's look at that one again....

If you can't see any elephant in a room, is there one there?

Depends. Is it a well-lit outhouse, or is it an indoor carnival with trap doors and such all over the place?

It also would depend on whether an elephant can be seen.

So we can imagine a couple of scenarios like this:

I can't see any elephant in this room.

This is meaningless if an elephant cannot be seen.

[A or B]
There isn't any elephant in this room.

It works if A is "It's not possible to hide an elephant in this room."

It doesn't work if B is "It is possible to hide an elephant in this room."

It doesn't work at all if an elephant cannot be seen.

And this...

I can't see any elephant in this room.
It's not possible to hide an elephant in this room.
There isn't any elephant in this room.

... is true even if you can't see every detail of the room, like the dust, for example. It's also true if you can't see anything outside the room. And it's true even if you can't see into all the spaces of the room , such as inside a packet of staples or under an overturned saucer.

Again, this is not true if an elephant cannot be seen.

This is not to compare God to an elephant, of course, but just to illustrate the point that if evidence is lacking where it would be if a thing were true, then that thing is not true.

You have an implied assumption there that the elephant can be seen. If the elephant cannot be seen, then your argument doesn't work. And God, unlike a real elephant, cannot be seen.

We've looked for gods, and they've not been there.

How could you see gods? How could you know where to look or even be able to look there?

The entire worldview they were a part of has turned out not to be real.

This is a mere assertion. If you have evidence, please provide it. Otherwise, I will continue to disagree with the assertion.

If you believe in God, why not believe that there's a lake of water above the sky?

I have reasons to believe in God, and none to believe in the lake of water above the sky.

So your choice is to believe anyway, despite the lack of evidence where it should be, or to decide that God is something it never was (that is, to invent something else and move the "God" label over to it instead), or to push God into an unknowble nowhere or make it into an unimaginable nothing.

There's really no other alternative.

My choice is to believe based on how I see the universe. It is belief and not knowledge because I have no evidence.

You are the one deciding where and how the evidence should be found. You are not allowing for the possibility of other places and methods for finding evidence or for the possibility that it may not be possible to find evidence because God is outside the natural world.

I don't think that God can be completely comprehended/understood/known by people. How could we, when what we know is the natural world, and God is outside the natural world. That doesn't mean He doesn't give us glimpses that we can know in our own way. I don't see that as God being nothing - He is just something else.

I would tell the alien that God is beyond our comprehension and we can't really know Him. But we try to by putting Him into terms we understand.

God just is, he does not "exist." He is everything and everywhere He wants to be; it is God that "contains all dimensions or levels of existence one may care to define." God contained these things until he created them as separate things and gave them existence. He contained existence until He created it outside Himself; He contained the universe until he created it outside himself when he created existence. He contains every other possible universe until He chooses to create them.

God is a something outside time and space, so we don't have instruments that would allow us to see Him. We don't have empirical proof of His existence. All we have is faith and belief.

The bolded parts tell me that you're not talking about anything here.

Because seriously, if this thing is truly outside spacetime and can't be detected by any means and is incomprehensible and unimaginable, then you're talking about an I-don't-know-what and nothing more.

Well, since God is not part of the natural world, He's not here in that sense. In another sense, He's anywhere He wants to be. If He chose to be seen here announced, we could use instruments on Him. If He chose to be here unannounced, how would we know to look for Him? You're trying to apply the rules of the natural world to God. That seems like a waste of time to me. Like trying to measure red with a yardstick.

I can certainly understand the concept of a hyperdimensional "container" (so to speak) for this universe and others, a context within which universes arise and die, but as for the stuff you're saying this non-thing is supposed to have done, I can't make heads or tails out of the description, I'm afraid.

I can't imagine what it would mean for anything to do what you've narrated.

That's my fault for explaining things poorly, partly because I'm still figuring it out for myself. I'm sorry. But to me it seems much simpler to imagine a God that created one universe with everything in it set up to allow life to develop (like an embryo) than to imagine your "hyperdimensional 'container' (so to speak)" where there are multiple universes being born and dying. And you would still have to explain where the "hyperdimensioinal container" came from, so how is your concept better?

So I really place no credence in your tirade.

You have so far insulted me TWICE despite me trying to hold a civil discussion with you….. I did not direct any insults at you but you have ...TWICE... at me.

I'm sorry that you take my comments on your writing as directed at you personally. I will try to phrase them more clearly. Your writing does tend to include intemperate language, which can make it hard to find the substance.

Let me show you how irrational and biased you are (despite you claiming objectivity).

I don't remember claiming objectivity. How arrogant of me. Where did I do that?

Thank you for the suggestions and the arguments to look at; also, thank you for the suggestions of videos and books. I will probably start with the bible and then with John Polkinghorne and Alvin Plantinga; when I am a little more clear about what I believe, I will be able to look at the counter-arguments you have referenced.

In the above you say you need to find out WHAT you believe…..but you have leaned towards Christianity…and you want to read authors that AFFIRM it…. Polkinghorne is even an ANGLICAN PRIEST…..the anglican faith was created by a HORNY TYRANT who created the whole anglican church to SERVE HIS NEEDS and lusts for women and power.

But what made you lean towards christianity…..you yourself have stated that you have not read the Bible…..could it be INCULCATION and INDOCTRINATION and cultural and geographical biases??

As I said previously, my ideas are probably based on Christianity:

I'm still trying to figure out what I believe, other than that there is a god who created the universe in such a way that the laws of nature were in effect, and that life could evolve into something that could ask questions about the universe and figure out those laws. I don't know if I believe in the Christian God. Because I have always lived in a predominantly Christian country, my ideas are probably based on that. But I've never read the bible (except the Book of John when I took ancient Greek), so I don't know what it says. I've only been to church a handful of times in my life, so I don't know what various Christian religions say. I have lots of reading ahead and lots to learn.

I did forget when I wrote this that there was a period when I was going to different Christian churches and trying to find out what they believed. I had decided I couldn't agree with at least some part of each religion, so I stopped and had forgotten it.

This is all about the Bible; I haven't read it yet, though I've started it. So I don't have any comment on it.

You also have not read either of the authors you claim you want to read to research affirm your beliefs.

That's right. I've read excerpts from some things, and listened to a podcast of a lecture by Polkinghorne, but haven't read any books yet.

No, I haven't read it. So far, I've been reading excerpts from things on the Internet. I can't afford to buy any books right now and haven't been out to go to the library. And yes, I really need to read the Bible.

You also claim that you have no money to buy and read them nor even the time to go to a library (??)....

I correctly stated (not claimed) that I have no money to buy books right now. I said nothing about not being able to read them. And I didn't say I didn't have time to go to the library. I said I hadn't been out to go to the library. I only go to Walmart (groceries and any other necessity), the pharmacy, the doctor, and the vet. This week, for a change of pace, I had to go to the dentist for a root canal and auto repair shop and get the brakes fixed. So it's going to be a while until I can afford to buy books. I've started reading the bible on the Internet, and, as I said, I read excerpts of things.

….but I gave you a FREE youtube video to watch…… Did you watch it?....why not? It is free and as you obviously have a computer it is within your reach….so why not? Also there are numerous bibles on line that you could have read LONG AGO….so why not?

No, I haven't watched it yet. It comes on my list after the classes on Critical Reasoning for Beginners that I am watching (I'm part way through Part 5 of 6). When I finish that I will watch your youtube videos. And as I said above, I've started reading the bible online.

The answer is because you are BIASED and are not researching....you have made up your mind…and of course as per most people like you….WITHOUT reading anything.

I may or may not be biased, but that's not why I haven't read or watched the things you think I should have. I've only been posting in this thread for a month, and there are other things going on in my life. I haven't made up my mind, as I don't yet know my mind. I have decided certain things, such as that I believe God created the universe. I haven't decided others, such as whether I could believe in any organized religion (against which I do have a bias).

Authors write books and expect to be paid for it. They are entitled to write more than one book. Alvin Plantinga, according to Wikipedia, So I really place no credence in your tirade.

Here again ....you are talking about something you have not read.....BUT I HAVE.....and you are preferring to go by REPUTATION than actually verifying things for yourself.....BUT I HAVE.

So despite me reading the book you are more inclined to reject my informed (out of firsthand experience) opinion of it and IGNORANTLY call it a “tirade” with total benightedness stemming from you having not even opened the book that I have gone out of my way to purchase and read out of respect to your stance in the above post.

You are correct that I was wrong to reject your opinion when I haven't read the book. I did the same thing I accused you of previously and I am sorry. I let my dislike of the way you wrote about the book influence me. When I am able to buy books, this will be the first one I buy so that I may see if I agree with you.

You are a benighted dupe who is looking for means to affirm his Wishful Thinking and to alleviate his Cognitive Dissonance and ways to insult people who contradict your IGNORANTLY already made up “mind”.

I certainly hope you are wrong here.

 

[Belz...]

'Patterns' is just a description of what we see. It does not tell me what thing actually is. The point is that we can't see things 'in themselves'; we can't access 'ultimate reality'. That is why god can hide there.

No, it can't. Things are what they do. This god of yours does nothing aside from what the laws of physics do.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, it can't. Things are what they do. This god of yours does nothing aside from what the laws of physics do.

Sort of. All we can see is what things do. What they actually *are* is something we cannot access. We see the laws of physics. They arise out of whatever the single substance is, assuming a single substance. The problem is that we can't tell what the single substance is; it could be whatever makes up space-time and vibrating strings of energy; it could be the mind of god and everything is thoughts in god's mind. It could alternatively be that there are two substances and one is space-time and vibrating strings of energy and the other is the divine with the divine acting on the first substance to produce the laws of physics. Since we can't access whatever ultimately *is* there is just no way to tell which is correct. That is why we go with parsimony and parsimony tells us that a single substance is more likely than two substances. But that's about as far as we can take it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

….which, as I noted in my previous entry, according to the most current research, is informational in nature. In other words…everything derives from information (a thing which, presumably, has the ability to define itself...thus we find the uber turtle)…matter, energy, time…and us. Undeniably speculative, but what, apparently, is not is the fundamental informational nature of whatever exists as fundamental. Applying, generally speaking, what we know about what we know…the most parsimonious conclusion would be idealism. We have a ‘thing’ profoundly ‘informational’ in nature. What other equivalent ‘thing’ do we know of? Mind (…. which, however exuberant the atheist, cannot by any stretch of the imagination claim to be understood; IOW…it can be said that there is substantial evidence to suggest that mind is directly influenced by brain…but there is also substantial evidence to suggest that there are a great many weird things that happen for which mind=brain is completely indequate). Energy and time are not fundamental realities any more than their equivalent concepts are. The concepts are functions of mind, and the ‘realities’ are, apparently, functions of a fundamental ‘informational’ substrate. As to how, what, why etc. this fundamental substrate occurs / exists etc…perhaps at a level of such ultimate definition it is reasonable to assume that the concepts we apply to order our understanding become undefined. Perhaps Wittgenstein found himself in just such a place when he admonished '...there is that which must be passed over in silence...'.

As you previously suggested…at this level, concepts are not applied, they are created. Our inquiry cannot comprehend such values, merely attempt to imagine features of such comprehension (to comprehend is to ‘know’ and an experience that re-defines the process by which intelligibility is intelligible is fundamentally insane…but why should we automatically conclude that sanity is fundamentally sane? [perhaps because anarchy just sucks!]).. Perhaps it is through what are typically known as ‘altered states of being’ (which are widely, historically, and well documented but just as surely dismissed by almost the entire JREF community) that such comprehension is achieved (what, after all, is comprehension…or ‘seeing’ ability?). What is interesting to note about whatever support exists for what is regarded as a conventional state of being is that this support is derived almost exclusively from evidence provided by and derived from what are indisputably dysfunctional creatures. In other words…we conclude that an unquestionably dysfunctional state of being somehow conclusively represents a definitive condition. Just slightly contradictory.

Didn't say that energy and time were fundamental, only that they had to be more fundamental than thought since an analysis of thought shows them already there.

My contention is that we should pass over this issue in silence because we cannot know what the most fundamental substance is; I offered the other analysis only to show that one of the frequent arguments for idealism leads to the same brick wall.

I don't see how calling 'everything' information helps anyone side with idealism. Information is not the basis of idealism, at least any form that I know. It is just as easily the basis for what we call materialism. There is also the issue that information looks like the most fundamental thing that we see, because we are cognitive creatures. I doubt seriously that it is the most fundamental thing, however.

Whatever the most fundamental substance is, we cannot define it. We define words in terms of other words and concepts. Whatever is most fundamental will have nothing more fundamental to compare; consequently we can only define 'higher order' derivatives of this fundamental substance. All I know about it is that it is exceedingly weird.

 

[Piggy]

I am saying imagine this scenario in order to convey an idea to you which is not easy to put across in plain english.

If you can't describe it in plain English, and your imaginary scenarios sound like nonsense to other people, then I would suggest you don't actually have any understanding of it yourself... that it's actually a feeling you have which, when examined, falls apart.

 

[Piggy]

everything derives from information

Since "information" in the common sense depends on an encoder and an interpreter, this is certainly false in that sense of the word.

If you define "information" in terms of entropy (the more entropy, the less information) then the statement here is so vague as to be meaningless.

Do you have another definition you're using?

As far as I can see, we can describe things in terms of information, but it makes no sense to say that energy and matter "derive from information".

 

[Piggy]

It doesn't work at all if an elephant cannot be seen.

Well, I suppose so, but since elephants aren't invisible, it's irrelevant.

 

[Piggy]

If the elephant cannot be seen, then your argument doesn't work. And God, unlike a real elephant, cannot be seen.

I already explained that I was not comparing God to an elephant. How did you miss that?

The point of the example was to demonstrate (as I explained) that if we find no evidence where evidence will be if a thing is true, then that thing is not true.

Please do not take that and misconstrue it as if I were comparing God to an elephant.

 

[Piggy]

My choice is to believe based on how I see the universe. It is belief and not knowledge because I have no evidence.

You are the one deciding where and how the evidence should be found. You are not allowing for the possibility of other places and methods for finding evidence or for the possibility that it may not be possible to find evidence because God is outside the natural world.

If that is your choice, then you choose to live in Wonderland, where anything you care to "believe in" can be real. The sun can rise in the west... Hitler could be a nun and Mother Teresa could be a genocidal dictator... 2+2=4,677... you name it.

And no, I am not deciding where the evidence should be... believers are.

And yes, I am clearly saying that if this thing has no contact whatsoever with our world, then for us to say it is real or that it exists, and that it is a god, is nonsense.