A universe without God.

[Upchurch]

Re: omnipotence

God is, by definition, omnipotent.

Well, that certainly is not true. "God" has many and varied definitions not all of which include the term "omnipotent". "Omnipotent", on the other hand, has a very concrete definiton based on its etymology.

omni- meaning all or universally
-potent meaning force, authority, or influence.

By its very definition, "omnipotence" is, at worst, a logical paradox, and, at best, a practical impossibility. Those who use omnipotent to describe something never really mean omnipotent. They redefine it to mean the most powerful rather than the all powerful, just like lifegazer did in his post above.

 

[Tricky]

Not so easy to justify ones tirades in the process, particularly as it's blatantly obvious that my argument is more than credible.

If your argument is so blazingly credible, then why is it unable to convince anyone here? One would think that at the very minimum a credible position would be beleivable to at least one other person than the one stating the position, and yet the only one who believes you is you.

No, Lifegazer, you are not credible. Merely credulous.

 

[Dancing David]

Cigar Sir?
Yup... omnipotence simply means possessor of all power.

No thanks, but an ale would be great!

Perhaps there is another word with different baggage.

 

[Dancing David]

Look, I could be just as cynical as you. I actually throw alot away - It sounds so mean.

But Hey - what do I get outa being God that I don't have already.

You get bonus miles on Berkley Airways, a visit to the chapel in the Ivory Tower (the haunt of Upchurch and RussDill) and I don't know a feeling of well...spirituality that you might mistake for gas.

 

[Dancing David]

If your argument is so blazingly credible, then why is it unable to convince anyone here? One would think that at the very minimum a credible position would be beleivable to at least one other person than the one stating the position, and yet the only one who believes you is you.

No, Lifegazer, you are not credible. Merely credulous.

My guess is that we are all just doing it as a joke, we all agree with Lifegazer but it is more fun to act as though what he says doesn't make any sense.

 

[Atlas]

You get bonus miles on Berkley Airways, a visit to the chapel in the Ivory Tower (the haunt of Upchurch and RussDill) and I don't know a feeling of well...spirituality that you might mistake for gas.

I don't know... It sounds cool but...

That feeling of spirituality - If I have it in a small room, might others also mistake it for gas?

Cuz my ex - she thought I was very spiritual... and now you've got me wondering.

 

[Upchurch]

My guess is that we are all just doing it as a joke, we all agree with Lifegazer but it is more fun to act as though what he says doesn't make any sense.

That's pretty much it. You know what won me over? The way he "answered" my questions by repeating himself over and over with irrlelevent claims instead of actually answering the question itself. If he says it over and over again, it must be true.

 

[Upchurch]

That feeling of spirituality

You know waht makes me feel really spirtiual? Mexican food.

 

[Atlas]

Thanks,

I might go out for some spiritual food tonight.

I'll bet they know if God can make a burrito so hot...

 

[lifegazer]

There's only one primal-cause.

1. Existence is.
2. Whatever existence is, we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence as a whole cannot be finite in nature, possessing a surface [a surface distinguishes the finiteness of an entity] that is embraced by absolute-nothingness. Clearly, the advocation of nothingness embracing (stretching around) a tangible finite existence is a rational nonsense. Existence must be boundless. Absolutely so.
3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, then existence is reducible to a singularity. Distance means zilch.
4. The realm of a singularity is without beginning or without end. There are no real bounds within this realm. Therefore, we know that existence is, essentially, indivisible.
Two separate points do not exist within a singularity.
5. From 4, existence is reducible to one entity.
6. From 5, we know that there is only one primal-cause.

Proceeding further (than I was asked to proceed):-
7. Every-thing perceived to exist within a singularity, must do so as an illusion, since two separate points do not exist within a singularity. Therefore, the universe resides within a Mind (as an illusionary perception) of the primal-cause.
8. Boundless singular existence, omnipotent, omnipresent, and possessing will, where all effects are created by and perceived within its mind.
Once more, I present God to you all.
Once more, I bow down to you all, my God.

 

[lifegazer]

I'll bet they know if God can make a burrito so hot...

I don't like hot food. Many people don't like hot food. Via our being, God has created a burrito so hot...

 

[lifegazer]

But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it.

Exactly. Quanta exhibits base indeterminism, whilst also progressing to the classical order seen within our awareness.

My philosophy states that God's free energy has been ordered. My philosophy is consistent with QM and would predict the order of the classical.

 

[Riddick]

You know waht makes me feel really spirtiual? Mexican food.

You need to get laid.

 

[Flatworm]

Re: Re: Meet your God.

If a specific effect = the sum of an infinite number of prior causes (which are really effects themselves), then that effect cannot be summed (cannot be effected),

Effects are not summed. They are caused. In order for an effect to exist, its cause must exist.

since there is no origin to that sum.

There doesn't need to be an origin. Let Xi be a chain of causes and effects, with Xi-1 being the cause of Xi. Name any integer i, and I can give you the cause of Xi. There is no need to sum anything, and your insistence that there is is nonsensical.

This is why Cantor's sums-of-infinities are irrelevant here, since Cantor's infinities are all found within closed-sets or finite-bodies with origins and ends.

I don't see why you keep droning on about Cantor since no one has brought him up but you.

What time does the train arrive at the station if the train's origin is to be found in the infinite past? Answer = never. The train will always remain in the infinite past.

Not true. It is quite possible that the train's position be defined by some function whose domain in time extends infinitely far into the past. The origin can be anywhere along the track. Let's choose the origin such that the train's position at time t=0 is x=0. Let t have dimensions in seconds and give the train a constant speed of 25 m/s in the +x direction. The position of the train at any time t is x=25t. You may specify any time in the past or future, even infinitely far in the past, and I can still tell you where the train is wrt the point we chose as the origin.

Again. The fact that you obviously have trouble visualizing this has no impact on its logical validity.

The same argument applies to the present-state of our universe.

Well, I guess your next argument falls on its face as well, then.

This post, for example, can be considered a train (of infinite effects) arriving at the station (of your monitor screen). The fact that this train has arrived at the station is an instant proof that it did not originate from the infinite past - from the infinite regression of effects.

False, as shown above.

3 is a non-starter, as explained above. And my analysis of what a primal-cause must be has already explained why it is singular (indivisible), so 2 is also no good.

No, you did not explain why it must be so, you simply defined primal cause as having certain properties. Not at all the same thing.

So if you disagree with that reasoning, perhaps you will explain why.

I believe I already have. The root problem here is that you fail to take into consideration alternative possibilities and when someone brings them up, you categorically assert their impossibility without offering any sort of support.

 

[Riddick]

I don't know... It sounds cool but...

That feeling of spirituality - If I have it in a small room, might others also mistake it for gas?

Cuz my ex - she thought I was very spiritual... and now you've got me wondering.

looks like i've stumbled upon white-collar humor.

has anyone told you you're funny?

 

[Yahweh]

Re: There's only one primal-cause.

1. Existence is.

I would posit that existence is a property which is used to describe other objects.

Unless of course you can find a way to rationalize the logic when I say "Beauty is."

2. Whatever existence is, we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence as a whole cannot be finite in nature, possessing a surface [a surface distinguishes the finiteness of an entity] that is embraced by absolute-nothingness. Clearly, the advocation of nothingness embracing (stretching around) a tangible finite existence is a rational nonsense. Existence must be boundless. Absolutely so.

You are treating an abstract concept (which is the nature of existence) as something which is concrete. This is a logical error. In the same way, I would never accept an argument such as "There is no evil, try to point out 'evil' in the brain if you believe in it so much, I think this case is settled and I conclude that there is no man who is actually 'evil'".

I dont believe existence must be boundless. Clearly, I (Yahweh, the person typing this) am of finite existence. Although to the upper left, you see my location as "omnipresent", I am actually finite in my existence, I do not exist in all places at once. I think you are making a mistake with your words, perhaps you mean "reality is boundless".

If in that case, there is still some things to sort out in terms of Quantum Reality vs. Einstienian Reality, however I wouldnt be some bewildered by your Philosophy.

3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, then existence is reducible to a singularity. Distance means zilch.

Hmmmmm...

Can I reasonably say that singularity exist?

And if that singularity exists, can I reasonably argue that the singularity is boundless?

If in that case, Reality is infinite, distance suddenly has meaning, and we have a Philosophy consistent with our experiences.

(Note: When I hear you say existence is reduceable down to a singularity, I get a picture in my head that seems like the universe is nothing but a single 0 dimensional point, and that is where all things exist and occur at... I dont feel this is a correct interpretation of your Philosophy, but I dont know for sure. Can you draw me an accurate mental picture?)

4. The realm of a singularity is without beginning or without end. There are no real bounds within this realm. Therefore, we know that existence is, essentially, indivisible.
Two separate points do not exist within a singularity.
5. From 4, existence is reducible to one entity.
6. From 5, we know that there is only one primal-cause.

I reject your premise 5, I've already explained how existence can be finite, therefore allowing manything to exist at once. This would contradict the belief that existence is reducible down to a single entity.

I question premise 5 because you have not defined "entity".


I reject premise 6 because there could be many causes, the existence of the universe could be acausal.

I further reject premise 6 because I dont see how your preceding statements logically imply 6.

Proceeding further (than I was asked to proceed):-
7. Every-thing perceived to exist within a singularity, must do so as an illusion, since two separate points do not exist within a singularity. Therefore, the universe resides within a Mind (as an illusionary perception) of the primal-cause.

This is where the confusion happens, this makes it appear as if your concept of reality is a 0 dimensional point.

8. Boundless singular existence, omnipotent, omnipresent, and possessing will, where all effects are created by and perceived within its mind.

Where did all these anthromorphic physcial characteristics come from?

Once more, I present God to you all.
Once more, I bow down to you all, my God.

You have not given me adequate reasoning to accept your god, I refuse to bow down.

 

[lifegazer]

Effects are not summed. They are caused. In order for an effect to exist, its cause must exist.

An effect is the yield of all previous causes. Essentially, any effect is the product of previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + ad infinitum. Therefore, an effect is the definite sum of all its causes. And there is no sum to an infinite number of causes.

There doesn't need to be an origin. Let Xi be a chain of causes and effects, with Xi-1 being the cause of Xi. Name any integer i, and I can give you the cause of Xi. There is no need to sum anything, and your insistence that there is is nonsensical.

Naming any integer i is a game that speaks of a finite number.
Clearly, you do not understand that "infinity" is not a finite number (of anything, least of all causes). Infinity is a potential, that's all.
You ask me to name any integer i, forgetting that I cannot name infinity itself since it is unattainable and unknowable.

I don't see why you keep droning on about Cantor since no one has brought him up but you.

I've had the sums-of-infinities speech on several occasions.

Not true. It is quite possible that the train's position be defined by some function whose domain in time extends infinitely far into the past.

You can only know the trains position in regards a finite amount of time.
All integers mirror a finite existence.

 

[Flatworm]

Re: There's only one primal-cause.

1. Existence is.

Yay. A meaningless statement

2. Whatever existence is, we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence as a whole cannot be finite in nature,

But if there happened to be enough matter in the universe, it would have positive curvature and be without boundaries, though finite in extent. There is also significant evidence the the universe has a finite number of possible states. A space does not require a boundary to be finite.

3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, then existence is reducible to a singularity. Distance means zilch.

Doesn't follow, and I don't have the foggiest clue why you think it does.

Let's consider a bounded space, being a subset of R2 such that x^2 + y^2 <= 1. Certainly this set is bounded by the unit circle. Nevertheless, we can define a distance function D(x1,y1,x2,y2) = sqrt((x2-x1)^2+(y2-y1)^2) that certainly does have meaning.

I'm guessing you have your own special definition of 'singularity' as well.

4. The realm of a singularity is without beginning or without end. There are no real bounds within this realm. Therefore, we know that existence is, essentially, indivisible.
Two separate points do not exist within a singularity.

You do realize that a singularity need not be a single point, right? That we can indeed talk about two different points on certain singularities and still make sense?

5. From 4, existence is reducible to one entity.

Rather, from 1 through 5, you don't know what you're talking about.

7. Every-thing perceived to exist within a singularity, must do so as an illusion, since two separate points do not exist within a singularity. Therefore, the universe resides within a Mind (as an illusionary perception) of the primal-cause.

Again, I'm shocked that even you could somehow think this follows logically. If everything that is real is an illusion, then it begs the question- what does it mean to be an illusion?

Do you even know what a singularity is?

 

[Atlas]

Like these other guys I've got a problem with the language too, Lifegazer.

I just asked Jeeves about black holes and singulaites...

Near a black hole, this distortion of space is extremely severe and causes black holes to have some very strange properties. In particular, a black hole has something called an 'event horizon.' This is a spherical surface that marks the boundary of the black hole. You can pass in through the horizon, but you can't get back out. In fact, once you've crossed the horizon, you're doomed to move inexorably closer and closer to the 'singularity' at the center of the black hole.

I know, your singularity is special. Definitively defaultingly no doubt. But the black hole at the galaxy's center - does it hold a singularity that is boundless and is waiting to act wilfully.

Is that one going to be God next week. If I do switch over I want to be right this time.

 

[Atlas]

Flatworm,

I really like your stuff. If Lifegazer does demolish all borders and we live in peace inside of the imaginary space of a pointless singularity...

Can I stay at your place...

I'm not Canadian - But I can change if I have to.