Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Piggy]

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?

Simpler, maybe... but it would be even simpler to imagine that our universe was created by a grain of salt... I mean, that's pretty darn simple.

The problem is, it's not accurate.

And hyperdimensional contexts for our universe can actually be described mathematically, the way we describe stuff inside our universe... for example, see Hawking's popular writing on p-branes.

 

[Daald]

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

You are basically making Kalam's argument coupled with a fine tuned universe (BTW notice how most of the universe is not tuned for us).

Here are its refutations: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

 

[dlorde]

I agree, for all practical purposes unless you are actively seeking God, gods can be regarded as not existing.

Oh dear. Did you really mean to say that?

I thought for an odd moment he was making a 'clever' QM analogy (e.g. particle is indeterminate until you attempt to observe it), but that would be out of character

 

[Beth]

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.

Why does that imply another substance? After all, you and your breath are not considered two substances in this sense. Why should god and the singularity be assumed to be composed of different substances?

Also, since god is assumed to be spiritual, not material, why should god be assumed to be composed of any sort of substance? Consider numbers. They are not composed of any sort of substance - or at least, any sort of material substance. Does that mean that if you believe that numbers are real, you believe in substance dualism?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why does that imply another substance? After all, you and your breath are not considered two substances in this sense. Why should god and the singularity be assumed to be composed of different substances?

Also, since god is assumed to be spiritual, not material, why should god be assumed to be composed of any sort of substance? Consider numbers. They are not composed of any sort of substance - or at least, any sort of material substance. Does that mean that if you believe that numbers are real, you believe in substance dualism?

Numbers are 'composed' of a substance, however, just as are spoken or thought words -- the action of brains.

What does 'spiritual' mean as composing god if not a substance other than the material? If not a substance, then it is nothing. And god disappears in a puff of logic.

God could be the same substance as the singularity, but then he is material. So, he would necessarily have to abide by the laws of physics that pertain in the material world unless, of course, he changes them within the singularity. And if he is the same material, then whence did he derive? He would comprise another universe that gave rise to the singularity and then we're just speaking of a multiverse with no explanation for the origin of that entity.

 

[Belz...]

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.

There is no single substance. Read it again: things are what they do.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is no single substance. Read it again: things are what they do.

To be things they have to be composed of something. Action without substance makes no sense.

 

[Beth]

Numbers are 'composed' of a substance, however, just as are spoken or thought words -- the action of brains.

I'm not as convinced as you of this. Certainly, any instantiation of numbers in our universe involves such things, I'm not so sure that the concepts they represent can be so blithely dismissed as non-existent.

Would numbers exist when there are no earthly brains to think of them? I think it quite likely that some alien species could also discover them at a different location in our spacetime continuum.

What does 'spiritual' mean as composing god if not a substance other than the material? If not a substance, then it is nothing. And god disappears in a puff of logic.

I simply do not agree that immaterial things such as numbers or creator gods disappear in a puff of logic when no one is around to instantiate those concepts in their brains. Whether concepts such as numbers, which seem quite immaterial and eternal to me, are composed of some 'substance', I cannot say. Depends on what you mean by substance I suppose. I think of substance as being necessarily material, whether the kind of substance we know of in this universe or some other.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not as convinced as you of this. Certainly, any instantiation of numbers in our universe involves such things, I'm not so sure that the concepts they represent can be so blithely dismissed as non-existent.

Would numbers exist when there are no earthly brains to think of them? I think it quite likely that some alien species could also discover them at a different location in our spacetime continuum.

The important issue is brains to think them, not if they are human or not. Numbers don't exist without minds to think them, at least from my perspective.

But if you think they exist in some way without a mind to think them, then they exist by means of a different sort of substance, like the alternate substance that Plato implied or the mind-stuff of Descartes (no extension, etc.).

I simply do not agree that immaterial things such as numbers or creator gods disappear in a puff of logic when no one is around to instantiate those concepts in their brains. Whether concepts such as numbers, which seem quite immaterial and eternal to me, are composed of some 'substance', I cannot say. Depends on what you mean by substance I suppose. I think of substance as being necessarily material, whether the kind of substance we know of in this universe or some other.

Substance refers to the being of anything. If number *is* in any sense, then it depends on substance for its being. Just as Descartes conceived of mind as separate substance from matter. Mind, for him, had no extension in space, no material component.

If number exists as a separate substance, how does it interact in the material world?


ETA: So, when you suggested that god not have substance, you were literally suggesting that god doesn't exist. Hence his disappearance in a puff of logic.

 

[Piggy]

There is no single substance. Read it again: things are what they do.

So how do you tell the difference between different brands of can openers?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So how do you tell the difference between different brands of can openers?

By the crinkles they make.

 

[tsig]

...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'.

God works in mysterious ways.

 

[tsig]

So how do you tell the difference between different brands of can openers?

There's a manufacturers name on them.

 

[annnnoid]

There is no single substance. Read it again: things are what they do.

So how do you tell the difference between different brands of can openers?

The Book of Pixy...chapter 10, verse 7, lines 23 to 35.


...when thine can opener is unknown to thee
concerneth thineself not (teth)
for behold (eth)
unto thee it will be known
that your can
will open (eth).
Yea...rejoice.
For who amongst thee wishes it to be known
upon brand, or name, or variety
or any craven image.
What it does...cast all else into the fire.
let it be known
heaven is at hand.

Here endeth the lesson (eth)

 

[annnnoid]

The important issue is brains to think them, not if they are human or not. Numbers don't exist without minds to think them, at least from my perspective.

But if you think they exist in some way without a mind to think them, then they exist by means of a different sort of substance, like the alternate substance that Plato implied or the mind-stuff of Descartes (no extension, etc.).

Substance refers to the being of anything. If number *is* in any sense, then it depends on substance for its being. Just as Descartes conceived of mind as separate substance from matter. Mind, for him, had no extension in space, no material component.

If number exists as a separate substance, how does it interact in the material world?

ETA: So, when you suggested that god not have substance, you were literally suggesting that god doesn't exist. Hence his disappearance in a puff of logic.

…a muddle of metaphysical mathematical madness.

Numbers (aka: mathematics) don’t exist without minds to think them.

I doubt that it’s a stretch to suggest that every variety of basic ‘thing’ proceeds or is somehow ordered according to known, or postulated, mathematical relationships. Where, or how, is the math? It’s quite obviously ‘not there’…but it is just as indisputably ‘there’. Without the ‘math’…order would not exist (just try and imagine order without the math and it is quickly apparent how indispensable the math is). How is it possible to conclude that the math does not exist (or only exists as a function of a human brain) if, without it, order would not exist? You can insist that the math is merely a function of the order, but that is simply too convenient. At the very least, the order and the math are fundamentally intertwined…and it may well be that the order is a function of the math. Either way, math is there. By default, if nothing else. It may be merely metaphysics, but math cannot be simply ignored because its existence is conceptually problematical. Math is a fundamental quality / quantity of fundamental reality…if for no other reason than fundamental reality is ordered according to mathematics. That's called a relationship. Since I doubt anyone disputes that the relationship exists, it should be equally impossible to dispute that the related quantities also exist.

The point is that ‘math’ (whatever it is) exists fundamentally somehow (distinct from us). The evidence insists on it. Whatever ‘substance’ is involved is utterly irrelevant to this conclusion. As you point out…math does not exist without mind. Therefore we have mind…on a cosmic scale.

It is simply illogical and unreasonable to conclude that math does not exist independent of human brains. It may be conceptually problematical…mindboggling even, but evidence is evidence. Math is involved in such fundamental ways at such fundamental levels that it is simply incoherent to conclude that math itself is not an extant quantity. As for its ‘substance’…the anatomy of God perhaps. I think most mathematicians would find this idea quite appealing. The supreme fascist (Erdos term for God) is also the ultimate mathematician.

 

[laca]

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.

A tautology can hardly be called an answer. But suit yourself, I guess. If you knew the truth value of P, you would have no need for the argument in the first place. The "conclusion" doesn't tell you anything.

Ah, you're hoping for more amusement, perhaps?

Always.

It's funny, but this is an example from the classes I'm watching:

Premise 1: The universe is like a pocketwatch

Ummm... no. Perhaps you need to learn more about the universe.

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

Fails on the first premise. Sorry.

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

Are we playing count the fallacies? OK...

Premise 1 is a bare assertion and eventually assumes the conclusion (begging the question).
Premise 2 is an argument from ignorance: you have no way of actually knowing whether the fine tunings are even possible, let alone estimate the probability.
In premise 3 you subtly change from deductive to inductive reasoning, only to forget it and switch right back to deductive reasoning in premise 4, using the result you arrived at inductively.

<snip>

Look, it seems to me you're going to extraordinary lengths to preserve your faith. Don't go down on the reason path unless you're prepared to accept the inevitable conclusion that there is absolutely no logical base for believing in god(s). You're just wasting your and everyone else's time. In the end it always boils down to blind faith. You can't reason around that.

 

[punshhh]

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.

Speak for yourself.

I use concepts in my thinking, these are separate from words. They can be described with words, but the idea expressed by the concept often cannot be described with one word. Or there isn't a word for it in the vocabulary.

Do you think only in plain English?

 

[laca]

Speak for yourself.

I use concepts in my thinking, these are separate from words. They can be described with words, but the idea expressed by the concept often cannot be described with one word. Or there isn't a word for it in the vocabulary.

Who said anything about one word? Piggy's right: if you cannot describe your "ideas", then you don't have a fully formed idea. Your posts demonstrate this is true.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I am not addressing god in my scenario, I am addressing a way of seeing spacetime, matter and energy as one substance. Also this has opened up the possibility that god was able to change things about the universe (the laws of physics?) from inside the singularity, which you point out.

I will address the god now, you point out here in post 1425,
"And if he is the same material, then whence did he derive? He would comprise another universe that gave rise to the singularity and then we're just speaking of a multiverse with no explanation for the origin of that entity."
This is turtles all the way down and brings up a greater problem than the presence of god, the presence of existence itself.

I see an issue here with the idea of omnipotence etc, it seems to me that we cannot seriously consider that this god is in anyway truly omnipotent, or any of the other omni's. This is because it is humans who have bestowed these attributes on God and humans do not have the capacity to consider what they are actually saying logically in this regard. It is more likely in my opinion that the omni's were introduced to the Judao-christian religions to denote a God of vast extent and power, rather than anything truly omni'. Indeed if one looks to Brahman this issue is avoided in an ingenious way.

So I will not address any kind of omnipotent god as it is a nonsense.

The god in my scenario can be viewed as if of the same substance as the forcefield, but of a different point on a common spectrum, not only in frequency, but also in dimension.

If one has a dimension equivalent to the singularity, it can be regarded as a portal, worm hole or black box through which information from other regions of existence become manifest.

 

[Krikkiter]

I am not addressing god in my scenario, I am addressing a way of seeing spacetime, matter and energy as one substance. Also this has opened up the possibility that god was able to change things about the universe (the laws of physics?) from inside the singularity, which you point out.

I will address the god now, you point out here in post 1425,
"And if he is the same material, then whence did he derive? He would comprise another universe that gave rise to the singularity and then we're just speaking of a multiverse with no explanation for the origin of that entity."
This is turtles all the way down and brings up a greater problem than the presence of god, the presence of existence itself.

I see an issue here with the idea of omnipotence etc, it seems to me that we cannot seriously consider that this god is in anyway truly omnipotent, or any of the other omni's. This is because it is humans who have bestowed these attributes on God and humans do not have the capacity to consider what they are actually saying logically in this regard. It is more likely in my opinion that the omni's were introduced to the Judao-christian religions to denote a God of vast extent and power, rather than anything truly omni'. Indeed if one looks to Brahman this issue is avoided in an ingenious way.

So I will not address any kind of omnipotent god as it is a nonsense.

The god in my scenario can be viewed as if of the same substance as the forcefield, but of a different point on a common spectrum, not only in frequency, but also in dimension.

If one has a dimension equivalent to the singularity, it can be regarded as a portal, worm hole or black box through which information from other regions of existence become manifest.

God but not an omnipotent god? Are you planning on releasing a New New Testament?