Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[punshhh]

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

If you refer to my earlier posts in this thread, I was proposing the existence of a god which is not of the bible, as that is a human mythological god. But rather one that if it were actually to exist would be essentially unknown in its attributes.

As such one can speculate as to its attributes, which I am doing.

 

[Krikkiter]

If you refer to my earlier posts in this thread, I was proposing the existence of a god which is not of the bible, as that is a human mythological god. But rather one that if it were actually to exist would be essentially unknown in its attributes.

As such one can speculate as to its attributes, which I am doing.

Don't mind me. Speculate away.

 

[Belz...]

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

Sorry, but this is an argument from incredulity. Fact is, science describes what things do, not what they are. Your inability to get that is not my problem.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

apparently God wants us to argue about His existence, and fight over His meaning, and die over His ultimate home. Nice guy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, but this is an argument from incredulity. Fact is, science describes what things do, not what they are. Your inability to get that is not my problem.

You are saying exactly what I have been trying to tell you now; but that is not what you said earlier and here is the distinction:

Yes, science describes what things do; it, in fact, cannot tell us what things *are* -- that has been my entire point. So, we can't say things like "there is no single substance" or "there is no God". Because science cannot tell us what things *are* theists are free to speculate about what things actually *are*. It's useless speculation, but that's metaphysics for you. The same can be said for all the useless discussions about whether or not idealism or materialism describes the *real world*. That's just as useless speculation. We can't go there. We only get to see how the rules of the game are played.


ETA:

And there are some things that we do know. We know that something that thinks exists. So, we know that there is at least one substance -- substance referring to mode of being. We suppose a single substance because that is the simplest possibility. We don't know the nature of that substance, as discussed above.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

…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.

You've now delved head first into Platonism. Beauty also exists indepedent of thought, as does the ultimate concept of chair?

Now please solve the interaction issue.

Evidence does not insist that math exists indepdent of thought. Reason does tell us that if our eyes were flashlights we'd see everything illuminated, however.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Then get rid of god blowing on a plane and simply start with a singularity that expands. We know it all must be the same thing from the outset, but I don't see how that helps. How do we conceptualize that space-time and vibrating strings of energy are the same substance now? In other words, how do we get to the theory of everything?

 

[tsig]

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?

Yes, it's my native tongue. Thinking in gibberish results in gibberish.

 

[tsig]

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.

Looks like you have total control over your god, you can make him bigger as needed or smaller, you can bring him into distinct focus or make him fuzzy or whatever you want to fill in your argument. In short god is a complete product of your imagination.

Now you'll tell me you don't believe in god, right?

 

[tsig]

You are saying exactly what I have been trying to tell you now; but that is not what you said earlier and here is the distinction:

Yes, science describes what things do; it, in fact, cannot tell us what things *are* -- that has been my entire point. So, we can't say things like "there is no single substance" or "there is no God". Because science cannot tell us what things *are* theists are free to speculate about what things actually *are*. It's useless speculation, but that's metaphysics for you. The same can be said for all the useless discussions about whether or not idealism or materialism describes the *real world*. That's just as useless speculation. We can't go there. We only get to see how the rules of the game are played.


ETA:

And there are some things that we do know. We know that something that thinks exists. So, we know that there is at least one substance -- substance referring to mode of being. We suppose a single substance because that is the simplest possibility. We don't know the nature of that substance, as discussed above.

Basically all you've done is create a gap called "what things *are*" and stuffed god into it.

Your continued insistence there's a reality beyond the reality we see is just an assertion and an argument from ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

You are saying exactly what I have been trying to tell you now; but that is not what you said earlier and here is the distinction:

Yes, science describes what things do; it, in fact, cannot tell us what things *are* -- that has been my entire point. So, we can't say things like "there is no single substance" or "there is no God". Because science cannot tell us what things *are* theists are free to speculate about what things actually *are*. It's useless speculation, but that's metaphysics for you. The same can be said for all the useless discussions about whether or not idealism or materialism describes the *real world*. That's just as useless speculation. We can't go there. We only get to see how the rules of the game are played.


ETA:

And there are some things that we do know. We know that something that thinks exists. So, we know that there is at least one substance -- substance referring to mode of being. We suppose a single substance because that is the simplest possibility. We don't know the nature of that substance, as discussed above.

So, I am NOT saying what you've been saying because I don't agree that this substance exists. You say "sure, things are what they do, but what are they ?"

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So, I am NOT saying what you've been saying because I don't agree that this substance exists. You say "sure, things are what they do, but what are they ?"

But a substance must exist or there wouldn't be existence in the first place. Substance denotes existence; its form is an entirely different matter. You can't make the argument that no substance exists unless you want to say nothing exists.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Basically all you've done is create a gap called "what things *are*" and stuffed god into it.

Your continued insistence there's a reality beyond the reality we see is just an assertion and an argument from ignorance.

No, it's not an argument from ignorance. Something exists. We know this. That means there is a substance.

We do not know the nature of this substance and we cannot know it. Theists can say that the substance is god; or they can say there are two substances and one of them is god, etc.

I don't say that god exists. I am saying that you cannot prove that he doesn't. That is all.

I am not insisting that there is a reality beyond the reality we see. I have specifically told you that is not the argument I am making.

 

[punshhh]

Then get rid of god blowing on a plane and simply start with a singularity that expands. We know it all must be the same thing from the outset, but I don't see how that helps. How do we conceptualize that space-time and vibrating strings of energy are the same substance now? In other words, how do we get to the theory of everything?

Regarding spacetime and vibrating strings:

In terms of materialism;
The difficulty may well be our limited perspective, from gods view point it may always be a perfect singularity. ie we are trapped in an singularity split or divided into many facets or points. Which results in the perception of finite(limited) existence as we now it. It is always a partial(fractured) view of the whole.

In terms of idealism; God is the perfect thought or story in the singularity and we in the facetted universe are acting out the many sub plots of variations of that archetypal subject.

The god blowing on a plane represents an intentioned creator(manipulator) transcending the singularity. I am only calling it god for the purposes of the discussion, I would happily call it nature, or more accurately perhaps the one about whom nought can be said.

As for the theory of everything, I have a number of concepts which together can indicate a possible theory, but they would inevitably fall under the heading of metaphysics I presume.

 

[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.

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.

No, it's not an argument from ignorance. Something exists. We know this. That means there is a substance.

We do not know the nature of this substance and we cannot know it. Theists can say that the substance is god; or they can say there are two substances and one of them is god, etc.

I don't say that god exists. I am saying that you cannot prove that he doesn't. That is all.

I am not insisting that there is a reality beyond the reality we see. I have specifically told you that is not the argument I am making.

You clearly are insisting that there is a reality beyond the reality we see as shown by your posts quoted above.



it's not an argument from ignorance.

We do not know the nature of this substance and we cannot know it.

Looks like a contradiction here. How is saying we cannot know something not an argument from ignorance? Saying we do not know is fine, saying we cannot know is not.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Regarding spacetime and vibrating strings:

In terms of materialism;
The difficulty may well be our limited perspective, from gods view point it may always be a perfect singularity. ie we are trapped in an singularity split or divided into many facets or points. Which results in the perception of finite(limited) existence as we now it. It is always a partial(fractured) view of the whole.

In terms of idealism; God is the perfect thought or story in the singularity and we in the facetted universe are acting out the many sub plots of variations of that archetypal subject.

The god blowing on a plane represents an intentioned creator(manipulator) transcending the singularity. I am only calling it god for the purposes of the discussion, I would happily call it nature, or more accurately perhaps the one about whom nought can be said.

As for the theory of everything, I have a number of concepts which together can indicate a possible theory, but they would inevitably fall under the heading of metaphysics I presume.

punshhh, if you could explain the IMPORTANCE of an imaginary creation, that has importance in your life, it would help a lot of us. I personally don't care. Please tell me why I'm wrong, or delusional, or misinformed.

 

[dafydd]

Regarding spacetime and vibrating strings:

In terms of materialism;
The difficulty may well be our limited perspective, from gods view point it may always be a perfect singularity. ie we are trapped in an singularity split or divided into many facets or points. Which results in the perception of finite(limited) existence as we now it. It is always a partial(fractured) view of the whole.

In terms of idealism; God is the perfect thought or story in the singularity and we in the facetted universe are acting out the many sub plots of variations of that archetypal subject.

The god blowing on a plane represents an intentioned creator(manipulator) transcending the singularity. I am only calling it god for the purposes of the discussion, I would happily call it nature, or more accurately perhaps the one about whom nought can be said.

As for the theory of everything, I have a number of concepts which together can indicate a possible theory, but they would inevitably fall under the heading of metaphysics I presume.

Why should we be interested in your fantasy world?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You clearly are insisting that there is a reality beyond the reality we see as shown by your posts quoted above.



it's not an argument from ignorance.

We do not know the nature of this substance and we cannot know it.

Looks like a contradiction here. How is saying we cannot know something not an argument from ignorance? Saying we do not know is fine, saying we cannot know is not.

No. I am not claiming a reality beyond this reality. We already know there is a substance because we know something exists. We see stuff in this world. Stuff in this world is made of this substance. What we don't know is the nature of the substance. We can't know the nature of the substance. We can only know how it is expressed in the world; we can know how things act.

This is not an argument from ignorance. I am not claiming that something is true because we haven't yet proven it false. I am claiming that there is an absolute limit to our knowledge. This limit is not controversial. It has been expressed by numerous philosophers through the ages.

The fallacy is in making a claim to know what the substance *is* -- as in it must be matter or it must be thought or it must be god. We can't possibly determine that any of those propositions are true because of the arguments I have already provided. Richard Rorty decided on neo-pragmatism for the same reason. This argument goes all the way back to the pre-Socratics.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

No. I am not claiming a reality beyond this reality. We already know there is a substance because we know something exists. We see stuff in this world. Stuff in this world is made of this substance. What we don't know is the nature of the substance. We can't know the nature of the substance. We can only know how it is expressed in the world; we can know how things act.
This is not an argument from ignorance. I am not claiming that something is true because we haven't yet proven it false. I am claiming that there is an absolute limit to our knowledge. This limit is not controversial. It has been expressed by numerous philosophers through the ages.
The fallacy is in making a claim to know what the substance *is* -- as in it must be matter or it must be thought or it must be god. We can't possibly determine that any of those propositions are true because of the arguments I have already provided. Richard Rorty decided on neo-pragmatism for the same reason. This argument goes all the way back to the pre-Socratics.

You claim to not be interested in an imaginary being, yet fight for it's possible existence. Please, explain your own reasons for fighting for this irrational belief.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

That doesn't mean that you can simply refute OUR arguments, make a logical argument on your own. The "God of the gaps" don't cut it."