The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism

[gentlehorse]

Read it before you judge it. That's what fundies do.

Fundies, schmundies.

The mods here won't let me refer to the original post. Why? What reason do they have to censor it? Could it be it actually challenges their own beliefs? Are they only "skeptics" when it suits them?

I have no idea what you're on about. It wouldn't be the text that Hokulele linked to, would it? My guess is that if your work has been altered or removed, it's probably because you broke a rule you agreed not to break when you signed up. Can't really say, though--

If you they don't cut this response as well go to the site godvsthebible and look up The Paradox Of Nothingness And The case For The New (A-theistic) Deism and actually read it. You can't have any credibility in discussing it unless you do.

Credibility? I don't need no stinking credibility. Sorry-- Just watched "The Three Amigos"-- At any rate, I'm not interested in perusing a tome if the OP is any indication of what I can expext to find in it. No disrespect intended, but I found it very nearly unintelligible. Luckily for you, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the, uh, pencil holder thing. Maybe someone else will take up the challenge.

 

[cyborg]

Taking a bunch of random concepts and linking them together does not a well-founded concept make.

Lay off the weed.

 

[Bikewer]

When I, a mere mortal, attempted to parse the paragraphs above, my brain went into a state of lockdown.

Heady concepts need not be stated in unclear, confusing verbiage. Read Isaac Asimov's entertaining books on the principals of physics. Heady concepts conveyed in an easy-to-read manner.
Remember, it's about (or should be about) communication, not obfuscation.

 

[Tricky]

What about Logical Deism? I want to hear more about gravitons.

 

[Pardalis]

Right. So when was the last time you observed nothingness?

I just did, reading the OP.

 

[Darat]

Read it before you judge it. That's what fundies do. The mods here won't let me refer to the original post. Why? What reason do they have to censor it? Could it be it actually challenges their own beliefs? Are they only "skeptics" when it suits them? If you they don't cut this response as well go to the site godvsthebible and look up The Paradox Of Nothingness And The case For The New (A-theistic) Deism and actually read it. You can't have any credibility in discussing it unless you do.

If you wish to discuss the moderation of this Forum please do so in the appropriate section.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[RandFan]

Here's the outline:

• Intro: Science or religion?
• Miracles?
  • As misinterpreted natural events
  • A. doesn't prove it's wrong, just suggests it
  • Neither is a privleged position
  • Therefore the doubter must prove the negative
• ...

• Damn fine job. But what possesed you?

 

[RandFan]

Read it before you judge it.

Hmmm...

I think Carlin had the appropriate response.

Explicit Lyrics

You'll be listening to some guy...you say..."This guy is ****ing stupid!" Then...then there are some people, they're not stupid...they're full of ****. Huh? That doesn't take very long to spot either, does it? Take you about the same amount of time. You'll be listening to some guy..and saying, "well, he's fairly intelligent......ahht, he's full of ****!" Then there are some people, they're not stupid, they're not full of ****...they're ****ing nuts!

--Carlin

Some people are all three.

 

[Nogbad]

I didn't read past the second paragraph.

I am an impatient old Nogbad

It seemed singularly lacking in humour too (optional I know but....)

PS - does this new deism look anything like the old ones?

 

[Kopji]

Be it right or wrong I arrived at this opinion by deductive reasoning. It is not a "proof" but it doesn't need to be for ultimately even logic is a matter of faith. I believe in logic because it is logical to. So I find the Atheist demand for absolute proof of "God" a little disigenuous especally since many of them accept materialistic assertions such as the many worlds theory's claim that the entire universe is constantly dividing without proof.

I have trouble with a lot of this, but especially with this conclusion.

Be it right or wrong I arrived at this opinion by deductive reasoning.

This conclusion is evidence that 'falsification' yields far superior answers to problems we are faced with than mere deduction. Deductive reasoning is good, but without other thinking tools can lead us to any conclusion. Deductive reasoning alone does not challenge us enough to formulate new, better, stronger, 'more like the truth' kinds of ideas. We must attack our own ideas so that better ones emerge.

It is not a "proof" but it doesn't need to be for ultimately even logic is a matter of faith. I believe in logic because it is logical to.

You are saying that logic is ultimately irrational. Doesn't trying to make a rational argument for God betray that assertion?

So I find the Atheist demand for absolute proof of "God" a little disigenuous especally since many of them accept materialistic assertions...

These atheists are not only disingenuous, they are made entirely of straw. You are missing someone important from your bibliography, and that is Karl Popper. He is not there because even his most basic ideas challenge your methodology and conclusions.

I would never ask for an 'absolute proof' of God, what I would ask for is a perspective of God that could stand up to even the simplest challenges of falsification: How would any universe be different than it is, in the absence of this 'Prime Observer'?

"With God, all things are possible" - from the Bible

How is God relevant?

 

[dahduh]

Christ on a crutch. And I thought Pixie of key had a problem being succint. Beerina, you went way beyond the call of duty.

But I think underneath all that verbiage Ed does touch on a key point. By definition, the universe is all there is, and must therefore be self-describing; in other words, the bits of information in the universe must be structured in a purely self-referential way. Otherwise, you have to embed the universe into something larger, and introduce something like God or turtles all the way down - which of course doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the universe larger.

Now do _you_ know how to construct a self-referential logical structure that stores more than one bit of information? I don't. Ooh, spooky. Therefore God exists. QED. No, not really, but if you throw out God and turtles it is a question you have to address.

 

[Tricky]

tl;dr

(And for pity's sake, please don't anybody nominate the OP. Then I'd be obliged to read it.)

 

[Hokulele]

tl;dr

(And for pity's sake, please don't anybody nominate the OP. Then I'd be obliged to read it.)

Lucky for you, the OOP is from May. V2.0 is terse by comparison.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Ed

OK, so as far as I can follow you’ve argued yourself, rather tortuously, into the same corner everyone else does when they make a serious attempt at this stuff. There is no way to prove that the world you perceive corresponds to any ‘actually existing’ world, nor is there any way to prove that any such world ‘actually exists’ in that sense. There very well might be some sort of infinite, immanent will that maintains some meaningful correspondence between ‘what you experience’ and ‘what there is’. Or there may not.

My question is very simple – why bother? Why, having reached this point, continue to even consider the matter, let alone post your conclusions all over the web? You don’t know, and can never know the ‘true nature of the universe’, so thinking about it any further is the most unproductive thing you can possibly do. Go and take ballroom dancing lessons, or learn German, or something. Or if you like philosophy, why not go for something useful, like Ethics?

 

[Ed Herbert]

I think this argument may be over some of your heads judging from how much of it has been misconstrued. It basically says this: If the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being. If it does not have a logical reason for being it is not fundamentally logical and thus is mystical. If it is mystical that opens the doors to all sorts of religious dogma. I doubt many of you want that.

The question then, it seems to me, is what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute? To answer that question we must first have a definition of nothingness. So how do we derive it?

There are only two legitimate ways to derive definitions; empirically (which is based on experience) or through deduction (which is based on the syllogism). Since we cannot experience nothingness the only course left open is by deduction.

In the syllogism the relationship terms have to each other is determined by the copula which either takes the positive form "is" or the negative form "is not". By applying a form of the words "is not" to the words "being as a whole" we should then get a definition of nothingness as a void that is completely without property. But potential is a property and the world could not exist if it didn't have the potential to. So the common definition of nothingness must be wrong and it must have at least one property. What is it?

Well nothingness is the only "thing" (and since it must have a property it is a "thing") that can be stripped of all attributes except for the fact it can be thought of. That is the only property we can say nothingness has is it is a concept best defined as equilibrium (even the atheist scientist Victor J. Stenger accepts this definition). But by definition concepts must be observed. So what is observing nothingness?

We can use the principle of equivalence here. As a concept nothingness has but one property. Likewise a line has but one property- length. Therefore it makes a good model. A line may be curved in many ways. One way is a circle. That makes it self-referential or self observing.

It also allows an infinite number of potential waveforms that display the same mathematical patterns we see in the world around us to emerge simply because they have the potential to.

This model has the benefit of not only being able to explain itself but it also has the ability to explain the world we see without resorting to divine intervention or non sequiturs.

Materialism on the other hand is not able to explain itself because something from nothing in materialism is a non sequitur. Mathematically this can be expressed thusly 0/2=0.

In this model (which holds the world is basically nothing more than a mathematical concept) there is no problem however. Because nothingness is defined as equilibrium it can be compared to a balance scale with one ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read zero but you still have two ounces of gold.

It also seems to fit the way the world appears better than materialism. From a materialistic point of view phenomena like quantum super position, etc... make no sense. But in this model there is no problem because the mathematics are consistent and according to the argument the world is mathematics- manifest.

In addition materialism is forced to construct theories such as the many worlds theory by decoherence in order to eliminate the role of the observer. In that model whenever a decision must be made the entire universe splits so that every possibility happens. The only way for that to work universes must have a shared history (so sister worlds will know what their siblings are doing so they can do something else) until they "branch". But that violates the laws of conservation because universes are made of energy and if you keep splitting a finite amount of energy in order to create an infinite number of worlds pretty soon you won't have enough energy in any of them to produce the things we see. Unless you want to dismiss the conservation laws and there is no evidence they are wrong.

I have always said this is not a proof. But when I compare this model (which is logically consistent and explains itself without problem) to materialism which is fraught with problems, cannot explain itself, and is logically inconsistent I have no choice but to conclude materialism is wrong and this form of Deism (not the 18th century version many of you argue against) is true. And yes that is a matter of faith but it is faith based on reason.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think this argument may be over some of your heads judging from how much of it has been misconstrued.

More like beneath our notice.

It basically says this: If the world is logical it must have a logical reason for being.

Interesting unproven assertion likely just arriving from the human bias to impute intent into things - like smacking a malfunctioning soda machine, or yelling at a slow computer.

If it does not have a logical reason for being it is not fundamentally logical and thus is mystical. If it is mystical that opens the doors to all sorts of religious dogma. I doubt many of you want that.

"Huh-huh. Boss, we're almost done robbing the First National Bank, but why are we leaving all these pamphlets?"

"IDIOTS! It is I, the Atheist Explainer, who truly grasps that arguments from incredulity fail to explain the universe."

"Not so fast!"

"FALSE DICHOTOMY! You have spoiled my plans for the last time! The people deserve to know -ACK! Who hit me?"

"Know what? Either the universe has a logical designer, or it's mystical."

"I don't believe either case is mutually exclusive or - OW! STOP HITTING ME!"

The question then, it seems to me, is what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?

The what that does huh?

In addition materialism is forced to construct theories such as the many worlds theory by decoherence in order to eliminate the role of the observer.

Stop confusing philosophical musings on the meaning of quantum physics with what we actually know about how the universe works.

pretty soon you won't have enough energy in any of them to produce the things we see. Unless you want to dismiss the conservation laws and there is no evidence they are wrong.

The Many Worlds interpretation is thermodynamically neutral, from what I understand. New universe are not "made" they "branch off."

 

[Hokulele]

It is not so much that the universe is logical, but that logic was developed to understand the universe.

 

[Brian-M]

I only read up to the bit about the monkeys, and even up to there I noticed many, many things that deserve comment and/or criticism. Unfortunately, by expressing so many disparate ideas combined into a single unit, you make it almost impossible to give a complete and coherent response.

If you want your ideas to be taken seriously and discussed intelligently on an internet forum, I suggest you present them concisely and separately.

There is one thing I felt compelled to comment on...

If we can only legitimately come to conclusions that follow from valid premises or observations then Atheism must offer evidence that there is no God not just show a lack of evidence for It because that is not proof against It.

First of all, there are two different definitions of atheism.
1. No belief that god exists. ("Weak" atheism)
2. Belief that no god exists. ("Strong" atheism)

Notice, the first definition is not a conclusion, but an absence of a conclusion. If we can only legitimately come to conclusions that follow from valid premises or observations (as you state), then in the absence of valid premises or observations, "weak" atheism is the default and logical position to hold.

If we are using the first definition of atheism, as most atheists do, then your claim that "atheism must offer evidence that there is no God not just show a lack of evidence for It" is both unfounded and false.

Even if we use the second definition, as most theists do, then this is still just a personal position. Unless "strong" atheists start making a claim that there is no god, then "strong" atheism is merely a personal philosophy, and is not required to provide any supporting evidence.

 

[Brian-M]

St. Anselm's Ontological Proof Of God

1. God is something that which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. God exists, at least as an idea.
3. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
4. A God that exists is greater than a God that does not.
5. Therefore, God must exist.

Basically, St. Anselm argues that God must exist otherwise God wouldn't meet St. Anselm's definition of God.
However, using the same definition of God...

Brian's Ontological Disproof Of St. Anselm's Ontological Proof Of God

1. God is something that which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. The greatest thing that anyone can conceive would be able to conceive of something greater than itself. (Otherwise it wouldn't be greater than the person conceiving it.)
3. Therefore there is nothing so great that which nothing greater can be conceived.
4. Therefore God does not exist.