Magnetic Synthesizer Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 How does omnipotence and omniscience require a god to exist outside of time? Stefan referred to this argument in 'against the gods'. What are the attributes of a god? (in the logical sense, not google's incomplete definition) or is it vague and undefined?
thebeardslastcall Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 That's the whole point of the issue. God is a logical contradiction, so how can you define it? If you can define it in a way that is no longer a logical contradiction it is no longer a God, but a powerful being at most. And God is generally just a fabrication based on wishes and hopes that are detached from evidence and reality. To get around this many turn God into a euphemism for other things, like love or goodness. There are no beings outside of time. To be you must be in time as motion is a requirement and time is motion. Some people like to say God is outside of time because it sounds extra powerful, but they don't understand what they are saying, they're just making up more ideas with disregard for their lack of logic. Like how some spiritualists misuse the term 'quantum' to sound fancy all the time, with disregard to what it really means.
Guest Gee Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 The limit on the transmission of information is the speed of light, C = 3x108 ms-1. If God is all knowning he must know everything simultaniously and instantaniously. If God knows everything simultaniously and instandtaniously the limit of information transmission, C, does not apply. As C applies in all frames of reference, for God to be all knowning, God must be outside of time.
thebeardslastcall Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 The limit on the transmission of information is the speed of light, C = 3x108 ms-1. If God is all knowning he must know everything simultaniously. If God knows everything simultaniously the limit of information transmission, C does not apply. As C applies in all frames of reference, for God to be all knowning God must be outside of time. That seems like a really bad argument to use against a religious person, because C is just some measured limitation on reality as we know it, but there could be other dimensions, within time, whereby there are no such limits on the transmission of information. I mean to say you've brought in some scientific measurements into a theoretical and abstract discussion that tends to obscure the base principles of logic that are the relevant and needed tools for discussing the topic, which gives people something to argue against while avoiding the meat of the issue. A more theoretical approach within that same avenue that avoids the whole 'evil science that I can disregard as going to be wrong later' is to abstract the point out from the start that the transmission of information either has or doesn't have some limitation. For example God could be all-knowing in that he can simply see everything always, including the past and future, which thus makes it sound like he is outside of time since he can see all times simultaneously and that his sight has no transmission rate thus saying the universe, past, present, and future, is all immediately visible and thus known to him. This however skirts the issue a bit, as he is outside of standard time in a sense, because his knowledge or "vision" is not limited to the "present", but he still operates within time if he has any interactions at all. So he can't be completely outside of time if he is a being who operates within time. But action and thought and consciousness are movements, not immutable states, and thus must be inside of some sense of time. So is this view of God inside or outside of time? Both it would seem to some. That may seem a bit paradoxical to some, naturally and leads to the next issue as well. If God is all knowing and can see the future, does that mean he has no power or will to change it from what he sees? Thus is he not in a sense devoid of free will if he is all-knowing and practically the opposite of all-powerful in that in many ways he is powerless because his path is not just set, but known as well? Saying God is all-powerful is also another one of those paradoxical statements that gets said because it sounds nice and fancy, but it's rather meaningless, because there is no such possibility of all-powerful. All power must have limits, that is reality, and I don't mean this reality, but any reality is only a reality if it has limits. Limits are what define reality and all-powerful is a paradoxical claim that helps you identify them as just making stuff up to make their God sound grand. Other people have settled for a feeble and pathetic God of late it seems, when faced with reality, but being unable to embrace the rejection of God, as evidenced by the recent call in show #3047 caller number two. Next time someone says they believe in God get them to define God. They generally struggle with such a request and will begin evasion and fogging maneuvers. Most people know the more they concretely define God the more their God can be shown to not make sense, so they just settle for "God is beyond human understanding" and say that is the answer and leave it at something akin to that. Religious people specialize in non-answers after all.
wdiaz03 Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 That seems like a really bad argument to use against a religious person.... Any argument is probably unsuitable for a religious person. Are you trying to use rational arguments with religious people? why? "Not saying whether you should or shouldn't just curious of why you are doing it.
WorBlux Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 Where would of time come from then. If God was in time, then time would have to pre-exist God. Also as far as we can tell, time is an aspect of space-time. (A reletivistic model of the universe doesn't allow you to seperate them out) Something omnipotent couldn't exist in a temporal frame anymore than it could exist in a specific location. It being at point A could no longer affect things at point B.
thebeardslastcall Posted August 15, 2015 Posted August 15, 2015 Any argument is probably unsuitable for a religious person. Are you trying to use rational arguments with religious people? why? "Not saying whether you should or shouldn't just curious of why you are doing it. I don't really. I was trying to point out that the use of C had no real place and weakened his point with any audience. A philosopher will want to deal with the topic rationally and is okay using abstracts and wants to use base reasoning and logic to discuss the topic, whereas a religious person won't have any use for that part either since it will just serve to weaken the point and make it easier for them to squirm away from real arguments by pointing out common perceived science failures and errors. There is also the audience of potentially convertible people to consider and how they will react to the original argument and how 'debunking bad science' would then help fuel the religious people's irrationality. So if you can avoid fueling their irrationality with points that don't strengthen the argument or point, but instead keep it more lean and concise it will work a bit better in various ways. Where would of time come from then. If God was in time, then time would have to pre-exist God. Where would God come from then? What's the difference? There isn't one, it's a point religious people can't comprehend. They use God to create everything because they can't imagine these things existing without a God creating them, but are perfectly comfortable with a God existing without these same conditions of needing to come from something. The whole point of being atheist is to recognize the contradictions in a God, which is why we reject the notion of God. You can't make sense of a God because it is irrational. Getting back to the original post, What are the (logical) attributes of God?... Well that's the whole point of atheism, the core attributes of God aren't logical. It's like asking a guy why he beat his wife... when he didn't beat his wife or anyone else and doesn't have and never had a wife, it's an invalid question.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted August 16, 2015 Author Posted August 16, 2015 I am inclined to think that the main reason from which this argument was put forward hasn't been mentioned yet. Considering the philosophical commitements I've seen in monotheism (basicly the edicts and epistemology of the religion is considered more reliable then an individual's reason.): -I don't think a believer would seek to accomodate god to general relativity. He would do the opposite with sci-fi or/and the ''We are wrong and haven't found out about it yet''. (off-topic)Wasn't there a thing which said time is the product of quantum.. entanglement?
WasatchMan Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 I am inclined to think that the main reason from which this argument was put forward hasn't been mentioned yet. Considering the philosophical commitements I've seen in monotheism (basicly the edicts and epistemology of the religion is considered more reliable then an individual's reason.): -I don't think a believer would seek to accomodate god to general relativity. He would do the opposite with sci-fi or/and the ''We are wrong and haven't found out about it yet''. (off-topic)Wasn't there a thing which said time is the product of quantum.. entanglement? So you are saying that god is unknowable.. OK... So what? What does that have to do with philosophy, which only has to do with the knowable? Things people can make up and that aren't confined to reality are automatically out of the realm of philosophy and in the realm of made up bullshit.
Guest Gee Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 I don't really. I was trying to point out that the use of C had no real place and weakened his point with any audience. Good point, the science of physics has a terrible track record when it comes to describing the nature of reality, I don't know what I was thinking.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted August 16, 2015 Author Posted August 16, 2015 So you are saying that god is unknowable.. OK... So what? No. Because I don't even know what god is supposed to be in the first place. So I can't verify if its plausible atleast in the realm of common axioms, such as consistency and logic we've experienced. https://www.google.com/search?q=Philosophy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Philosophy+definition In this instance, my inquire falls under: ''the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.'' Their thoughts exist wether what they put forward is true or not. So it is in reality. Unless you think they don't exist. Btw, my running goal in this thread is: finding what provoked the argument ''god is outside of time'' from a religious person. There have been 2 good mentions so far and I think there is more, so I'll check back in the future and hope to find something useful not sarcasm.
Donnadogsoth Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 As a Christian I think God is outside of time for the sake of Aristotle's Final Cause. God needs to have perspective in order to providentially arrange the outcomes of history. He needs to know our choices, something that can't be predicted in advance in ordinary time.
john cena Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 As a Christian I think God is outside of time for the sake of Aristotle's Final Cause. God needs to have perspective in order to providentially arrange the outcomes of history. He needs to know our choices, something that can't be predicted in advance in ordinary time. That makes sense, however it won't convince any philosopher here most likely. To back it up, logic only applies in our universe as we see it. Without time, without sentient brains, there is no logic, we are the sole purveyors of it. God is something very hard to convey, because words are only markings representing some concept we previously understand. Using these terms loosely, if God "exists" outside of time, then being all knowing and all powerful is not a logical contradiction; it is only so when time is a factor. If there is no God existing outside of our universe, it is impossible that we exist today. There must be a cause for our universe; if not, cause and effect and thus logic are null and void entirely. In infinite regression, there must also be a cause to the effect that caused our universe, and so on. Infinity does not exist, it is merely a concept we give to some things we can not conceptualize due to our limited spatial dimensions in which we exist. Therefore, it is logically impossible for God not to exist, in the same way that it is impossible for infinity to exist, even though mathematicians use it every single day reliably. Although that ascribes no form to "him", only that he "exists". Again, I use the term "exists" very loosely here for lack of a better word. There is not really a word to describe the existence of God, just as there is no word to describe the things that existed prior to the big bang. Sure there was something, but without time it most certainly did not "exist". What was it then? Lack of understanding or ability to comprehend God however is not an argument. I would love to see someone refute this argument by the way, I'm very open minded. To answer OP's question: God is the root cause of existance on which all effect is fundamentally founded, this is where I argue from.
neeeel Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 There must be a cause for our universe Why?
john cena Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality Logically, each effect must have a cause. I can't answer why, that's like trying to answer why does 2+2=4. It's just a fundamental principle of the universe. Maybe you have an answer as to why the creating of the universe, the very effect that is the cause of all of us being here today, is the one single exception of cause and effect for philosophers.
neeeel Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality Logically, each effect must have a cause. I can't answer why, that's like trying to answer why does 2+2=4. It's just a fundamental principle of the universe. Maybe you have an answer as to why the creating of the universe, the very effect that is the cause of all of us being here today, is the one single exception of cause and effect for philosophers. just because everything we observe has a cause, doesnt mean that everything has to have a cause. thats the argument from incredulity. Also, having a cause doesnt imply having a causer. Our minds probably cant grok the concept, but that doesnt mean that everything has a cause.
john cena Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 just because everything we observe has a cause, doesnt mean that everything has to have a cause. thats the argument from incredulity. Also, having a cause doesnt imply having a causer. Our minds probably cant grok the concept, but that doesnt mean that everything has a cause. Am I not arguing from empiricism here? As far as I thought, evidence trumps concepts. Therefore, every effect has a cause. You saying that an effect may exist without a cause is just as incredible as my claim for God; there is no evidence for either. Having a cause does in fact according to causality imply having a causer, although not that the causer must be a sentient being. The "causer" would simply be the cause for that effect which is the initiation of the universe. Remember, God is the root cause of existence on which all effect is fundamentally founded, this is where I argue from. I am not arguing that God is a human figure or "being", but some "thing" (literally no better word here) the likes of which we can't comprehend at all beyond the simplification to "boundless love" taught by Jesus. I am for certain that once we die, we will have all of infinite eternity to potentially be resurrected. According to physics, anything that can happen, will happen. Eventually an identical copy of us will or already exists, somewhere. If this probability is high enough that it can simply happen on it's own due to random mutation of the universe, who are we to say some being not only transient of time, but the creator of time, can not manipulate these things easily? This in itself is the moth/flame concept in a nutshell. We are always ignorant, objectively speaking. We can only be intelligent in relation to other human beings. To truly be wise is to accept you know effectively NOTHING, and to assert otherwise is willful ignorance, to your own ignorance. I don't mean this in a demeaning tone, simply words said by men wiser than I.
neeeel Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Am I not arguing from empiricism here? As far as I thought, evidence trumps concepts. Therefore, every effect has a cause. I suppose it would be fair to claim that, since every effect we have seen has a cause, that every effect has a cause. Im not sure I would consider the universe as an effect though, but point taken, it is just speculation on my part
Donnadogsoth Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Cause and effect are based on Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. If we accept that principle, that things have to have a sufficient reason to be the way they are and not another way, then cause and effect follows. Why accept the PSR? Because not accepting it is coterminous with madness. Thus the primary reality we have to face here is choice. Do we choose to be mad or do we choose to be sane?
john cena Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 I suppose it would be fair to claim that, since every effect we have seen has a cause, that every effect has a cause. Im not sure I would consider the universe as an effect though, but point taken, it is just speculation on my part This is all purely speculation at this point in the game.. no worries. One more point; In addition to cause and effect, the laws of physics dictate that you cannot create nor destroy energy. Therefore not only did the universe have a cause, but a specific origin of each and every particle. Something at some point in time must have created the matter, else it would not exist. On it's face, conservation of energy appears broken if you merely look at our universe only as a closed system, I speculate that the laws of physics are indeed not broken, logic is not broken, and there some God or creator or "root cause", whatever you want to call it. This proves that the universe must have had a cause, else the entire laws of physics framework as well as logic are not sound.. Something I do not rule out entirely, but if that's true we might as well all be nihilists.. Which if we are why the hell are we even on this forum right? If you really think about it, you can never come to any thought without arriving there from a previous thought. Although the complicated concepts of thought in human beings really don't have a definite beginning point, i'd say it's fairly self evident to any sentient being that every thought has a previous thought, akin to every effect having a cause. This shows that even in the intangible false reality of our minds, cause and effect are active on complex scales seen nowhere else in the universe outside of our brain matter. It's pretty amazing.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 15, 2015 Author Posted September 15, 2015 There is no begining and no end to reality/truth It is eternal. or maybe its not. But there is no point in believing that Infinity / eternity. If you have a sample of 50 000 you cannot convict a sample of which you haven't even found the size of.
Koroviev Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Even if there was a "god" who started everything who was outside of time, or our dimension when we talk about existence we are talking about things that have an effect on our reality. If it has no effect on our reality (i.e. it cannot be observed directly or indirectly) then it does not exist. If there is some being who purposefully (or accidentally) kicked off the chain of reactions that lead us to where we are today that does not make that being a god (assuming the generally accepted definition of "god"). If that being no longer has an effect on observable reality then that being no longer exists. omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. If some being is omniscient then that being must know what actions humans will take before they take them (i.e. determinism) omnipotence and free will are mutually exclusive. If humans have free will than "god" cannot have the power to change them. omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. If a being has knowledge of everything that will happen then that being does not have the power to change what will happen. As Stef as pointed out many times when people claim things that are self-contradictory (i.e. a square circle) the burden of proof falls to the person making that claim.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 One more point; In addition to cause and effect, the laws of physics dictate that you cannot create nor destroy energy. {QUOTE SNIP } Something at some point in time must have created the matter, else it would not exist. Logic dictates that there is no beginning and thus no need for a 'creator'. Reality goes back infinitely and has no beginning. Everything is 'caused', but there need not be any agency to any particular cause as that's something we associate with a being specifically or a particular type of reality and matter. There is no creator because there is no beginning. If there were a creator then how would that solve your problem, because you're saying there can be a creator, that was uncaused, to start off your causative universe. The classic "what created God?" problem. God suggests the universe has a start, needs a creator, but that this grand creator is free of these same needs. Time is motion and if there is no motion there is no life, no being, no creator, or agency. There are no beings or agents outside of time because that's a contradiction of terms. I am for certain that once we die, we will have all of infinite eternity to potentially be resurrected. According to physics, anything that can happen, will happen. Eventually an identical copy of us will or already exists, somewhere. If this probability is high enough that it can simply happen on it's own due to random mutation of the universe, who are we to say some being not only transient of time, but the creator of time, can not manipulate these things easily? What do you mean by resurrected? A being that feels it is a continuation of a previous being? Stating that everything that can happen will happen does not mean everything happens or that anything in particular happens. It is merely an interpretation and restating of sorts of determinism that confuses people that don't understand what 'can' means because they are confused how this fits in with their free will. An identical copy of you will never be recreated, even in an infinite universe, but a similar being could emerge, though this not need be the case. The universe could 'count infinitely up and down' and never repeat a single integer while going on forever in both directions. All integers can and will happen and all non-integers can't and won't happen in this example. Each instant is unique in a sense and never repeats. These popular views of a God, creator, manipulator of time, and such, are a version of a simulated universe that is not infinite in the same way reality is. It places a start on time and a limit to the depth of reality such that events can repeat them selves in a sort of bit form, but in reality there is no limit to the depth or scale of matter and no being can recreate this infinite depth of space and time. It's also safe to assume that no being can live forever and thus could not maintain any simulation forever and any created simulation by a being (who must be in time, no god) would would to an 'end' as well in that it would eventually fail to maintain its 'simulated' life, which may also technically be real life.
john cena Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Even if there was a "god" who started everything who was outside of time, or our dimension when we talk about existence we are talking about things that have an effect on our reality. If it has no effect on our reality (i.e. it cannot be observed directly or indirectly) then it does not exist. Basically what you are saying there is akin to saying that a programmer has little effect on the reality of a game once it's released and being played by players. Are you really coming from there? Sure you have free will in the game, but only to win or lose the game and you can tap into rewards/traps predefined into the system by the programmer. IE this is why being moral is also the means to the best most productive society, by sheer coincidence of physics..? Maybe. If the universe were designed top down, every single action of every single particle (even the undiscovered ones) could potentially be manipulated by some unknown force, appearing to be completely random (IE causeless) to humans. Once again, physics shows that there is indeed a God because if there is no discoverable cause to the observed and constant effect of wave/particle duality on the quantum scale, logic and physics are broken while if there is indeed a God, we are all not insane and there is indeed a cause to the effects of all reality. omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. If some being is omniscient then that being must know what actions humans will take before they take them (i.e. determinism) According to leading variants of Multiverse Theory, each independent transfer of one photon causes a new frame in the universe and thus a parallel universe to be created. In this case, each of the smallest of units of energy transfer (the smallest possible base for a decision) creates an entirely new universe. If this is true, that would allow for omniscience to exist alongside free will, since free will may and certainly will (According to physics once again, if it can happen, it will happen) exercise itself in each and every possible permutation, omniscience is merely knowing the outcome of every possible combination of atoms in the universe; a feat only commutable with resources external to this universe, yet not impossible. omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. If a being has knowledge of everything that will happen then that being does not have the power to change what will happen. Once again, revolutionary physics models make the case for omnipotence and omniscience not being mutually exclusive. If every permutation of the universe will eventually happen, then it is absolutely possible to be all knowing and all powerful across time, not only because of the infinite universe theory but because of the very fact that implanted into the design of the universe is ambiguity or uncaused randomness in each and every particle we can observe. This is a direct and measurable effect on matter and energy, ALL of the matter and energy in our universe we have detected so far. I have heard the "square circle" argument against God many times, [i do not yet have a physics degree, so I say in my opinion here. Very open to criticism] it simply stems from a lack of understanding of physics and especially quantum physics.
Koroviev Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Basically what you are saying there is akin to saying that a programmer has little effect on the reality of a game once it's released and being played by players. Are you really coming from there? Sure you have free will in the game, but only to win or lose the game and you can tap into rewards/traps predefined into the system by the programmer. IE this is why being moral is also the means to the best most productive society, by sheer coincidence of physics..? Maybe. If the universe were designed top down, every single action of every single particle (even the undiscovered ones) could potentially be manipulated by some unknown force, appearing to be completely random (IE causeless) to humans. Once again, physics shows that there is indeed a God because if there is no discoverable cause to the observed and constant effect of wave/particle duality on the quantum scale, logic and physics are broken while if there is indeed a God, we are all not insane and there is indeed a cause to the effects of all reality. Once a game is released the programmer ceases to exist within the "reality" of his game, yes. Now the programmer can revisit the game (patches) but that is more akin to a tourist than a god. If you are saying "god" is like the programmer of a video game then sure, that "god" potentially could exist, but that "god" would have no influence on our day to day lives, and for all practical purposes would not exist except to create a new (slightly different) universe through "patches". A programmer would know the outcome of almost every reaction a non-playable character would have to the actions of a player, but NPC's are far from having free will. Even with NPCs a programmer is not omniscient since a programmer cannot predict every action a player might make (this is how people find bugs and exploits in code). For a programmer to be omniscient and omnipotent, both generally accepted traits of a god, the programmer would have to design a "game" where every action, choice, victory, or defeat was predetermined by the programmer. This however would again take away free will and that's making the big assumption that no one ever figured out a way to break the game, thereby removing the omniscients and omnipotents of the programmer. Just for clarification are we working off the same definition of "god?" If so would you agree that a being that is not omniscient and omnipotent that being is not a god? 1
john cena Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Once a game is released the programmer ceases to exist within the "reality" of his game, yes. Now the programmer can revisit the game (patches) but that is more akin to a tourist than a god. If you are saying "god" is like the programmer of a video game then sure, that "god" potentially could exist, but that "god" would have no influence on our day to day lives, and for all practical purposes would not exist except to create a new (slightly different) universe through "patches". A programmer would know the outcome of almost every reaction a non-playable character would have to the actions of a player, but NPC's are far from having free will. Even with NPCs a programmer is not omniscient since a programmer cannot predict every action a player might make (this is how people find bugs and exploits in code). For a programmer to be omniscient and omnipotent, both generally accepted traits of a god, the programmer would have to design a "game" where every action, choice, victory, or defeat was predetermined by the programmer. This however would again take away free will and that's making the big assumption that no one ever figured out a way to break the game, thereby removing the omniscients and omnipotents of the programmer. This metaphor only goes so far, you did not attack any of my actual points. Are you implying that the programmer does not design the very fabric of the game you inhabit? Are you implying a programmer can not make a game where the collective benefits from good or evil? Sure, a human programmer working with finite resources cannot account for every instance of the game played, that is where the metaphor breaks down. However an omnipotent being with the ability to see all permutations of existence of the universe absent of time is not limited by this factor. Remember, time is fundamentally no different than the other three spatial dimensions, except in how your mind chooses to interpret it. How can you claim that the one who creates the fabric of reality does not influence day to day events when the very events themselves would not be happening if it were not for the creation? The degree can be debated in this point, however let's more onto my second point. Influence: the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. Every single particle of the universe is fundamentally random. We can not predict the position and velocity of a particle at a given time, and thus cannot apply rational principles outside of mere probability, which is really unrelated to how a whole atom performs with other atom superstructures because of their unequal and ever changing distribution relative to each other. Therefore, every single particle in existence is capable of being altered by some "force" that is un-observable to us. Is this starting to sound eerily similar to the program again? Imagine being a fully sentient human being with all of the tools to observe the universe, yet held inside of a simple ram stick in a computer. Would these fundamental particles [EG bytes] not behave in remarkably similar ways, IE you can observe them, yet not predit them outside of a probability set? I am a programmer, so I may be taking this metaphor quite beyond the scope of understanding for this argument. I do not find it neccecary to sustain the argument, only beneficial in purveying my meaning behind the argument. Just for clarification are we working off the same definition of "god?" If so would you agree that a being that is not omniscient and omnipotent that being is not a god? I would prefer to argue from the definition of God as the root cause of existence. However for argument and learning sake, I'm more than happy to use your definition of omnipotent and omniscient, although I believe both of those terms to be a subset of being the root cause of existence due to their very nature.
Koroviev Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Just taking your points one by one as to cut down on the length of the posts This metaphor only goes so far, you did not attack any of my actual points. Are you implying that the programmer does not design the very fabric of the game you inhabit? Are you implying a programmer can not make a game where the collective benefits from good or evil? Sure, a human programmer working with finite resources cannot account for every instance of the game played, that is where the metaphor breaks down. However an omnipotent being with the ability to see all permutations of existence of the universe absent of time is not limited by this factor. Remember, time is fundamentally no different than the other three spatial dimensions, except in how your mind chooses to interpret it. No my points were simply that a programmer does not exist in the "reality" of the game and that programmers are not omnipotent or omniscient even in the context of a video game, at least not a game where there is free will, thus the metaphor does not hold at all. As I said a "creator" could exist but however this does not make that creator a "god," it just as easily could have been a being that accidentally kicked something over causing the reactions that ended in us. Either way this is not someone who needs to be praised. It also kind of invalidates the bible doesn't it? As to the multiverse theory you are claiming that something outside of our universe that contradicts the laws of physics (in our universe) exists within our universe. Again being all powerful (omnipotent) and being all knowing (omniscient) are contradictions. If a being knows with 100% certainty what is going to happen in every situation then that being does not have the power to change what is going to happen (otherwise it wouldn't know with 100% certainty), also if there is a being that knows with 100% certainty what will happen in every situation then that is determinism which means no free will. If a being is all powerful (omnipotent) then that being has the power to cause us to do whatever it wants which also means no free will. If a being is all powerful that means it has the power to (among other things) change the outcome of the future (i.e. not determinism) which means it cannot know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future. If something that cannot exist in our universe (i.e. invalidates the laws of physics) but can exist in another universe that is no different from not existing. If as you said every particle Limits in our understanding to this point in time does not equal god. Also, if I understand right we cannot directly observe the position of an atom because our method of observing an atom changes it's position, as opposed to some un-observable force changes the position.
green banana Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Remember, time is fundamentally no different than the other three spatial dimensions, except in how your mind chooses to interpret it. It is. You can go from Paris to Toulouse. Try to go back from now to 1570. We can not predict the position and velocity of a particle at a given time It's about momentum, not velocity. Momentum and position are complementary. The more you know about the one, the more uncertain becomes the other. and thus cannot apply rational principles outside of mere probability, How are the uncertainty principle and probability connected? What makes rationality opposed to probability? which is really unrelated to how a whole atom performs with other atom superstructures because of their unequal and ever changing distribution relative to each other. Learn about entanglement. Therefore, every single particle in existence is capable of being altered by some "force" that is un-observable to us. Even if your premises were correct this would not follow.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 16, 2015 Author Posted September 16, 2015 It's about momentum, not velocity. Momentum and position are complementary. The more you know about the one, the more uncertain becomes the other. Are you sure you ment the above as opposed to : The more you know about the one, the more certain becomes the other ? /Scientific curiosity
green banana Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Are you sure you ment the above as opposed to : The more you know about the one, the more certain becomes the other ? /Scientific curiosity You are right, poor choice of words on my side. The more information you get on one, the less you have on the other.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 16, 2015 Author Posted September 16, 2015 You are right, poor choice of words on my side. The more information you get on one, the less you have on the other. Is it because you cannot simultenously record both information? I cannot judge your choice of words because I don't know what is being talked about .
Koroviev Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 If we're still talking about atoms (again from my very limited knowledge) the issue is the only methodology we have to "see" atoms changes the position of the atom the more precise we get. There's a much better explanation of it than I could give in A Brief History of Time by Stephan Hawking, but in a sense the more precise we are the less certain we can be about the position of the atom. This is where Schrodinger's cat comes from.
DCLugi Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 As a Christian I think God is outside of time for the sake of Aristotle's Final Cause. God needs to have perspective in order to providentially arrange the outcomes of history. He needs to know our choices, something that can't be predicted in advance in ordinary time. Is that to say that god is aware of the outcomes of our choices before we make them?
Donnadogsoth Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Is that to say that god is aware of the outcomes of our choices before we make them? Yes.
Recommended Posts