Is God really a paradox? (Omnipotence and Omniscience)

[Kohlrak]

Stefan Molyneux, in one of his books, makes the claim that the Gods of old are logically impossible, because omnipotence and omniscience, he argues, cannot co-exist within the same entity. The argument is that with omniscience, you must therefore know the future, and therefore it is unchangeable. Being unchangeable, then, means you do not have the power to change it, meaning you cannot be omnipotent. There are a few issues though. First and foremost, the Judeo-Christian God, for example, can be reasoned with and have His mind changed, which means He is either not omniscient to begin with, and/or He can be informed by information that does not yet exist which, since it does not yet exist. To argue the former is simple: the texts of various religions are admitted written by people and thus certain details can be excusably inconsistent (like the christian gospels) or wrong, simply because religious texts are more or less writings from the perspectives of individuals about their experiences, scientific findings, philosophies, parables, etc, rather than infallible resources (despite arguments from a particular religious to the otherwise, since, usually, authors of religious texts will often admit they're not perfect orators nor perfect at all [see Moses, for example]).

 

The latter case is much, much more important to make: that all that there is to know does not yet exist, therefore cannot be a breaking factor for omniscience. The basis for this argument comes from the illogical assumption that time exists: for the future to be known, we must first establish that the past and present already exist. The issue with time itself, however, lies with a paradox. If time itself exists, it must be traversable: and if you can traverse forward, then you must be able to traverse backwards, unless by anything traversing forwards everything then is forced forwards and the past ceases to exist, which is illogical, since if the future exists, then everything is already forced forward since it is something. Thus, for it to exist, it must ultimately be traversable both ways. Now, if it is traversable both ways, then you run into an issue where something could be sent back in time that prevents it's own ability the ability to traverse time (by preventing time travel and/or it's origins). Should this happen, then the starting point (which is in the future) cannot be bent to send it into the past. If time is not somehow traversable, then it must not exist.

 

Time, I argue, is a concept made by man to measure changes and events, just like man can measure the separation of two or more objects. However, just like numbers are an abstraction that do not exist (the representations and concepts exist, but the subject of both does not), time also does not exist, nor do the X, Y, and Z axes, etc.

 

Sorry if this is difficult to follow, i had this argument saved in a file some time ago, but I have lost the file and I'm trying to type it quickly. The long short of the argument is that the time traveler paradox is a case (or disproof) against the existence of time, which means that knowledge of past and future is not a requirement of omniscience, therefore the ability to change the future is not an existing power to be included in the term of omnipotence, thus omniscience and omnipotence can co-exist. Given the issues of disposing religion, it would seem worth it to try to find logical reasons to adopt it, particularly where logic and reason are not enough alone to adopt universally preferable behavior. I would also argue that there is still quite the possibility that a God does exist, until we know for certain that it is impossible, the same rigor should be given to finding the truth, as opposed to simply forming a consensus on reality like the left attempts to do.

[Goldenages]

Actually there is little that science knows about time. Most theorems in physics have no preferred direction, means they are time reversible. Einsteins general relativistic theory does not tell us about a flow of time, spacetime exists as a whole.  Einstein himself said that time is a tenacious illusion.

The only theorem that tells us about a non-reversible flow of time is entropy. Everything goes from order into a mess. (Even cleaning up your desk does not help. The energy you loose, thus the increase in entropy when your desk is tidy again, is greater than the order you achieved on your desk).

Since our understanding of time is so restricted it comes as no surprise that some kinds of paradoxons arise. So usually its said that time travel is not possible at all. Sounds convincing, I have not seen any tourists from the future yet. Or its said paradoxons can not exist since there are infinite universes who solve all problems like killing your father etc. So obviously we live in the only one where still no son killed his own father back in his youth and a whole universe doubled to continue in two ways.

On 5.5.2017 at 5:03 PM, Kohlrak said:

The long short of the argument is that the time traveler paradox is a case (or disproof) against the existence of time, which means that knowledge of past and future is not a requirement of omniscience, therefore the ability to change the future is not an existing power to be included in the term of omnipotence, thus omniscience and omnipotence can co-exist.

 

I can only offer you my somewhat pragmatic, or call it naive, opinion: There must be something like time.  There must be a stage where changes can take place - without such a stage nothing could happen. I witness happenings all the time (sic!).  Maybe time is an emergent phenomenon. Some weird insights in quantum theory indicate that - for particles in superposition there seem to be no such thing as time or a fixed position, although they exist already, they still have no information about how to behave. They get this information only after contact with other particles, usually we call this measurement.

So if there is no time, yes than obviously there is no past, no now and no future, and no god can be blamed for not knowing the non existing. But thats the point: Nothing would exist without time.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

God is omniscient (knows everything there is to know), omnipotent (can do anything it is logically possible to do from his perspective), and outside of time.  He does everything from his perspective, instantaneous.  It is only humans  etc. who experience time as such.

Furthermore, he does not "change his mind" but rather has different reactions to different people, people who can change their relationships toward him and therefore change his reaction to them.  Imagine God as a giant whetstone with horrible rough ragged patches alternating with smooth patches.  Humans are a knife to be sharpened.  If the knife is placed against the smooth patch, it will be sharpened.  If the knife is placed against the rough patch, it will break.  The wheel doesn't change, the human response to the wheel does.

[Eudaimonic]

4 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God is omniscient (knows everything there is to know), omnipotent (can do anything it is logically possible to do from his perspective), and outside of time.  He does everything from his perspective, instantaneous.  It is only humans  etc. who experience time as such.

So many God arguments seem to be goal post moving mixed with justification for why the last 10,000 theories on God didn't hold out.

What emperically shows God is outside of time and how can you know given that you are inside of time and have no experience of and no method of detecting something "outside of time?"

No one has ever been able to verify the existence of God through any detectable means, he's constantly pushed further and further into the realm of abstractions and the extent to which God can be argued for is the extent to which Humanity is simply ignorant of the mechanics of reality. It's truly a God of the Gaps.

[Donnadogsoth]

7 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

So many God arguments seem to be goal post moving mixed with justification for why the last 10,000 theories on God didn't hold out.

What emperically shows God is outside of time and how can you know given that you are inside of time and have no experience of and no method of detecting something "outside of time?"

No one has ever been able to verify the existence of God through any detectable means, he's constantly pushed further and further into the realm of abstractions and the extent to which God can be argued for is the extent to which Humanity is simply ignorant of the mechanics of reality. It's truly a God of the Gaps.

I'm not arguing here for the existence of God, I am merely arguing that God's existence is not irrational.

[Kohlrak]

5 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Actually there is little that science knows about time. Most theorems in physics have no preferred direction, means they are time reversible. Einsteins general relativistic theory does not tell us about a flow of time, spacetime exists as a whole.  Einstein himself said that time is a tenacious illusion.

The only theorem that tells us about a non-reversible flow of time is entropy. Everything goes from order into a mess. (Even cleaning up your desk does not help. The energy you loose, thus the increase in entropy when your desk is tidy again, is greater than the order you achieved on your desk).

Since our understanding of time is so restricted it comes as no surprise that some kinds of paradoxons arise. So usually its said that time travel is not possible at all. Sounds convincing, I have not seen any tourists from the future yet. Or its said paradoxons can not exist since there are infinite universes who solve all problems like killing your father etc. So obviously we live in the only one where still no son killed his own father back in his youth and a whole universe doubled to continue in two ways.

 

Would this not then be traveling through alternative realities, as opposed to time?

 

5 hours ago, Goldenages said:

I can only offer you my somewhat pragmatic, or call it naive, opinion: There must be something like time.  There must be a stage where changes can take place - without such a stage nothing could happen. I witness happenings all the time (sic!).  Maybe time is an emergent phenomenon. Some weird insights in quantum theory indicate that - for particles in superposition there seem to be no such thing as time or a fixed position, although they exist already, they still have no information about how to behave. They get this information only after contact with other particles, usually we call this measurement.

So if there is no time, yes than obviously there is no past, no now and no future, and no god can be blamed for not knowing the non existing. But thats the point: Nothing would exist without time.

 

regards

Andi

 

Right, measurement being a property that does not exist outside of us assigning things. I argue, however, that the present exists, but only the present exists. If time doesn't exist, the present could still exist. It is merely the past and future which cannot exist without time.

 

4 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

God is omniscient (knows everything there is to know), omnipotent (can do anything it is logically possible to do from his perspective), and outside of time.  He does everything from his perspective, instantaneous.  It is only humans  etc. who experience time as such.

Furthermore, he does not "change his mind" but rather has different reactions to different people, people who can change their relationships toward him and therefore change his reaction to them.  Imagine God as a giant whetstone with horrible rough ragged patches alternating with smooth patches.  Humans are a knife to be sharpened.  If the knife is placed against the smooth patch, it will be sharpened.  If the knife is placed against the rough patch, it will break.  The wheel doesn't change, the human response to the wheel does.

 

Christianity has described a God whose mind is quite changeable. He will say one thing, then someone would attempt to reason with him, then a different result would occur. This is change.

 

25 minutes ago, Eudaimonic said:

So many God arguments seem to be goal post moving mixed with justification for why the last 10,000 theories on God didn't hold out.

What emperically shows God is outside of time and how can you know given that you are inside of time and have no experience of and no method of detecting something "outside of time?"

No one has ever been able to verify the existence of God through any detectable means, he's constantly pushed further and further into the realm of abstractions and the extent to which God can be argued for is the extent to which Humanity is simply ignorant of the mechanics of reality. It's truly a God of the Gaps.

 

The same could easily be said about the multi-verse theory making up the first reply to this post. Goal-post moving seems to be par for the course on both sides. By denying the existence of time itself (as opposed to sequential events), I hope to be changing that.

[Donnadogsoth]

4 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Christianity has described a God whose mind is quite changeable. He will say one thing, then someone would attempt to reason with him, then a different result would occur. This is change.

I don't think you read what I wrote.  The navigation by man (free will) of the unchanging terrain of God's mind (God's will) means that man, as through prayer or action, can change his relationship to God and thereby change how God will react to him.  God's will and other qualities remain the same, it is man who can change his fate through invoking different aspects of that will.  E.g., a man who saves life, will be reacted to by God differently from a man who murders life.  God's "rules" remain the same, it is only man's behaviour that changes and therefore man himself chooses whether he will climb the mountain or dash himself upon the rocks.

[Kohlrak]

2 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

I don't think you read what I wrote.  The navigation by man (free will) of the unchanging terrain of God's mind (God's will) means that man, as through prayer or action, can change his relationship to God and thereby change how God will react to him.  God's will and other qualities remain the same, it is man who can change his fate through invoking different aspects of that will.  E.g., a man who saves life, will be reacted to by God differently from a man who murders life.  God's "rules" remain the same, it is only man's behaviour that changes and therefore man himself chooses whether he will climb the mountain or dash himself upon the rocks.

Jesus would argue that his rules did change to some degree, but it's easier to argue on another level: His actions have taken a different course because of man's intervening words. And you are arguing as much. That is very much changing His mind. His rules aren't the only thing in His mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

3 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Jesus would argue that his rules did change to some degree, but it's easier to argue on another level: His actions have taken a different course because of man's intervening words. And you are arguing as much. That is very much changing His mind. His rules aren't the only thing in His mind.

Again, you haven't read, or haven't absorbed, what I wrote.  You are tumbling down the mountain and telling the mountain that it has changed.

[Kohlrak]

1 minute ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Again, you haven't read, or haven't absorbed, what I wrote.  You are tumbling down the mountain and telling the mountain that it has changed.

With the snow changing the landscape of the mountain.

[Goldenages]

17 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

I argue, however, that the present exists, but only the present exists. If time doesn't exist, the present could still exist. It is merely the past and future which cannot exist without time.

I agree (continuing my naive view ) that only the present exists. Past does not exist any more, future not yet. But all the presences passing by have to be connected by causality and, generally, by the laws of physics. If they were not connected, nothing could exist, cause the matter representing my body would be here in one moment and somewhere else in the next. I would aim and throw a ball in one moment, but in the next the ball would literally do anything - disintegrate, or fly somewhere in outer space, etc.  So to have a present I need the past - bought the ball yesterday - and I need the future, i.e. I throw the ball into the basket. To make valid predictions of the future (to aim with the ball) I need causality.

So I am afraid without a connected flow of presents - in other words, time -  also the one present is not possible. 

 

regards

Andi

[os.motic]

Just Be. Stop worrying about what some guy says and just live. Don't worry, you will die time existing or not. 

[Kohlrak]

Sorry for not posting for so long: it's been a long week.

 

On 5/7/2017 at 0:41 PM, Goldenages said:

I agree (continuing my naive view ) that only the present exists. Past does not exist any more, future not yet. But all the presences passing by have to be connected by causality and, generally, by the laws of physics. If they were not connected, nothing could exist, cause the matter representing my body would be here in one moment and somewhere else in the next. I would aim and throw a ball in one moment, but in the next the ball would literally do anything - disintegrate, or fly somewhere in outer space, etc.  So to have a present I need the past - bought the ball yesterday - and I need the future, i.e. I throw the ball into the basket. To make valid predictions of the future (to aim with the ball) I need causality.

So I am afraid without a connected flow of presents - in other words, time -  also the one present is not possible. 

 

regards

Andi

 

Presumably that would be how God could be omniscient, or at least see clear plans for the future: He knows because of causality. His predictions are almost always very, very long term, and also seem to have Himself in the equation. So, without any other logical opposition, can it then be said that the explanation makes sense and thus it is not illogical to believe in a god that would be omniscient and omnipotent? Or, at the very least, omnipotent but smarter than us?

 

The main reason I signed up here, is because Stefan seems logical, and since he owns the place, it seems like a good place to wrestle with ideas and show that, even if i cannot prove God exists, I can at least show that it is not illogical. At some point I'd like to discuss Occam's razor. I think it would require some mental gymnastics to make God the logical conclusion, but if I can at least get the belief in God equally likely as atheism (even in the face of Occam's Razor) maybe things can settle down a little bit. My job as a christian isn't to force convert everyone, but settle the road blocks. I believe that if I can get rid of this misconception that a belief of God is illogical, the rest will fall into place. And we can see what happens when people have an excuse to be nihilists, even if atheism has an answer, once you throw out religion it's easier to ignore that answer.

 

EDIT: I do need to clarify, though, that as a Christian, I am obligated to the truth. So if I'm full of it, either i need to find a new solution to the problem or admit that my own religion collapsed on itself, then find a solution to the religion. I haven't seen any good reason outside of a few arguments, so far, that would suggest that the latter is a smart option. Stefan's argument in the original post is probably one of the best i've seen, but then it opens up to the floor being removed: why do we go straight for God before going for time?

[Goldenages]

23 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

So, without any other logical opposition, can it then be said that the explanation makes sense and thus it is not illogical to believe in a god that would be omniscient and omnipotent? Or, at the very least, omnipotent but smarter than us?

Define omniscient: Does God know literally anything, or just anything that is possible to know?  Some happenings in quantum mechanics can not be known, such as speed and position of a certain particle beyond a certain accuracy. Not because of lack of understanding, but because those properties are not defined more accurately - even nature does not "know" whats going on.

So is God outside of the laws of physics, and could tell us even more than those laws, or does he has to stick to this laws?  Only if he were outside of physical laws the word "omniscient" can be taken literally.  If he has to stick to physics, he could only be omniscient within this frame, thus his ability to foresee future would be limited.

 

 

 

One word to your first post:

On 5.5.2017 at 5:03 PM, Kohlrak said:

...the texts of various religions are admitted written by people and thus certain details can be excusably inconsistent (like the christian gospels) or wrong, simply because religious texts are more or less writings from the perspectives of individuals about their experiences, scientific findings, philosophies, parables, etc, rather than infallible resources (despite arguments from a particular religious to the otherwise, since, usually, authors of religious texts will often admit they're not perfect orators nor perfect at all..

If I had an important message I would like to make shure that everybody gets it right.

So why does God not reveal himself?  The way to tell his important message to just a few, replicating it from memory, and to write it down in different versions centuries later is a safe way for failure.

 

regards

Andi

 

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Goldenages said:

If I had an important message I would like to make shure that everybody gets it right.

So why does God not reveal himself?  The way to tell his important message to just a few, replicating it from memory, and to write it down in different versions centuries later is a safe way for failure.

 

Principle of least action.  God interferes with history to the least degree necessary to accomplish his aims.

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Principle of least action.  God interferes with history to the least degree necessary to accomplish his aims.

 

Yep, this is precisely it. And i'll elaborate more directly.

 

6 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Define omniscient: Does God know literally anything, or just anything that is possible to know?  Some happenings in quantum mechanics can not be known, such as speed and position of a certain particle beyond a certain accuracy. Not because of lack of understanding, but because those properties are not defined more accurately - even nature does not "know" whats going on.

So is God outside of the laws of physics, and could tell us even more than those laws, or does he has to stick to this laws?  Only if he were outside of physical laws the word "omniscient" can be taken literally.  If he has to stick to physics, he could only be omniscient within this frame, thus his ability to foresee future would be limited.

 

Omniscient would have to be only knowing that which is possible to know. To know more than what is possible to know is, by definition, impossible, thus cannot be expected to be included in the definition.

 

Quote

 

 

 

One word to your first post:

If I had an important message I would like to make shure that everybody gets it right.

So why does God not reveal himself?  The way to tell his important message to just a few, replicating it from memory, and to write it down in different versions centuries later is a safe way for failure.

 

regards

Andi

 

 

Donnadogsoth's point is one of many ideas, which may or may not also be part reasons rather than the entire reason. Another way to look at it would be that dependence upon Him would result if He were to be constantly making Himself known. If your primary objective is to have people who believe you exist, yes, then this would be setup for failure. If, however, Stefan's conclusion on Jesus were to be right, that it is more about individual growth and potential, then it makes perfect sense to get out only enough information as necessary to make sure the knowledge of you and your ideals are out there, so as to prevent people constantly making demands of you trying to reason away your actual objectives, much like when a student plays dumb and says the test is too difficult and therefore unfair, even if all the knowledge necessary for them to get every question right was presented to them. If God makes Himself known every hour on the hour, people would try to negotiate with him. However, if He does not, only those willing to follow Him without making negotiations will follow. The reason this is important is that there will be fewer followers if He appears indifferent, rather than a stoic outside force that only intervenes when His plan is directly threatened. If, however, the plan of God is to create free thinkers He, clearly, did a good job. Even if He is not as believed today as before, if your objective is to expand the number of free thinkers, then handing ideas to humans and having them write these ideas down and not stopping them from writing conflicting accounts definitely generates a lot of debate in your community of worshipers. I'm just wondering, myself, if His end all game would be to see if people can still follow the book and admit where it is wrong, yet still have faith in Him, but without being blind to reality. But, that's just my theory, which is only one of many.

To shorten my response, it only makes sense to say that it sets Him up for failure if his primary objective is believers in Him, rather than His ideals. The bible itself shows people who believe in God, but do not follow His ideals do not end up well, while people who do not believe in Him, yet follow His ideals, end up well off (or at least revered). We're meant to make disciples, which i understand to be more than "believe this guy exists, or else." I think that got lost in the totalitarian part of christian history, however.

[Goldenages]

14 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Omniscient would have to be only knowing that which is possible to know. To know more than what is possible to know is, by definition, impossible, thus cannot be expected to be included in the definition.

So God in this context would be a God that is capable of knowing what can be known.  No supernatural tricks allowed, intelligent forms of life could achieve the same knowing level.

What about his ability to act?  Does he has to stay within the limits of pyhiscal laws?

15 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Even if He is not as believed today as before, if your objective is to expand the number of free thinkers, then handing ideas to humans and having them write these ideas down and not stopping them from writing conflicting accounts definitely generates a lot of debate in your community of worshipers.

Sounds a bit euphemistic to me, if I think about the medieval times and the power of the church, which killed everybody who dared to think otherwise.

 

regards

Andi

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

So God in this context would be a God that is capable of knowing what can be known.  No supernatural tricks allowed, intelligent forms of life could achieve the same knowing level.

 

Depends on what you mean by "supernatural tricks." What we are capable of coming to know is also unknown. Does the mind have potential to be read if technology were to progress far enough? What is and is not supernatural cannot be known, only guessed upon. We know certain things most assuredly cannot be, but there are many unknowns. He can't know what He cannot know, and He cannot use tricks that are not in His disposal, however that doesn't mean much. If we were to look at the christian God, He appears to have a rough idea who someone is, but either does not know individuals' thoughts or plays stupid to them until they choose to state them. Consistently throughout the bible He is reasoned with.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

What about his ability to act?  Does he has to stay within the limits of pyhiscal laws?

 

I would presume not: being as, since He would be omnipotent, He would not be bound by natural laws, and presumably would have created said laws (supposing that He is not nature itself [which is another idea of mine which i used to tackle occam's razor: what if the universe itself is intelligent, and that is what we describe and know as God?]). We sort of have properties of this universe and we don't really know how or why they must be. We try to use math, but math is based on our understanding of things to begin with. I argue that, while math is valid, we tend to make assumptions based on math: for example, we can measure chains of events, thus we assume time exists. We can measure the distance between two points, but that does not mean that the axis that we created for measurement exists, but, rather, a mere construct in our mind to simplify that which does exist so that we can comprehend it (rather, we understand simplifications [properties] of objects, rather than the objects themselves). I don't believe the universe has any dimensions, while quantum physics seems to suggest many, or even infinite, dimensions. Both theories basically try to solve the time traveling paradox in their own ways: i suggest time does not exist, therefore not traversable, while multiverse theory suggests that it can happen because it creates a new branch of the universe. God seems way more logical in the no-dimension theory than the multiverse theory.

 

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Sounds a bit euphemistic to me, if I think about the medieval times and the power of the church, which killed everybody who dared to think otherwise.

 

I think it is safe to say that that was not part of His plan. If anything, it was part of His plan that we would split the church to stop it, so that our conflicting ideas could be discussed without human totalitarians slowing us down. Notice that we don't have a book in the bible where the church was given such powers, or given a declared human ruler, etc. Catholicism grew way outside of its jurisdiction. While Catholicism has provided alot of benefit to christianity, it has damaged it as well. I see no reason to accept the actions of the catholic church as doctrine, and even if we were to say the bible encompasses the entirety of christianity, as there's no real support for their totalitarian authority. I would argue (thanks to Stefan's talk which enlightened me) that the church turned into quite the opposite: that God's objective is freewill and free thought. Jesus' primary message was the role of individuals, rather than seeing yourself as a community, and that individual ideas become community ideas.

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

...I would argue (thanks to Stefan's talk which enlightened me) that the church turned into quite the opposite: that God's objective is freewill and free thought. Jesus' primary message was the role of individuals, rather than seeing yourself as a community, and that individual ideas become community ideas.

How is the Church against free will?

[Goldenages]

On 17.5.2017 at 1:03 AM, Kohlrak said:

Depends on what you mean by "supernatural tricks."

What I mean is, wether your notion of God is bound to physical laws or not, in both omniscience and ominpotence. One could argue that it´s not a problem for him to foresee future in every detail, because he knows everything about those properties of this quantum particles, even when its not knowable for nature or anybody else.  Furthermore, if all his actions were bound to physical laws, then obviously no miracles are possible.

 

On 17.5.2017 at 1:03 AM, Kohlrak said:

Does the mind have potential to be read if technology were to progress far enough? What is and is not supernatural cannot be known, only guessed upon.

The guess that there are no miracles, only things yet not understood, was pretty much the most successfull and distinguished idea mankind ever had. I will depart from it when hell freezes over

 

On 17.5.2017 at 1:03 AM, Kohlrak said:

I don't believe the universe has any dimensions, while quantum physics seems to suggest many, or even infinite, dimensions. Both theories basically try to solve the time traveling paradox in their own ways: i suggest time does not exist, therefore not traversable, while multiverse theory suggests that it can happen because it creates a new branch of the universe. God seems way more logical in the no-dimension theory than the multiverse theory.

 

 

Well, all those ideas about multiverses etc. are reasonable speculations. Very interesting of course, but its by far too early to draw any conclusions regarding philosophy. ("Hi, boss, yea, I stay home today. But don´t worry, there are infinite "me´s" who work really hard, just have a look in the parallel universes"). To import God in this ideas is replacing reasonable speculations by wishfull thinking.

 

regards

Andi

[jimofflorida]

5 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Well, all those ideas about multiverses etc. are reasonable speculations. Very interesting of course, but its by far too early to draw any conclusions regarding philosophy. ("Hi, boss, yea, I stay home today. But don´t worry, there are infinite "me´s" who work really hard, just have a look in the parallel universes"). To import God in this ideas is replacing reasonable speculations by wishfull thinking.

well, scientists do seem to be finding hints that the multiverse may actually be "the answer" (within the limits of our current pathetic understanding of things)! We then get to haggle about how a "God" is connected to the multiverse; does each multiverse get a "God", is God over all the multiverses? Is God then omnipotent only when actually within the bubble a multiverse and "out of touch" when elsewhere??? So the failing of God is not a lack of omnipotence for our little bubbles perspective, but of multiverse locality. Maybe there really is a pantheon of Gods after all, just not at our universe zip code.

multiverse science story (they probably fight with the "universe is a simulation" folks):

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170425124822.htm

[Kohlrak]

On 5/16/2017 at 9:19 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

How is the Church against free will?

 

Historically it has had people executed for speaking anything contrary to doctrine.

 

On 5/18/2017 at 4:51 PM, Goldenages said:

What I mean is, wether your notion of God is bound to physical laws or not, in both omniscience and ominpotence. One could argue that it´s not a problem for him to foresee future in every detail, because he knows everything about those properties of this quantum particles, even when its not knowable for nature or anybody else.  Furthermore, if all his actions were bound to physical laws, then obviously no miracles are possible.

 

That is possible, but my understanding is that would imply God is lesser than the laws of physics. He would no longer be sovereign over the rest of the universe, but instead just another creature. I'm not willing to ignore the possibility, but then would we even be able to continue to describe Him as "God?" So far, though, most of the "miracles" do indeed seem to be possible with a greater understanding of physics, psychology, etc. Parting the waters would be pretty interesting to explain, though.

 

Quote

 

The guess that there are no miracles, only things yet not understood, was pretty much the most successfull and distinguished idea mankind ever had. I will depart from it when hell freezes over

 

That is your choice, but i, personally, recommend that you seek the truth rather than cling to an idea if evidence or logic flies directly in the face of it. Just because you believe it is the most successful and distinguished idea man has ever had does not mean it is true. We can have lots of good ideas, but that doesn't mean they're true, but, rather, that we're trying. Reality doesn't care what we try.

 

Quote

 

Well, all those ideas about multiverses etc. are reasonable speculations. Very interesting of course, but its by far too early to draw any conclusions regarding philosophy. ("Hi, boss, yea, I stay home today. But don´t worry, there are infinite "me´s" who work really hard, just have a look in the parallel universes"). To import God in this ideas is replacing reasonable speculations by wishfull thinking.

 

regards

Andi

 

I see no evidence for multiverse theory. But, let me get this straight, then. Your argument is that because the mutliverse theory is a new idea and well thought out, we should simply choose that over another conflicting theory that was well thought out? What exactly are you trying to suggest? My suggestion is simple: when existence doesn't seem to be predicated on life and intelligence, yet it inevitably happened, it seems reasonable to suggest that there was already intelligence out there. Sure, it's not necessary to believe so, but it's most certainly reasonable. I would argue that someone who is dedicated at explaining away the existence of an intelligent creator would very much be wishful in the idea of multiple universes, as that creates alot of openings to explain away everything, even if the entire theory is predicated on things that we can't really establish as real that we suggest we can establish, such as time.

 

Human kind is making a grave mistaking by assuming certain things exist, without any evidence, and then attempting to base future theories and ideas upon it. Human beings are fairly consistent when something like this happens (see the catholic chuch) in that when the foundation of so many thoughts and ideas is questioned, people die.  No matter how reasonable an idea may be (multiverse), if it is based upon assumption only, it is no different from another idea (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc) that is based entirely upon assumption (God exists). We never answered the fundemental question (does God exist?) we just have two entirely different camps who assume their answer is true and move on from there, which leads issues when the basis for those ideas is questioned, since if you destroy the roots of a tree, the whole thing comes crashing down. The real irony is to assume one camp is wishful thinking, when both camps are doing the exact same thing with no more or less evidence than the other. So we got rid of God and replaced Him with math.

 

The real irony being that math is also a fairly old religion. It is nothing more than a method through which man simplifies the universe such that it's properties can be understood by the simpler mind. The very nature of math is to remove details, because one cannot understand anything more complicated than itself, else the understanding alone makes him more complicated than that which he studies. So, math, is a useful tool. Yet, math itself does not lend itself to religion or countering religion, but, rather, math is being used as a basis for an explanation existing solely to counter another idea. Don't get me wrong, it is entirely important to explore other ideas and come up with explanations that could topple other explanations (then using evidence and reason we can conclude which is truth), but to elevate it over the older theory simply because it is contrary, is the very definition of wishful thinking. Do we have any reason to believe multiverse theory, right now, other than "It explains things without using the word 'God'?" Do we have any reason and evidence to support it, or is it just the convenient explanation of the day?

 

I do find it ironic that you start by agreeing with me that time as an axis probably does not exist, yet you seem to have 180ed. If i may ask, what has changed your mind? What new evidence or logic are you not telling us that has changed it?

 

EDIT: It's worse than wishful thinking, now that i put more thought into it: we're trying to use it to explain gravity, etc, but all we would be doing is introducing more laws of the universe for which we're seeking explanation. Therefore, it fails to even accomplish it's goal (explaining why things are), therefore it exists simply to fly in the face of an explanation (regardless of how improbable anyone feels it is, but science and reality are not a consensus, nor is there any place for emotion regarding it).

[Goldenages]

44 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

That is your choice, but i, personally, recommend that you seek the truth rather than cling to an idea if evidence or logic flies directly in the face of it

Using the idea that evidence and logic (i.e. no miracles exist, only the unknown) are the guidelines excludes the possibility that evidence and logic flies directly into ones face.

 

48 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Your argument is that because the mutliverse theory is a new idea and well thought out, we should simply choose that over another conflicting theory that was well thought out?

No, I said, the multiverse theory is a reasonable speculation, very interesting, but by far too early to draw any conclusions.  And I doubt that this theories could stand a strike with occam´s razor. It would rather be a massacre

 

54 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Human kind is making a grave mistaking by assuming certain things exist, without any evidence, and then attempting to base future theories and ideas upon it. .....

I totally agree.

If you find any evidence for God, I will be the first one who accepts his existence, and will be the first one who asks him some questions. 

To compare mathematics with God is daring. Math replaced God (to a certain extent) not because its contrary to God, but because its way closer to reason and evidence.

 

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

It's worse than wishful thinking, now that i put more thought into it: we're trying to use it to explain gravity, etc, but all we would be doing is introducing more laws of the universe for which we're seeking explanation.

Well, the more you know the more you learn what it still unknown. Nobody said that things are easy or that the universe is simpel, but it does not make sense to complain, does it?  

 

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

I do find it ironic that you start by agreeing with me that time as an axis probably does not exist, yet you seem to have 180ed. If i may ask, what has changed your mind? What new evidence or logic are you not telling us that has changed it?

I did not turn, I spread my wisdom about what science tells, and draw my own (naiv) conclusions. My conclusion is that without time (or any equivalent) our world would not be possible.

 

regards

Andi

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

 

Historically it has had people executed for speaking anything contrary to doctrine.

That's denying people free speech, not denying that they have free will.

[Kohlrak]

17 hours ago, Goldenages said:

Using the idea that evidence and logic (i.e. no miracles exist, only the unknown) are the guidelines excludes the possibility that evidence and logic flies directly into ones face.

 

There's a difference between what is possible for us and what is possible for other beings. I do understand this to be the separation between normal and miracle. If something is not possible, it's not a miracle, but a lie. Nature itself, must have the supernatural. You could argue that that which makes nature have it's rules and that it's consistent is another natural law, rather than something superior to nature (supernatural), but at that point we would be declaring God a natural phenomena, which is merely redefining words. When i get around to making my post on occam's razor (after this one is concluded), that's actually the stance i plan on taking, anyway, as it is the more logical route.

 

Quote

No, I said, the multiverse theory is a reasonable speculation, very interesting, but by far too early to draw any conclusions.  And I doubt that this theories could stand a strike with occam´s razor. It would rather be a massacre

 

Occam's razor's status has a small fault in it. I hate to defend multiverse theory, but, logically, just because something is more likely doesn't make it so. Hence why "argument from authority" is illogical. Merely, a doctor is more likely to be right about a medical issue, but that doesn't mean he is, simply because he has more education. Occam's razor is basically an answer to the space teapot issue. Multiverse is just the new "turtles all the way down." IMO, given the issues with it, the staunch support of it over it is merely because it provides the potential excuse for nihilism. However, arguing motivation does not argue for or against it's validity, but rather it's support in contrast to other explanations.

 

Quote

I totally agree.

If you find any evidence for God, I will be the first one who accepts his existence, and will be the first one who asks him some questions. 

 

Well, this is where we stand. Instead of building all our knowledge assuming He does exist, or any other explanation, we should probably focus on that, first, since everything we know will crumble if we pick the wrong one. Mathematically, since there's more than one, we already have *at least 50% chance of failure (technically 0% or 100%, no matter how many theories, but that's a topic for another discussion).

 

Anyway, in the absence of His presence, PM me your questions and I will see if I can come up with some explanations on His behalf. Mine might not be right, but I'm willing to take a shot at it.

 

Quote

To compare mathematics with God is daring. Math replaced God (to a certain extent) not because its contrary to God, but because its way closer to reason and evidence.

 

I wouldn't dare. God is an explanation for things, a potential intelligent entity, and a number of other things. Math, while sometimes made into a religion (Euclideans notoriously), but, in reality, it is something that we know does not exist outside of the human mind. It is a method, just like building a car, writing, etc, for which we can accomplish things. The main purpose of math being the simplification of our universe, so that properties of our universe that we deem to be important can be identified and  separated from the universe itself for the purpose of manipulation (manual). "Three" does not exist, yet "three" is how many pillows do exist on my bed. Language is another tool that attempts to do the same thing, but, being much, much more complex, doesn't work out as consistently as math. "Pillow" does not exist, merely those qualities which we understand from the name represent the objects on my bed. Notice, you have no clue whether or not they are covered, what they look like, or what condition they are in. Humans will always be victim to this, lest mind melding become real. Even then, memory loss before mind meld would perpetuate the issue to some degree. But, i digress. My point is simply that we've arrogantly elevated a method and stopped questioning things simply because we have.

 

Not to say thiis is an issue with math, but this exercise will show the issues with humans and their processing of math. Firstly, take conventional decimal math and divide one by nine. What is your result? Continue this for all digits up to, and including, nine itself. I am semi-certain that you've heard of this before, and there's a logical explanation, but many people have a very difficult time swallowing it. It is not a weakness of math, but of the human mind to cope with the reality of the method that they have created.

 

Yes, contrary to popular opinion, a single value can be represented by two completely different numbers.

 

Quote

Well, the more you know the more you learn what it still unknown. Nobody said that things are easy or that the universe is simpel, but it does not make sense to complain, does it?  

 

Some people use this as evidence for God, but even I must admit that simply blaming God for all unknowns is irresponsible. The fact that we even pursue science in the west is because of Christianity, and, as such, it would be totally irresponsible and disrespectful to God to not try to explain Him away. However, if we're going to cook up a contrary idea, we should at least do a good job. Our job would be to make the most intelligent answer for the unknown, not simply make ideas just because. If we're explaining something we know to be by using something we don't know to be, we're just blaming God, but calling Him something entirely different, and unintelligent on top of it all.

 

Quote

I did not turn, I spread my wisdom about what science tells, and draw my own (naiv) conclusions. My conclusion is that without time (or any equivalent) our world would not be possible.

 

regards

Andi

 

You, however, did suggest that causal relationship where the past and future do not exist is quite possible. Meaning, you did agree with me at one point that the universe can exist without time, so long as a continuous, causal present exists. Now you're saying something different. If you have not changed your stance, given the topic at hand, as well as the conventional definition, i would suggest we avoid referring to it as time, since clearly the definition is different from the conventional, thus our idea would immediately loose meaning to others.

 

17 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

That's denying people free speech, not denying that they have free will.

 

Free speech is necessary for the propagation of free thought, which is necessary for free will. Not directly, but over time.

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Free speech is necessary for the propagation of free thought, which is necessary for free will. Not directly, but over time.

In what way does an illiterate peasant living in Greater Moravia in 913 AD lack the freedom of will to steal an apple or refrain from stealing it?

[Brainwright]

I haven't been following this conversation very closely, so let me be short and sweet :

Omniscience and omnipotence intersect.  That is, one does not know what will happen until one decides what will happen.

In reference to God, omniscience and omnipotence are retained because God makes promises (a covenant) and sticks to them.   All actions are iterations of the original promise and remain self-consistent.

[RichardY]

Is God really a paradox?

I think this might be covered in the Book of Job. Also there is a scene from the Matrix Reloaded with "The Architect" that kind of copies it. Carl jung "Answer to Job". Don't really fully comprehend its significance but seems interesting.

[Gavitor]

The funny thing with god debates is that whether or not god exists depends entirely on the definition of god being used.

If god is defined a something that doesn't or can't exist then it does not exist, if it is defined as something that exists then it does.

The thing is that if god is defined as something that already exists, that definition is already used by another word and therefore cannot be god. So god by definition cannot exist because everything that exists is not god by definition.

[RichardY]

What if God is an experience? Some type of Archetypal experience. "Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God" Not just a cultural phenomenon, but some form of primitive unconsciousness, like a kind of facial recognition software or the very heart of the unconscious mind. Kant's Apriori knowledge, Plato's theory of forms, Wittgenstein's Elementary Principle and Jung's Archetypes. Mostly with out empirical evidence, but perhaps can be inferred intuitively through psychological studies. 

"Speak of the Devil and he will appear" the idea of cause and effect, and sensation. Not sure what the equivalent for God would be.

[Gavitor]

8 hours ago, RichardY said:

What if God is an experience? Some type of Archetypal experience. "Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God" Not just a cultural phenomenon, but some form of primitive unconsciousness, like a kind of facial recognition software or the very heart of the unconscious mind. Kant's Apriori knowledge, Plato's theory of forms, Wittgenstein's Elementary Principle and Jung's Archetypes. Mostly with out empirical evidence, but perhaps can be inferred intuitively through psychological studies. 

"Speak of the Devil and he will appear" the idea of cause and effect, and sensation. Not sure what the equivalent for God would be.

Like I said, it all depends on what you want to define god as. What good is a word whose meaning no one knows?

People often replace a word with "god" and act as though they are saying something meaningful, I would argue they are not.

[RichardY]

58 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

Like I said, it all depends on what you want to define god as. What good is a word whose meaning no one knows?

People often replace a word with "god" and act as though they are saying something meaningful, I would argue they are not.

Some people claim to know God. I wouldn't even argue, if they really know God they are beyond that. Beyond Good and Evil as Nietzsche would say...

Matthew 16:24-26

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Personally it doesn't sound too bad to me to hopefully live like Job from the Bible before all the plagues of frogs, warts and marauders(thinking Europe). I guess the archetype of God has to do with the process of individuation. (yahweh; I am, that I am). Israel(Struggle with God) a la FightClub.

[Gavitor]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

Some people claim to know God. I wouldn't even argue, if they really know God they are beyond that. Beyond Good and Evil as Nietzsche would say...

Matthew 16:24-26

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[a] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Personally it doesn't sound too bad to me to hopefully live like Job from the Bible before all the plagues of frogs, warts and marauders(thinking Europe). I guess the archetype of God has to do with the process of individuation. (yahweh; I am, that I am). Israel(Struggle with God) a la FightClub.

God is an unknown, has no definition and thus is a useless word.

This is why I don't care about the word god and instead ask people to describe whatever it is they are talking about.

[RichardY]

18 hours ago, Gavitor said:

God is an unknown, has no definition and thus is a useless word.

I guess that would depend on what you consider useful. God is an unknown and has no definition, to me as well. I think the word God is a "reference pointer" to "the self".

 

18 hours ago, Gavitor said:

This is why I don't care about the word god and instead ask people to describe whatever it is they are talking about.

I don't think you can describe it. "No words can describe it. Might as well ask Heaven what it sees. No human can know." But in Christian tradition God is Paternal, a certain incompleteness/wholeness of concept.

 

"All right: the concept of number is defined for you as the
logical sum of these individual interrelated concepts: cardinal numbers,
rational numbers, real numbers, etc.; and in the same way the concept
of a game as the logical sum of a corresponding set of sub-concepts."—
—It need not be so. For I can give the concept '.number' rigid limits
PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS I 33«
in this way, that is, use the word "number" for a rigidly limited concept,
but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not
closed by a frontier. And this is how we do use the word "game".
For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a
game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No.
You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never
troubled you before when you used the word "game".)
"But then the use of the word is unregulated, the 'game' we play
with it is unregulated."——It is not everywhere circumscribed by
rules; but no more are there any rules for how high one throws the
ball in tennis, 

 

Ever see the movie "The Game" with Michael Douglas. There is a certain incompleteness of character when people play games, otherwise why would they play? But not to play and want to, who's fooling who.

 

 

 

[Gavitor]

1 hour ago, RichardY said:

I guess that would depend on what you consider useful. God is an unknown and has no definition, to me as well. I think the word God is a "reference pointer" to "the self".

 

I don't think you can describe it. "No words can describe it. Might as well ask Heaven what it sees. No human can know." But in Christian tradition God is Paternal, a certain incompleteness/wholeness of concept.

 

It's useless in the sense that unknown and undefined are already words. we don't need the word god.

If it can't be described then how do you know there is an it in the first place. People attempt to describe god all the time, and when you point out how what they describe isn't god they change the description.

Quote

"All right: the concept of number is defined for you as the
logical sum of these individual interrelated concepts: cardinal numbers,
rational numbers, real numbers, etc.; and in the same way the concept
of a game as the logical sum of a corresponding set of sub-concepts."—
—It need not be so. For I can give the concept '.number' rigid limits
PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS I 33«
in this way, that is, use the word "number" for a rigidly limited concept,
but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not
closed by a frontier. And this is how we do use the word "game".
For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a
game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No.
You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never
troubled you before when you used the word "game".)
"But then the use of the word is unregulated, the 'game' we play
with it is unregulated."——It is not everywhere circumscribed by
rules; but no more are there any rules for how high one throws the
ball in tennis, 

 

Ever see the movie "The Game" with Michael Douglas. There is a certain incompleteness of character when people play games, otherwise why would they play? But not to play and want to, who's fooling who.

I don't understand what you are saying here, can you clarify for me?