for atheists

[Bambi]

Originally posted by tony1

Well, I am glad that we are making some progress.
You do at least admit to the possibility that there are things that science has not yet discovered.

Name one scientist that doesn't. (but if you want to imagine otherwise, whatever.)

Presumably, you are aware of Gödel's Theorem, and the impact it should have on your thinking?

Nobody truly understands what the theorem actually implies for the universe, and the debate continues at this time. For example, there is a strong argument in terms of information theory that translates the theorem into a rather obvious statement that for any information processor of given complexity there exist sufficiently information-rich outputs that the processor cannot generate. I don't see that as a big deal, since the goal of knowledge is not to enumerate the complete state of the universe, but to grasp a representative subset of that state while extracting the underlying mechanisms that drive it. Moreover, the theorem deals with incompleteness of formal systems; it says nothing about evolution of formal systems or any convergence between a formal system and reality.

But I suppose it only fair to ask in turn what impact the theorem has on your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the theorem drives you to conclude that there must be things beyond the grasp of human thought. You may be right (thought the issues are subtle and muddy enough to leave room for doubt). However, none of it has anything to do with ascribing well-defined derivative features to a supposedly fundamental entity. Note that Gödel's Theorem only constrains formal systems; it does not constrain the logical methodology. So I can indeed logically argue ad absurdum against intelligence of any alleged primary cause.

Anyway, your question about a non-physical alternative that would make logical sense, cannot be answered due to your highly limited understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.

Well then, answer it according to your highly expansive understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.

 

[Sir. Loone]

Folly of 'vamps' loves Folly!

Originally posted by Dracula's Guest
Is Sir Loone taking the piss?

Beware all vampires! Je'sus is comming again! And He will judge ye!

I am happy in JE'SUS! My saviour forever!

Me no ways {quote}"piss"{unquote} at all! I am happy and blessed! Peace be still!

And Avatar, I am at peace with God! I am in now ways 'panic'!
And I care little about the "ignorance list" 'ha!' it is just that those in sin can not stand the truth when it comes out!

You all were created by God, in the image of God! Not a bug, not a monkey like creature that died out, a failed attempt of Satan to degraide humanity!
All creatures small and great has some meaning and porpose to their existance! But Man is to forever to the Glory of God in Love! You all have an immortal soul and spirit! Vampires are 'said' to be immortal!

 

[Bebelina]

Lol, thanks for the laugh Tony. I forgot to look at the afterlife from the christian judging the atheist perspective, but I must admit, it becomes very humouristic that way. A snappy come-back from Tony, the great christian stand-up comedian with the new sneaky caresalesman-salvation-technique.

I guess you have to be religious to be aware of the religious demons, they sort of come with the package.

This boy however was not in a need of an exorcist, but a more compassionate and professional help.

Loone, who´s a vampire?

 

[James R]

Teg,

It appears that you and I have somewhat different conceptions of logic.

<i>When we attribute aspects of this hypothetical being, they are derived from the source material. We only have the words that the Christians use to describe this thing.</i>

Fair enough. I'm sure you can dig out a Christian definition which says that God's primary feature is intelligence. But I didn't want to restrict this discussion to one type of Christian god. I was hoping it would apply to the general concept of a god.

<i>Know that it is not us that have formed your ideas. They were invented long ago by primitive peoples.</i>

Most primitive peoples believed in a god or gods. With respect, you don't know what I believe or what may have formed my ideas.

<i>Also remember that constraints are inherent to reality. By its nature the universe is constrained by laws. The being you describe does not follow those laws, and is inherently voided as such.</i>

I have postulated a god who is separate from our physical universe. He need not be constrained by the same laws that constrain the universe. The idea is that He created those laws. Presumably he could have made different ones.

<i>Cris is right, you cannot grasp logic. Logic is based upon observation.</i>

That's exactly what logic is NOT based on. Traditional logic is deductive. From a set of premises, conclusions follow. However, the process of science is essentially <i>inductive</i> and based on observation. The inductive process is not strictly a logical one.

<i>That is Christian logic: assume that it is there because we cannot prove that it is not.</i>

Even if that is true, it is not I who is making the assumption here. I am not assuming a god exists. I am saying we can't rule out the possibility on logical grounds.

<i>We exist with matter and thus your argument is deflated. It is possible that trolls exist, but logic percludes that possibility.</i>

See my point about matter above.
Logic does not preclude the existence of trolls. We cannot rule out the possible existence of a troll. We have not looked everywhere. (Of course, it depends on what characteristics trolls are supposed to have. Certain trolls can be safely ruled out, just as certain types of gods can be safely ruled out - but not the type I'm talking about! .)

<i>Logically I know of no such trolls and thus I use logic to conclude that trolls do not exist.</i>

No, that's just an inductive assumption based on your personal experience. It's not logical. You would rule out the possibility of a white crow, too, just because all the crows you've seen so far are black.

<i>It may take a substantial level of brain activity to comprehend, but most children are capable of that logic.</i>

But would they be right?

 

[James R]

Cris:

<i>I believe [James] is genuinely searching for truth and he is not about to be swayed by anything other than a very solid argument. I suspect he would fight equally hard against religionist arguments if their points were not well founded. James, is that a fair assessment?</i>

Yes. See some of my conversations with tony1 about Creationism. Muddy thinking on the part of atheists is just as bad as muddy thinking from followers of religion. I try to help the people who should know better.

--edit: to correct spelling.

 

[James R]

Bambi:

<i>You appear to see a distinction between "imposition of the constraints" and "ascribing the quality of". The two phrases are in fact synonymous. So you end up contradicting yourself within two adjacent sentences!</i>

You've misinterpeted my post. I said you were wrong to impose constraints, and I stick by that. My next paragraph should be read as "But if you want to impose constraints, I have no problem with imposing intelligence as a constraint. Let's see where that leads, for the sake of argument..."

<i>I don't know your definition of "physical", so it's hard to dispute your assessment of my "requirement". However, you won't be arguing for a god that has no substance whatsoever, would you?</i>

For a working definition of "physical", perhaps we could start with "obeying the laws of physics"? I say that God is "unphysical" in that He need not obey the laws of physics if He doesn't want to (after all, He's omnipotent, right?) I might therefore choose to argue for a god with no substance, depending on how you define "substance". If by "substance" you mean a "physical" substance, then my god, as defined, is an insubstantial one.

<i>How would you differentiate existence from nonexistence?</i>

You'd need to look to see if God had any effect on our universe. If not, there's no requirement for His existence. Otherwise, He must exist. The problem comes in deciding whether any particular phenomenon you point to is a work of God, or a product of something else.

<i>...all the people who ascribe material qualities to their gods...</i>

I don't think I've argued for a god with material qualities. Have I? Of course, we may need to pull out the dictionaries to decide what a "material quality" is, too. If you mean "physical quality", with "physical" as defined above, I might argue that God does not have physical qualities. He <i>might</i>, nevertheless, have physical effects on our universe.

<i>Here are another two mutually contradictory sentences. Either you accept that intelligence depends on an information-carrying medium, or you deal with it absent any such medium.</i>

How about I just throw away the "physical" part of "physical medium" and be done with it?

<i>P: description -> object (-> reads "implies")</i>

object=God.

The rest of your proof is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Bambi]

James,

That's exactly what logic is NOT based on. Traditional logic is deductive. From a set of premises, conclusions follow. However, the process of science is essentially inductive and based on observation. The inductive process is not strictly a logical one.

But actually consider the origin of logic. First of all, you have an essentially inductive system of life that encodes its own sort of "science" about its environment within its biochemical structure. This system evolves inductively until it reaches a certain level of sophistication where abstract thought is possible. Logic is merely one of the culminations of that inductive process. Thereby it is not disembodied or independent of reality; it is still a direct product of reality. For example, postulating alternative universes with alternative physical laws, it is possible that another universe would not support the logic that our universe supports.

Thereby, even though logic is deductive, the very mechanics of it are induced. As of course, by necessity due to the nature of learning and knowledge, are all of the premises that any human could ever come up with.

Muddy thinking on the part of atheists is just as bad as muddy thinking from followers of religion. I try to help the people who should know better.

I applaud that. It's essentially the same thing I'm trying to do as well, so regardless of our argumentative differences, cheers!

For a working definition of "physical", perhaps we could start with "obeying the laws of physics"? I say that God is "unphysical" in that He need not obey the laws of physics if He doesn't want to (after all, He's omnipotent, right?) I might therefore choose to argue for a god with no substance, depending on how you define "substance". If by "substance" you mean a "physical" substance, then my god, as defined, is an insubstantial one.

My only requirement is that if the information that is god's mind were to exist, there needs to be something there to give definition to such information. I never insisted on any quality for the medium, except for the requirement that it be able to carry and transmit information. If that's too "physical", then I give up. I just cannot form a concept of information absent such a medium. Can you?

How would you differentiate existence from nonexistence?

You'd need to look to see if God had any effect on our universe. If not, there's no requirement for His existence. Otherwise, He must exist. The problem comes in deciding whether any particular phenomenon you point to is a work of God, or a product of something else.

That's not what I meant, though it's also a good point. No, what I meant is: how is there any difference between a god existing and not existing absent our universe? (After all, it is a necessary condition that any god existed prior to creation of our universe.)

...all the people who ascribe material qualities to their gods...

I don't think I've argued for a god with material qualities. Have I?

Heh, you missed a big one there. Basically, a central point of my argument is that "intelligence" is a material concept. It is by definition an emergent phenomenon that derives from a particular information-carrying medium, which in our case is matter.

How about I just throw away the "physical" part of "physical medium" and be done with it?

I won't mind. You were the one who introduced the term "physical" to begin with.

P: description -> object (-> reads "implies")

object=God.

The rest of your proof is therefore irrelevant.

I'm afraid you missed the meaning of that first implication (I thought I made it sufficiently clear, but apparently not.) The implication is not that a description of an object implies existence of that actual described object. The implication is that a description cannot exist in a void without being encoded in an actual object of some sort. The "object" is the information-carrier, and the description is a particular constellation of states imprinted on the information medium.

For example, you can describe God not because God exists, but because you exist and are in possession of sufficient information resources to construct and represent such a description.

Now, an insubstantial intelligence is paradoxical precisely because it is "disembodied" -- it is a set of definitions without any underlying reality.

Of course, if you are going to mention omnipotence then you drag another paradox into the discussion. Omnipotence is self-contradictory. Unless of course you confine it only to our known universe, in which case it is not true omnipotence.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Bambi
Name one scientist that doesn't.*

?
Who cares?
The point is that in debate, those who claim to speak for "science" forget to take the unknown into consideration, and routinely assume that the unknown is a smaller fraction of the knowable than that which is known.

*Nobody truly understands what the theorem actually implies for the universe, and the debate continues at this time.*

There is the subtle implication that any systematized form of scientific analysis is inherently incomplete.
To the scientific types, that should mean that anything you think will be incomplete, and that the quantity of incompleteness is also unknowable.

*I don't see that as a big deal, since the goal of knowledge is not to enumerate the complete state of the universe, but to grasp a representative subset of that state while extracting the underlying mechanisms that drive it.*

Oh yeah, that sounds like a admirable goal, all right.
And on what basis do you determine that the subset you choose actually is representative?
Besides, what is the point of such avowedly deficient knowledge, anyway?

*Moreover, the theorem deals with incompleteness of formal systems; it says nothing about evolution of formal systems or any convergence between a formal system and reality. *

That's probably because the evolution of a formal system means nothing if the formal system that results is deficient for the purported purpose of the formal system.

And who cares about the convergence of a formal system with reality if it can never be determined where the convergence is?

*But I suppose it only fair to ask in turn what impact the theorem has on your thinking.*

It is fair to ask that.
The impact that it has on my thinking is that an incomplete formal system has to be replaced, or at least interpreted, by another system which is not incomplete.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the theorem drives you to conclude that there must be things beyond the grasp of human thought.*

Self-directed human thought, yes.
However, when God directs the thought, one can surpass the limitations of ordinary thought quite easily.

*Note that Gödel's Theorem only constrains formal systems; it does not constrain the logical methodology.*

Presumably, the scientific method constitutes a formal system.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

*Well then, answer it according to your highly expansive understanding of logical sense, and of alternatives.*

OK.
Information does not require a physical medium.

*Originally posted by Bebelina
Lol, thanks for the laugh Tony.*

Sure, but it isn't really going to be very funny for the atheist, or for any other unbeliever, either.

*I forgot to look at the afterlife from the christian judging the atheist perspective*

You forgot?
And you claim to be a messiah?
Amazing.

*I guess you have to be religious to be aware of the religious demons, they sort of come with the package.*

This may seem trivially obvious, but religious demons don't really have a lot of interest in non-religious issues.
It's out of the realm of their job description.

*This boy however was not in a need of an exorcist, but a more compassionate and professional help.*

Granted the boy may not have needed an exorcism, but it is possible the parent may have.

*Originally posted by James R
I try to help the people who should know better.*

You should clean up your own muddy thinking first, one would think.

*Originally posted by Bambi
This system evolves inductively until it reaches a certain level of sophistication where abstract thought is possible.*

Are you redefining evolution as non-random, so that you can make a point about inductive evolution?
If evolution is random as so many claim, then the only adverb that applies to evolution is "randomly" and "inductively" is inapplicable.

*Logic is merely one of the culminations of that inductive process.*

You appear to be making a subtle assumption that logic exists only because brains using it evolved to use it.
Logic exists independently of whether anyone grasps it or not.

*For example, postulating alternative universes with alternative physical laws, it is possible that another universe would not support the logic that our universe supports.*

That is a clever way to argue for relativism.
You seem to be saying that truth exists only as a result of its being perceived.

*Now, an insubstantial intelligence is paradoxical precisely because it is "disembodied" -- it is a set of definitions without any underlying reality.*

"Insubstantial" and "reality" must be defined for that to make any sense.
Do you mean "non-material" when you say "insubstantial?"
Are you assuming some kind of tangible material reality when you say "reality?"

*Omnipotence is self-contradictory.*

True omnipotence would include the ability to make the contradiction vanish.

 

[Teg]

Fair enough. I'm sure you can dig out a Christian definition which says that God's primary feature is intelligence. But I didn't want to restrict this discussion to one type of Christian god. I was hoping it would apply to the general concept of a god.

That is the problem. Theists do not like to define their beliefs. That can ussually lead to scrutiny. Saying that a deity is formless or existing in a different plane has an air of possibility. Any such statement is only conjecture.

I have postulated a god who is separate from our physical universe. He need not be constrained by the same laws that constrain the universe. The idea is that He created those laws. Presumably he could have made different ones.

A postulate is ussually based on an observation. I can think of no impirical basis for this particular hypothesis.

That's exactly what logic is NOT based on. Traditional logic is deductive. From a set of premises, conclusions follow. However, the process of science is essentially inductive and based on observation. The inductive process is not strictly a logical one.

Any prior conclusion would neccessarily be based from an observation that at any point occurred. By that required chain of events, inductive reasoning and logic cannot be so removed from eachother. The problem: for those reasons logic is inferior to inductive reasoning. Socrates was able to state using logic that he had a superior sense of smell. He started with the principle of big vs. small in which case by his logic big is always better. In this situation he assumes that the better applies to the function, as stated: the sense of smell.

So then which is better: trusting the observation of someone else or a generalized onservation from yourself. In science the use of inductive reasoning destroys that prior bias.

Even if that is true, it is not I who is making the assumption here. I am not assuming a god exists. I am saying we can't rule out the possibility on logical grounds.

I don't rule out the possibility, either. I simply state that logic is not proof for such a being's existence. It is a small likelihood, but it still exists.

Logic does not preclude the existence of trolls.

It all depends upon your interpretation of the word troll. From the past of this planet, no trolls can be found. Does this mean that they did not exist, probably. Assuming that they exist based on a work of fiction would be folly. I do, however have a good basis in logic to deny their existence. I use reasoning: no fossil evidence, only fictitious accounts, and no observable sign of their existence. That surpasses the standard of logic.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Teg
Saying that a deity is formless or existing in a different plane has an air of possibility.*

It doesn't matter much.
An unbeliever won't believe anything.

God has taken care of all possibilities.
God the father exists in a different plane.
God the son existed in this plane.

You reject both.

*In science the use of inductive reasoning destroys that prior bias.*

Actually, inductive reaoning leads to haywire conclusions like phlogiston.
For inductive reasoning to be accurate, one has to know the outcome of the reasoning process first.
The scientific method cannot do that.

*I simply state that logic is not proof for such a being's existence.*

It is also not proof for the non-existence of such a being.

*That surpasses the standard of logic.*

Logic has no standards.

For example, if all dogs are purple and all purple things are cats, then I can logically conclude that all dogs are cats.
That is a logical conclusion, but it has no basis in reality, and is therefore an invalid conclusion.

 

[Teg]

An unbeliever won't believe anything.

I can see you put much time into this unthought.

It is also not proof for the non-existence of such a being.

It is if you follow probabilities. Bias is the only reason not to follow those probabilities. Bias can be something so small as religious dogma and litany or as large as religious brainwashing. Consider: how many of your beliefs would you still have if you grew up on a different plan free from religious beliefs? Would you still have the assumption that a deity exists?

When we try to communicate to other cultures we do not include a deity in those messages. We communicate with numbers and scientific constants. These are universal concepts, a deity would not neccessarily be so.

For example, if all dogs are purple and all purple things are cats, then I can logically conclude that all dogs are cats.

Only Tony1 logic concludes that. Where: "if all dogs are purple" is a nice start. The second statement "all purple things are cats" is either false or makes the first statement false. Logically speaking there is at least one false assumption in that scenario. It is not out of character for you to make an error in logic. Please reevaluate:

A god cannot be percluded, thus a god exists.

That is also a false use of logic.

 

[Bebelina]

Well, where has the philosophical conscience gone for atheists? For many it seem to be so rigidly stuck in the truth of physical sceince, but the physical science only shows what is perceived from the physical perspective. To enter other perspective platforms you must alter your mind with the expanding THOUGHT that everything is possible. And the same goes for anybody else who happens to be stuck in a rigid beliefsystem, expand...expaaanndd...
But on the other hand, you all seem to argue mostly for the discussions sake and also to show off your logic skills, which is mathematics really, but with words.
I say 1+1 is not 2, it´s just a larger one. Suck on that one for a while...

 

[Cris]

Hi bebe,

Well, where has the philosophical conscience gone for atheists? For many it seem to be so rigidly stuck in the truth of physical sceince, but the physical science only shows what is perceived from the physical perspective.

But there is no other perspective. Everything is physical. No one has ever shown that there is anything else. Well, except an imaginary dream world.

To enter other perspective platforms you must alter your mind with the expanding THOUGHT that everything is possible.

But not everything is possible, it is only the deluded that believe the impossible.

And the same goes for anybody else who happens to be stuck in a rigid beliefsystem, expand...expaaanndd...

So how about you expanding your horizons and examining the physical world for a change rather than living in your fantasy world all the time. You are just as guilty as those you accuse.

But on the other hand, you all seem to argue mostly for the discussions sake and also to show off your logic skills, which is mathematics really, but with words.
I say 1+1 is not 2, it´s just a larger one. Suck on that one for a while...

Very few here expect to reach a result, this is a case where the journey (the discussion) has greater value than the destination. And admit it you enjoy the journey just as much as the rest of us.

And yup just had a hard suck….and hmmm that reminds me of furry lovemaking from this morning….hmmm…ah nuts, must re-focus on my work – this is turning into a very frustrating day.

Bye for now oh dreamer.
Cris

 

[Sir. Loone]

Foolish Athieist!

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
I wonder if afterlife is so wonderful, why so many god followers want to stay in this life for continue suffering? You all have an IMMORTAL SOUL & SPIRIT! You will be alive and awake in the chambers of HELL! With all it's fearceness!! Yes! You depart this life without knowing and loving, and having FAITH in Je'sus the Christ, the Son of the Living GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, YOUR DOOM will be worst then the death of one that never herd of God, Je'sus and the Gospel of peace! You hear, or read the Word of God and reject it, GOD's wrath shall be on you each full force to the infinite! Beware the WRATH OF GOD! For it is a terrable thing to fall into the hands of the living GOD!

If your computer will be in total obsolete in ten years, would you throw it out of your window now because it's meaningless to keep it?

Your Creator has made all life with meaning and purpose! Your a creature, created in the image of GOD your Creator! You have immortal soul that will spend eternity in Hell (will lift up your eyes) Or if some of you will matture and come to Je'sus who is the Son of God and is good, shall be with Him and some of your loved ones in Paradise on an New Heaven and Earth forever! No more pain, sickness and dieing! Best of all, no more Devil ever! Inwhich the host of you are greatly decieved of SATAN the Devil! The 'Prince of the power of the air! The Dragon!

Beware the Anti-Christ! Time is very close but no one really knows eccept GOD Himself! He will soon arise out of the European Union of Nations! And again like his Father the Devil, will deceive many unto their eternal DAMNATION! But Je'sus is soon to come and the Anti-Christ shall be 'road-kill'! And cast 'alive' into the LAKE OF FIRE! Him and his false Prophet!!

 

[James R]

Sir Loone,

Putting your words in the largest possible font does not give them any extra authority. It's just annoying. Exclamation marks after every sentence also soon lose their impact, since everything has equal emphasis.

Why don't you go away and stop cluttering up an interesting thread. Thanks.

 

[Cris]

Sir. Loone,

I agree with James.

Please join us in debate or go away. What you are doing is preaching. And your approach is so childish that it in no way sends the message you desire, it simply makes you and your religion look even more foolish.

For you to come anywhere near convincing us of your beliefs then you have no choice but to learn how to reason and use logic. If you want to communicate and convince us then you must use our language, we are simply not interested in yours.

Respectfully
Cris

 

[James R]

Bambi,


<i>Thereby, even though logic is deductive, the very mechanics of it are induced. As of course, by necessity due to the nature of learning and knowledge, are all of the premises that any human could ever come up with.</i>

Even if that is true, I don't see the relevance to the current discussion. Induction can lead to wrong conclusions. It is not logically fail-safe. There could always be a white crow (in fact, there are some).

<i>My only requirement is that if the information that is god's mind were to exist, there needs to be something there to give definition to such information. I never insisted on any quality for the medium, except for the requirement that it be able to carry and transmit information.</i>

So we can agree on this then. I have no problem with postulating that God is made of ectoplasm or fairy dust or some other substance unknown to science and outside our universe. If that's a sufficient medium for your needs, then that's one problem solved.

<i>No, what I meant is: how is there any difference between a god existing and not existing absent our universe? (After all, it is a necessary condition that any god existed prior to creation of our universe.)</i>

For <i>us</i> there may be no difference - if we didn't exist, we wouldn't worry about God. For God there may be quite a difference.

It is not a necessary condition that God existed prior to creation of our universe. One god that I could postulate exists apart from time. Time was created at the big bang, along with space. There was no "before the big bang". If there is a god separate from our universe, He need not exist in time, which is part of our universe.

<i>Basically, a central point of my argument is that "intelligence" is a material concept. It is by definition an emergent phenomenon that derives from a particular information-carrying medium, which in our case is matter.</i>

But not necessarily in God's case, which is my point.

<i>Now, an insubstantial intelligence is paradoxical precisely because it is "disembodied" -- it is a set of definitions without any underlying reality.</i>

I argue that it may have a reality of a different kind than the one you know about.

<i>Omnipotence is self-contradictory.</i>

I don't really want to get into that here, unless you do. It was a throw-away comment. Substitute "very powerful" above if you like.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by James R

Induction can lead to wrong conclusions. It is not logically fail-safe. There could always be a white crow (in fact, there are some).

Which is actually quite a huge potential problem. Without any further basis for judging absolute correctness, everything we ever knew or thought could turn out to be wrong in absolute terms (and what "absolute" means is another huge problem.) But that's an issue for another debate...

I have no problem with postulating that God is made of ectoplasm or fairy dust or some other substance unknown to science and outside our universe. If that's a sufficient medium for your needs, then that's one problem solved.

Well as far as I'm concerned that particular problem never existed. What you seem to be missing with your postulates, is the very fact that "God is made of ectoplasm" means that ectoplasm is primary and God secondary. Which was my argument all along.

It is not a necessary condition that God existed prior to creation of our universe. One god that I could postulate exists apart from time. Time was created at the big bang, along with space. There was no "before the big bang". If there is a god separate from our universe, He need not exist in time, which is part of our universe.

Well that's not a solution to the problem, it only creates more problems. First replace "prior to creation of our universe" with "apart from our universe", and the problem of God's existence remains. Secondly, it is extremely problematic to define existence in absense of time. What does such an existence entail? What is nonexistence in absense of time? What's the difference between existence and nonexistence in absense of time? Then, if you describe a god as "creating" the universe, then that very act means that there didn't use to be a universe and then a god made it. That's sequential flow of events while at the same time occurring outside of time -- a contradiction.

<i>Basically, a central point of my argument is that "intelligence" is a material concept. ... </i>

But not necessarily in God's case, which is my point.

In light of what I claimed above (i.e. all knowledge is inductive), it follows that the human concept fo intelligence is both induced and material. Which means that if we were going to ascribe any quality whatsoever (including intelligence) to a god, we are ascribing an induced, material property to the god. We are, thereby, constraining the god to be material (even if made of some imaginary matter not known to science.)

 

[Bambi]

All right Tony, I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt. It seems that you tried to make a couple of at least apparently intelligent points in your last reply to me, so I'll reciprocate.

Originally posted by tony1

There is the subtle implication that any systematized form of scientific analysis is inherently incomplete.

Not just any "systematized" form, but any form whatsoever. Which of course includes all human thought in general.

To the scientific types, that should mean that anything you think will be incomplete, and that the quantity of incompleteness is also unknowable.

Not entirely accurate. It does not prevent me from being right about all those things that my thought is capable of encompassing at the moment.

And on what basis do you determine that the subset you choose actually is representative?

Practicality is one criterion. Experience is another. The subset never needs to be totally representative. It only needs to be representative enough to include all the things that matter. The latter is facilitated by the ever expanding experimental sphere and the gradual convergence between theory and practice.

Now you could claim that religion matters, and I'll agree with you. It matters to historians and anthropologists, psychogolists and neuroscientists.

Besides, what is the point of such avowedly deficient knowledge, anyway?

There are two points: survival and procreation.

And who cares about the convergence of a formal system with reality if it can never be determined where the convergence is?

The convergence only needs to be good enough to ensure the above two basics. Beyond that and in the quality of life department, convergence is further tested by evolving scientific and utilitarian technology.

The impact that it has on my thinking is that an incomplete formal system has to be replaced, or at least interpreted, by another system which is not incomplete.

No such thing, I'm afraid. Gödel proved as much.

… when God directs the thought, one can surpass the limitations of ordinary thought quite easily.

Not unless you are prepared to discard Gödel's Theorem. It applies to God just as it applies to man.

Note that Gödel's Theorem only constrains formal systems; it does not constrain the logical methodology.

Presumably, the scientific method constitutes a formal system.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are right, of course. However, the scientific method is not a formal system used to represent anything. The actual systems that are used to represent things get generated by humans. The scientific method is purely a methodology for generating those other systems. Moreover, none of those other systems are fixed (as per the method) and therefore over time an increasing amount of reality gets represented within human thought thereby progressively diminishing the total incompleteness.

Information does not require a physical medium.

How does information exist without any information carrier? As an alternative, provide the definition of information that does not rely on any medium (“physical” or not.)

*Originally posted by Bambi
This system evolves inductively until it reaches a certain level of sophistication where abstract thought is possible.*

Are you redefining evolution as non-random, so that you can make a point about inductive evolution?
If evolution is random as so many claim, then the only adverb that applies to evolution is "randomly" and "inductively" is inapplicable.

Mutations are somewhat random, though not entirely (some molecules or subsets of some molecules are more likely to mutate than others, having to do with chemical stability.)

Survival is slightly random, though not even close to predominantly so.

The environment is random over long stretches of time, but fairly stable over geologically brief periods.

Thus you could say that evolution is a directed random process – a stochastic system. It depends on both randomness and constancy.

You appear to be making a subtle assumption that logic exists only because brains using it evolved to use it.

That is correct. It is also, as stated, the sufficient explanation of why logic is effective (it has been selected for indirectly by being a side-effect of structured abstract thought, and thereby turns out to be a pretty good inductive generalization of bulk matter’s emergent properties.)

Logic exists independently of whether anyone grasps it or not.

Not true, just as English does not exist independently of whether anyone grasps it or not.

For example, postulating alternative universes with alternative physical laws, it is possible that another universe would not support the logic that our universe supports.

That is a clever way to argue for relativism.
You seem to be saying that truth exists only as a result of its being perceived.

You could say it’s relativistic of information to only apply to the entirety of a single universe (ours). However that’s stretching the intended meaning of the word a little, don’t you think?

On the other hand, truth is a judgment and as such exists only within an information processor. There it gets only as a result of the information processor existing. And also, of course, as a result of the inputs to the processor. Thereby it indeed depends to a large extent on perception.

*Omnipotence is self-contradictory.*

True omnipotence would include the ability to make the contradiction vanish.

Such an ability is itself contradictory.

 

[James R]

Bambi,

I think we're coming to an understanding here, if not necessarily a consensus.

<i>Without any further basis for judging absolute correctness, everything we ever knew or thought could turn out to be wrong in absolute terms...</i>

In theory, yes, but I don't think it's likely. As you say, that's another debate.

<i>What you seem to be missing with your postulates, is the very fact that "God is made of ectoplasm" means that ectoplasm is primary and God secondary. Which was my argument all along.</i>

Ok. I'll concede that point for now. What I set out to show was that God could not be ruled out on logical grounds. We seem to have reached the point where we can agree on a particular concept of God which is not ruled out on logical grounds, so I'm happy to leave it there.

<i>...it is extremely problematic to define existence in absense of time. What does such an existence entail?</i>

I agree it is difficult. Saying "God is ..." implies existence in time. The concept of being implies time for us. I envisage an existence out time as being somewhat similar to eternal existence, but I admit I may be wrong. Unfortunately for me, I am a creature of time and have trouble picturing non-time.

<i>What's the difference between existence and nonexistence in absense of time?</i>

I admit I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it.

<i>Then, if you describe a god as "creating" the universe, then that very act means that there didn't use to be a universe and then a god made it.</i>

Again, tricky. Perhaps the problem is that we just don't have the language to describe events which take place outside time. The creation of the universe by God would not be a sequential process of "God did this, then this, then the universe began." From our point of view, all we could say is something like "The universe began, and God was there."

<i>In light of what I claimed above (i.e. all knowledge is inductive), it follows that the human concept fo intelligence is both induced and material.</i>

I don't agree that <i>all</i> knowledge is inductive. Nevertheless...

<i>Which means that if we were going to ascribe any quality whatsoever (including intelligence) to a god, we are ascribing an induced, material property to the god. We are, thereby, constraining the god to be material (even if made of some imaginary matter not known to science.)</i>

I can live with that.