Homer, picking up where we left off...

[Strafio]

Wry, was closing really necessary? :confused:
Anyway, Homer...
So far you are arguing that any concept of God, by logical definition:
All these are logically necessary in the concept of a god.
It’s logically impossible, and necessarily so!!
And this is what I've been arguing against.
Here is the groundwork I said we'd need to agree on to continue.

1) We have to agree that epistemology is irrelevant at this stage in the argument.
Why?
If I claimed there existed a unicorn then I would probably prove it to you by showing you one. The question would be purely epistemological as we both agree that the concept of a unicorn existing is a logical possibility.
If I claimed there was such thing as circle with corners then the epistemology wouldn't even be an issue as the concept itself is meaningless and illogical.

We're currently discussing whether the concept of God existing is meaningful.
If we establish that it is then we move on to the epistemology and the evidence to see if he really does exist. Until then we're just discussing the concepts involved and evidencing is absolutely irrelevant.


2) Omnipotence is defined as having unlimited power to affect the natural world as he pleases.
This means:
a) It doesn't require the ability to make logical contradictions true.
He has full reign over which of the possible contingent facts are true (i.e. facts about the world) but doesn't have to have full reign over necessary/analytic truths. So he can decide whether unicorns exist (empirical/contingent facts) but not whether circles have corners (necessary/analytic facts). It's possible that he could, in which case your position is correct and he's not understandable, but it's also possible that he's not. I'm only trying to show that it's possible to have a logically coherent concept of God.
b) This is a lack of limit over which contingent facts he can determine if he wants to. Any limits that don't contradict this are therefore possible without contradicting his omnipotence. This is why people also say that God is omniscient. If omnipotence was a lack of all limits, why bother specifying another lack of limit also? Having a will and an intelligence as positive characteristics (and therefore as limits) does not contradict omnipotence.


Here were your replies:
Your making claims, but not evidencing them. At not point in an argument can you assert something, and then fail to back it up. But this is what your doing.

Example: You say we can ‘know’ god. How?
These questions I can't start on until we've settled the logical argument.

As Gregory of Nyssa correctly argues… if God is limited he must be limited by something greater than himself. If he is limited by anything, there are things above ‘him,’ which means it wouldn’t be omnipotent, or a god.
Yes, God must have limitless power that nothing can have greater power.
The word "greater" is meaningless when applied to other limits.
E.g. is a red apple not as great as an apple not limited to having a set colour?
The "negative theology" people (the Wiki link you gave me) also limit God to not being evil. This is a limit on his will, that he cannot will evil. This does not contradict omnipotence.

And what are these limits. You assert, yet you don’t evidence. What are these ‘limits’?
I gave two examples. If God has a will and intelligence then those are conceptual limits (enough for an identity) but no limits in power so therefore doesn't contradict omnipotence.

How can we settle the ‘concept’ if you do not provide evidence for your argument. Without evidence we will never go anywhere.

You need to evidence the assertion you’re making for such concept.
Ahem... concept. (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=concept&gwp=13)
I'm exploring possible concepts of God that can be logically incoherent.
If I was trying to make an assertion about a particular concept of God (say the Christian one in particular) then I'd need to evidence to show that it was consistent with what the Bible says. If I'm just talking of possible concepts then the idea of "evidencing" it is absolutely meaningless!

Say I invented the Gomlosh - a fictional creature, a pig with a horse's head.
How would I "evidence" this concept to you?
As it happens, the Christian concept of God communicates to people and desires things to happen. Therefore this concept of God has intelligence and a will.

Before we accept for example the claim the god “really communicated with people” we need to reason – evidence – to accept it. If no one ever evidences it, I will never accept it.
I specifically said that this is not what we are talking about.
I specifically said that I am not saying that God really communicated with people, just that it's possible that he did. We're not even on to the epistemology yet until we can show it's logically possible. I went over this with the "unicorn" and "circle with corners" examples.

You can evidence why it would be meaningless an illogical.
No you can't. Evidencing is for empirical contingent truths. A circle cannot have corners by the definitions of the words involved. If it was an empirical contingent truth based on evidence then it would be "circles might possibly have corners, we are just yet to discover one", the same way "unicorns possibly exist, we are just yet to discover one".

At the moment I haven't refuted your "God can't possibly exist" argument so arguing epistemology over whether he really does is meaningless.

I’ve logically evidenced that the concept of a god is meaningless, absurd, incoherent, incomprehensible and unknowable.
And I'm trying to refute this (I'll have exposed a tonne of wordplay and sophistry by the time I'm done) but I can't go on until we've settled the groundwork above.

[KickChick]

This thread is being started due to original thread veering off.

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=896924&postcount=504

[LJoll]

As Gregory of Nyssa correctly argues… if God is limited he must be limited by something greater than himself. If he is limited by anything, there are things above ‘him,’ which means it wouldn’t be omnipotent, or a god.

I'm not sure. If you say that anything with limits has to be limited by something above it, that would mean our limits would have to be limited by something above us. Proving that God exists.

[aikiMac]

As Gregory of Nyssa correctly argues ...
As anyone who has read Gregory of Nyssa knows, Gregory argued and affirmed that God exists and is knowable by us humans. Furthermore, according to Gregory, Jesus is God.

If we're going to cite to Gregory, we should be upfront about his major teachings. First on that list would be his affirmation of, and his defense of, the doctrine of the trinity. Yep -- Gregory believed, argued, and taught that Jesus is God. To Gregory, the infiniteness of God (which he affirmed) was not an argument against the divinity of Jesus. :D

[Aikikai Novice]

A fundamental logical truth is that an inexplicably self-existent universe makes no more sense than an inexplicably self-existent God.

There's no logical way to describe how a Godless universe makes more sense than one that exists along side of or because of a God.

Occam's razor cuts both ways on this one.

Of course, there is the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE :rolleyes:

Which pretty much says "we're here because we're not not here, and we're not there either."

And this still doesn't present any logical challenge to the existence of a God.

[CKava]

A fundamental logical truth is that an inexplicably self-existent universe makes no more sense than an inexplicably self-existent God.
I don't think scientists are arguing the universe is inexplicably self existent in fact haven't scientists like Stephen Hawking offered very complicated explanations of how such a thing could occur?

[Aikikai Novice]

Sthephen Hawking has formulated theories for how the universe is self contained, with no sudden emergence in time as we know it or a "beginning" in the traditional sense. So that may have certain philosophical implications.

However, the universe still exists one way or another, and if it exists independently of other factors, it is self-existent.

[CKava]

Yes but the 'inexplicable' part doesn't really apply.

[Aikikai Novice]

Ok, you explain it then.

Something existing eternally, entirely self contained, with no beginning or end.
Like the universe, or God.

We can DESCRIBE it, but we can't meaningfully EXPLAIN it.

Explain why being is obligated to take prevelance over non-being, and why THIS STATE of being takes prevelance over all other states of being.

[wrydolphin]

Just to through a monkey in the gears ;) because that's the sort of thing I like to do, Leonard Susskind has a book titled The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design. Now, I have yet to read it as I am still wading through a book on the mass extinction of the Paleozoic mammal-like reptiles- however I have it on loan from my father, who stated that the basic premise of the book is that string theory explains why intelligent design is defunct.

It is worth a read, at least I have plans to read it.

[CKava]

Ok, you explain it then.
Pick up one of Stephen Hawkings book he does a better job than I could.

Explain why being is obligated to take prevelance over non-being, and why THIS STATE of being takes prevelance over all other states of being.
Because this is how things turned out. Its like getting dealt a hand at Poker, the outcome is uncertain but when I get dealt a good hand it doesn't mean that the hand of God reached down and touched the cards so that they would produce a good hand, its just what happened. Chances are it wouldn't happen but it did because well thats probability for you. Someone, somewhere has just got a Royal Flush despite the odds being so heavily stacked against it.

Anyhow to return you to your original argument...

There's no logical way to describe how a Godless universe makes more sense than one that exists along side of or because of a God.

Occam's razor cuts both ways on this one.
Seems rather simple how occams razor would cut this one... 1 OBSERVABLE universe with an unknown (but plenty of theorised) reason for existing OR 1 OBSERVABLE universe created by 1 UNOBSERVABLE God with no theories offered for the Gods existence. In the first instance we have 1 universe to explain in the 2nd we have the exact same problem except the difficulty has now transferred to how a theoretical being who there is actually no scientific evidence for came into existence. Thats a whole extra level of complication and also an inferrence we shouldnt make. If we are going to allow self creation to occur then why give that characteristic to a hypothetical God as opposed to the very real universe?

[Aikikai Novice]

Well, you're sharp and that's a good argument.

I have read some of Hawking's books (A Brief History of Time, of course, some of The Universe in a Nutshell). Here it is dumbed down a little.

In general, Hawking's ideas that the universe is without beginning use imaginary time. Imaginary numbers in mathematics are used to compute the square roots of negative numbers - the square root of -1 is 1i. Applied in physics, using negative numbers helps predict the paths of sub atomic particles and junk.

So if we go backward in time far enough, since the universe is expanding, it would seem that it began with a singularity. The laws of physics break down at a singularity. And so, then, does any concept of time. (By the way, read About Time. It's really fascinating.

Anyway, this would seem like a great place to insert God, like creationists typically do - its a beginning of time and space where the physical world comes to a sharp end. Good spot for some kind of Causation.

But Hawking postulates that from a higher dimensional perspective, we need not see this origin (or black holes, for that matter) as a sharp pointy discontinuity in spacetime. Instead of the universe fanning out from a point like a cone, the origin is more like the top of a dome. Or a globe. Compared to the equator, space is warped to an infinite factor (like a vertical asymptote on a graph). But, perhaps if our minds existed in the perpindicular realm of imaginary time, we could see clearly that there's nothing PHYSICALLY infinite or discontinuous at those points.

Thustly, the universe is more comprable to the surface of a sphere or something. Entirely self contained. Uncaused.

I'm not going to crap on Hawking's idea. Even if I didn't like what it implied, I obviously don't have the knowledge to try to argue its impossibility.

But arguing that this is "just the way that things turned out" isn't an explanation for anything. It's just rehashing the anthropic principle and saying, "because that's JUST THE WAY IT IS."

There are subtle, TREMENDOUS fallacies in your poker card analogy. Like the comparison of our universe to being a "good hand." I ASSUME that being dealt a good universe is finding yourself existing in one in which it's possible for you to be alive.

However, you're missing the point and taking way too many things for granted. To be dealt a hand of cards, there have to be "cards," and there has to be a "dealer." Which means there has to be something to SELECT FROM, and something to DO THE SELECTING. What availibilities would exist to select from for the form the universe takes? What would be the deciding factor that determines which of those possibilies is selected, or rather, the factor that causes them to come into existence? ESPECIALLY in a universe that DIDN'T EVOLVE FROM A POINT OF ORIGIN?

Why do there HAVE TO BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS? "Just because?"

All of spacetime is one constant, you know. "Time" is an illusion created by what we call the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So nothing CHANGES, everything just IS. And apparantly, it IS this way, without cause.

By comparing the state of the universe to a hand of cards, you're assuming that there are CRETAIN POTENTIALS that WILL be REALIZED. It's a fallacy based on your understanding of the inner workings of this universe's reality.

You're taking for granted that the universe MUST exist, and loosely implied that it must be in a form that we are capable of comprehending.

That having been said, you have an excellent point that we can be fairly certain that WE exist, and thustly fairly certain that THE UNIVERSE exists. To state that the universe exists for either SOME REASON or NO REASON AT ALL is something that we all must assume to be true to draw any conclusions about anything. So - FACT: The universe exists.

If I can think of a recovery for my statement about occam's razor, I'll post it. 'Till then, you got me. I can't quite recall what I was thinking specifically. :p

[CKava]

Aikikai I appreciate your long response when I get up in the morning I will take the appropriate amount of time to respond- a bit tired and grumpy after getting injured today so not conducive to civil postings :D. To wet your apetite though I would wholeheartedly agree my analogy is flawed and I was using it to illustrate a simpler point than your giving me credit for but I certainly don't disagree with many of the things you highlighted ;). Thanks for the reply...

[Topher]

Seems rather simple how occams razor would cut this one... 1 OBSERVABLE universe with an unknown (but plenty of theorised) reason for existing OR 1 OBSERVABLE universe created by 1 UNOBSERVABLE God with no theories offered for the Gods existence. In the first instance we have 1 universe to explain in the 2nd we have the exact same problem except the difficulty has now transferred to how a theoretical being who there is actually no scientific evidence for came into existence. Thats a whole extra level of complication and also an inferrence we shouldnt make. If we are going to allow self creation to occur then why give that characteristic to a hypothetical God as opposed to the very real universe?
I agree.

To add in regards to Occam's Razor....

To introduce a supernatural "explanation" complicates matters beyond necessary.

When one appeals to the supernatural one can only beg the question and argue from ignorance.

In short, any explanation is simpler than a supernatural explanation.


Also, appealing to ‘god’ as the cause only complicates things ad infinitum. It raises more questions that is solves as not only do you have to explain the original question (origin), you now also have to explain ‘god’.

Think about it, if everything (i.e. the universe/’creation’) needs a cause, which Christians proclaim is ‘god’, what was the cause of ‘god?’ This would create a constant regress of creators. To get around this problem it’s argued, unsurprisingly, that ‘god’ does not require an explanation. Yet, by exempting ‘god’ from a cause renders the argument self-contradictory.

If you’re prepared to argue for an infinite or self caused ‘god’, why not save on the unnecessary added complexity and just argue for an infinite or self caused universe?

[CKava]

Thustly, the universe is more comprable to the surface of a sphere or something. Entirely self contained. Uncaused.

I'm not going to crap on Hawking's idea. Even if I didn't like what it implied, I obviously don't have the knowledge to try to argue its impossibility.
Good summary, I think. To be honest I'm no physicist and I find Hawkings books remarkably difficult to follow at the best of times however I am certain that his and other astro-physicists theories are much more supported and based on evidence than random theories I would arrive at. Hence my suggestion that you read what they have said as opposed to me if you want a non-supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe

But arguing that this is "just the way that things turned out" isn't an explanation for anything. It's just rehashing the anthropic principle and saying, "because that's JUST THE WAY IT IS."
Again Im in no position to offer you a complex theory of the origin of the universe so my analogy was actually offered in answer to the second part of your original question... "why THIS STATE of being takes prevelance over all other states of being." For this part we can assume that some state of being is taken for granted and that it is merely the specific manifestation which is uncertain, hence the analogy. As for the requirement of a dealer and a deck of cards as I said above your right its not the perfect analogy but it wasnt meant as a model for the universe it was meant of an illustration of the limitations of arguing backwards from a received outcome. There are any number of outcomes in a poker hand and the chances of say a Royal Flush are 1:649,750 however this hand does still occur. If you received this hand it does not negate the fact that you were very unlikely to but it certainly doesn't mean that some supernatural being was responsible for it.

It seems however we are arguing at cross purposes you (correct me if Im wrong) are focusing on why there is something instead of nothing and why the universe exists and I am not really addressing that besides ruling out a supernatural explanation (for the reasons mentioned above- Occams razor) and instead focusing on why very unlikely things can still occur without a divine will ordering them.

[Aikikai Novice]

That makes sense, and given that we accept as a fact that the universe exists and that the laws of physics even as we know them would allow for an infinite number of possible ways the universe could be organized, the card analogy is right on.

I guess my marathon post was breaking away from that to discuss the logic of the cause of causeless things.

Though Homer's point that any explanation is simpler than a supernatural one is perhaps debatable, he's correct about the point of invoking God as an explanation, and then having to explain God.

He's correct, the only way to try to dodge that is to assert that God does not require an explanation. I think that was probably what was going through my head when I said Occam's Razor cuts both ways:

1) We may assume that God does not account for the explanation of the universe because invoking God requires an additional unknown explanation.

2) We may assume that the explanation for the presence and organization of the universe are accounted for by a God requiring no explanation instead of creating untestable metaphysical theories to explain it instead.

However, I see now that the explanation for the presence and organization of the universe requires not the evokation of a GOD specifically, just a postulate that we would currently refer to as being, "metaphysical." The nature of this metaphysicality is probably unknowable.

So my specific claim that "God" is just as sensible as the universe has, to the best that I can tell, been logically defeated. Congrats. :bang: