On Russell, I would have phrased it a bit different; its possible to be very intelligent and very wrong at the same time. There is no basis in logic for his strident atheism.

Please enlighten us all.

What did I say that was irrational?

I am an ex computer programmer so I have a limited amount of knowledge.

I said: 'All you have to do to disprove God is show the universe is not a creation'.

Yes I know, thats because is a creation :)

There is a long history of people coming up with proofs that the universe is a creation; I don't see why the inverse is not possible. Some cosmologists are trying to do it; see CCC theory by Penrose for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

The defective in this is I am begging the question, I presuppose the universe is infinite. To add, there is also too many presuppositions. But my point is, infinity in mathematics is distinct from metaphysical infinity. Provided that what we know of God is approximate, he is undefinable essentially. God I would say, also has accidental attributes, like he created the universe — SethRy

God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite.

So infinity is not present in the universe (there is a similar argument - you can't create anything infinity small either - you would never finish 'chopping' it up).

I think 'metaphysical infinity' is the concept of something non-material (like the natural numbers) that goes on for ever. So infinity is a concept that applies to the non-material only. It occurs (as far as we are aware) only in our minds.

If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense.

My last post relies on a strict definition of division. It should actually be possible to take a finite part of an infinite whole... sorry.

Because Jesus was not infinite, with his death being the evidence. Jesus as an emanate of God in human form, will consist of humanly, inevitable flaws like anger and sin. But Jesus as human, with the holy spirit dwelling inside him, will also have a portion of Divine Authority - thus having abilities of banishing evil, with an example as it follows; — SethRy

So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus was a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ∞ / 2 = ∞; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong (2nd IMO).

∞ / 2 = ∞

...according to conventional transfinite arithmetic (which is wrong IMO). But the conventional math would suggest if Jesus was a part of God, then Jesus is infinite too. The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body?

Maybe you can see why I don't buy infinity... too many contradictions.

One of the two holy texts should say: 'The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster' or the 'The Loose Canon'.

If Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then I would personally class him as God.

The existence of Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally likely as any other arbitrary description of God. You could even say it is more likely that some of conventional religions far fetched claims.

There is quite a theory to it:

"The central creation myth is that an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe "after drinking heavily". According to these beliefs, the Monster's intoxication was the cause for a flawed Earth. Furthermore, according to Pastafarianism, all evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in an effort to test the faith of Pastafarians—parodying certain biblical literalists. When scientific measurements such as radiocarbon dating are taken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Creation

Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yes he can, but in a way he already did. He created Jesus, which emanates from himself as a piece of him with the holy-spirit dwelling inside him. God creates a portion of himself to represent his wholeness, emanating from him, he is the total balance of creation. — SethRy

So Jesus is a 'portion' of God rather than the whole of God. So Jesus is not a faithful copy of God - the part is not equal to the whole. By creating Jesus, God has subdivided himself, rather than created a copy of himself.

The best answer I can offer though, however, is that God predates knowledge and logic (we had this discussion before). The void non-existence of something cannot even exist, that nothingness is nothing. From there, God as an omniscient being would have to withdraw from learning - and from there, knowledge as an infinite is incomprehensible when what God's capacity to store knowledge is beyond natural capability. — SethRy

The point I am making is that the description of reality is more verbose than reality. So it is impossible to completely know 'oneself' because the description of oneself does not fit into oneself - it is larger than oneself. If God was non-material in a very funky way then possibly this does not apply

'God - NOUN

1(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

The teapot argument is I think about the some of the ridiculous claims made about God in conventional religions. Once a realistic definition of God is used, the teapot argument is not valid.

I do not see a problem with defining God as the creator of the universe. Seems to me the only possible scientific definition of God. How would you define him?

I defined God as the creator of the universe by saying those two propositions are equivalent.

I did define God:

for most people the following two propositions are equivalent:

1. The universe was created
2. There is a God — Devans99

I addressed the point natural vs. supernatural by pointing there must logically be an supernatural first cause.

What have I missed?

An all pervading universal force/law is nothing more to the rational mind than natural laws as opposed to “supernatural” - which, if you follow the logic through is another meaningless concept that appears to be sensible but is anything but sensible, as if we’re to know of something it is “natural” not “supernatural,” thus undermining the premise of “supernatural” and merely revealing it as, at best, a distorted version of human ignorance/skepticism. — I like sushi

Nature is the contents of spacetime. Spacetime was created in the BB. By something not of spacetime. IE something supernatural. So we can't dismiss the supernatural.

Like Russell said, no one can disprove that a teapot is orbiting Jupiter, yet we don’t assume there is. — I like sushi

I think Russell's analogy is useless if a realistic definition of God is used (no 3Os) - for most people the following two propositions are equivalent:

1. The universe was created
2. There is a God

In no way can the first proposition be likened in silliness to a the teapot orbiting Jupiter; it is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

I think another such question is the matter of what are called 'the laws of science'. Are they something that exists independently of any act of observation by a scientist, waiting to be discovered? You might argue either for or against, but I don't see how you could adduce any empirical evidence for one side or the other. — Wayfarer

The Big Bang looks like empirical evidence for an unnatural first cause:

- Natural events come in pluralities. The BB was a singleton
- Entropy was unnaturally low at the BB
- Space itself is expanding in an unnatural manner
- The BB needs a cause, must be something not of spacetime (unnatural)

This could be interpreted as evidence in favour of an unnatural first cause; which could be regarded as bolstering the theist position and undermining the atheist position.

There is also plenty of evidence for a start of time which could be likewise used to support the theist position.

There is no evidence that can be used to support the atheist viewpoint that I'm aware of, excepting that there is logical evidence against the claims for specific attributes of the first cause (like the 3Os) which I gave above.

Likewise, there is also no evidence to prove otherwise? — SethRy

I think an argument contrary to conventional religion can be made for 3 out of 4 Os:

Omnipotence - Could God create a copy of himself? If he did create a copy of himself, he would no longer be omni-potent, so we can conclude God is effectively not omni-potent.

Omniscience - To know everything about one’s self requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge.

Omnibenevolent - This requires infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions.

Omnipresence - I can't think of a logical rebuttal for this one.

Because theists ask for evidence against gods, when clearly there is none. And on and on it goes, because it's impossible to prove or disprove that something that doesn't exist either exists or doesn't. — whollyrolling

All you have to do to disprove God is show the universe is not a creation.



There is a long history of theist justification for the existence of God, part of which is discussed here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

In short there is a lot of evidence for a first cause and no evidence against. There is no evidence to suggest the first cause is the God of any of the conventional religions though nor is there evidence to support the characteristics of God assigned by conventional religion (3Os etc...).

3. Not if it has 1 million IQ and thinks of humans as having less value than bacteria. — whollyrolling

I would think so, but if it has the ability to learn, it could "lose" the respect. Maybe some form of morality could encourage it to keep the respect? — ZhouBoTong

- AIs based on neural networks need training. We should be able to train this type of AI into behaving morally
- If we fitted the AI with an "off switch" for safety reasons; it would likely feel completely insecure and paranoid. Imagine if you had an off switch which someone else controlled? Maybe something like this is what motivated HAL9000?
- Even if we had a moral AI, it would be a danger to humans not behaving morally. For instance it might try to wipe out all the non-vegetarians.

WHEN AI comes to actual fruition — Frank Apisa

It could in theory happen any time - some researcher somewhere comes up with a true AI. And with all the world's computers linked by the internet, a hostile AI that could replicated and upgrade its own software might cause chaos.

..it will do its best to eliminate homo sapiens as the dominant entity on his planet... — Frank Apisa

If we had a fundamental mathematical definition of right and wrong, which I do believe is possible. And if right and wrong were defined in terms of all conscious entities. And this was all baked into the AI at a fundamental level, maybe things would be alright. Or maybe the AI would just categorise the human race as ‘wrong’ (look how we treat the animals) and seek our destruction.

There is the question of whether it is eternal life with the option of escape (IE death) or eternal life period (with no possible escape). I take it you don't like the sound of the 2nd, what about the 1st?

Anyway, is wishing for immortality an optimistic or pessimistic drive? I’d rather NOT not end thank you very much! ;) — I like sushi

I think its a very natural drive; self preservation is our number one instinct, so its not surprising the instinct extends to beyond the grave. There is a 'proof' of the after death that CS Lewis favoured - we would not be endowed with a drive for life after death unless it was actually achievable. Don't buy it myself.

Is atheism is a more defeatist attitude that agnosticism? I think it is certainly pessimistic to assign a 0% probability to life after death. My 28% is pretty optimistic. I'm generally glass half full.

Thiesm - 100% conviction in life after death - unreasonably optimistic IMO.
Atheism - 0% conviction in life after death - unreasonably pessimistic IMO.
Agnosticism - somewhere in between seems correct IMO.

Why do you keep dying?

What if life is but a dream and dying is waking up? Maybe you go through an arbitrary large number of deaths, each time awakening at a higher level of consciousness until finally you awake and you are a god?

And we cannot reasonably conclude that the chain is a) undefined or b) doesn't exist, because a) every single event in the chain is defined by the cause prior to it, and b) his claim that it doesn't exist is based on the fallacious assumption that a first cause is necessary for the chain to exist. He hasn't justified this assumption, he just assumes it. — S

Your problem is you are just considering isolated elements in the chain and saying yes, they each have a predecessor. So individually it makes sense but when we examine the system as a whole - it has no start - so the system as a whole is impossible.

The 'two distinct end points' I would interpret as start and end.

"In geometry, a line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two distinct end points, and contains every point on the line between its endpoints"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment

For any shape you can choose an arbitrary start and end points. For example, a triangle, I can choose its tip as start and its base as end.

Why do you say a line segment has no start or end?

Yes thats possible, but you might have to account for the problem of now:

It seems we can tell the difference between then and now so there must be something special about 'now' so we can make that call. Thats what the moving spotlight theory does... gives us a cursor to represent now.

But as soon as you introduce the concept of now, it seems you need something to start time.

In classic block universe eternalism, there is no now... the passage of time is merely an illusion. I'm not sure the classic view is right. I'm not sure moving spotlight is right. I'm not even sure if eternalism is right. Time is so tricky.

With a line the start and end points are separated by the line length.

I'm doing the same with a circle: take a point as the start, add the circle length to it, and you get to the end, which is identical to the start.

The loop thing is just satisfying because it partly solves the infinity problem. It's finite but has no apparent boundaries. — Vince

Yes, infinite regresses in time are just unsatisfactory / impossible. Where is the first cause?

Circular time appears self-sustaining with the last effect (Big Crunch) being the first cause (Big Bang).

IMO though a separate first cause is still required to set time in motion initially. This first cause is itself timeless so beyond causality (does not need a cause).

- I could say the beginning is 0º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 0º, which is also the beginning
Or equally:
- I could say the beginning is 90º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 90º, which is also the beginning

By spotlight I mean a cursor or current position indicator corresponding to 'now'.

So the idea is that all of time is real in a sense and has a circular shape but only the bit of time with the spotlight/cursor on it is actually 'now'. As the spotlight/cursor moves around the circle of time, the future becomes now becomes the past. So it is a metaphor for one possible way time could work.

A circle has an arbitrary choice of beginning/end points - choosing any point is valid as a beginning/end of a circle. It's conventional to put t=0 (the start/end) at the Big Bang for circular time (as that seems to be where things started in a sense).

I certainly don't mean to describe a spiral.

That poses a problem for circular time. Where does the cause begin in the whole circle? — Purple Pond

Where does the moving spotlight begin? Maybe at t=0 the Big Bang. Then the circle of time fills out and then repeats itself (or maybe the whole thing is future real somehow). What causes the spotlight to first move? It would have to be the timeless first cause that initiates things. This is discussed further here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I think it is a poor choice of words. How about, what are the chances for a conscious existence after physical death? — Vince

In the OP I calculated 28% but that is probably on the generous side... I was hoping by the end of the discussion to arrive at a more accurate estimate.

I think perhaps you can differentiate before from after because the cause always precedes the effect. — Vince

Yes it fits nicely with cause and effect: the last effect (the Big Crunch) is the first cause (the Big Bang).

Also if time is a full circle, how can we make sense of before and after? — Purple Pond

I'm not quite sure what you mean; where the spotlight falls on the torus is 'now' with before and after falling to each side of the spotlight.

Perhaps you mean that any event can be thought of (on the circle of time) as both simultaneously before and after the present time? This is true, but I'm not sure its a problem. You can have an arbitrary t=0 at the Big Bang / Big Crunch and then consider the past as just that between the present day and t=0 (working backwards) if you see what I mean. Then the future you similarly work forward from now to t=0.