By the way, do you have a position to claim? Or are you just a skeptic?

OK, I see how you're skinning this cat (pun intended). Just throw chum in the water - it's not your fault if the swimmer isn't fast enough. Got me.

Still, it's not a valid alternative and easily dismissed. No antenna, no reason for evolution to produce receiver-brains, no evidence of a consciousness-field, and an unnecessary added level of complexity.

You would have done better to go with p-zombies.

Sorry, didn't think I was being so mean.

By the law of parsimony, when making grandiose claims, the burden of proof is on the claimant. You made claims of a consciousness-field; a view that is shared by few and for which no evidence has so far been given. It adds an entire level of complexity that is unnecessary. Why is it my burden to disprove your speculative claim? I also cannot disprove that the moon is made of cheese.

If you want me to argue against it, offer some evidence that it is so : An antenna in the brain, or a reason for evolution to have resulted in brains that receive transmissions from non-physical sources, or any data suggesting that the consciousness-field exists, etc.

As a partial answer to one of my questions, you admitted that no thoughts occur until "picked up" by the brain. So doesn't that make consciousness a product of brain?

Sure, we might all be bits of code in a super-computer, or everyone you meet might be a p-zombie. It's fun to speculate, but that's all it is.

This is some 19th century made-up mystical mumbo-jumbo (he mentions souls :roll: ), and I don't see how it answers my questions. Care to elaborate?

I have asked and received no answer to the question as to how the experimental results would be expected to look any different if the brain was a receiver of consciousness rather than a producer of consciousness. — Janus

And how, exactly, does the brain "receive" consciousness? Is there any indication of an antenna?

Why would evolution result in brains that receive the non-physical uber-consciousness? Because the non-physical uber-consciousness needed something to do? Is that what drove evolution? Or did the uber-consciousness see highly complex brains lying around not being used and decided to take advantage?

Are we just buds off the big brother uber-consciousness? Meat-puppets that entertain the otherwise bored uber-consciousness?

I would really love to learn more about your faith, but there don't appear to be any sources.

As to your other question "And why can't any of us remember our thoughts before the brain received them?", why would we remember thoughts which we had not received, and thus had not had yet? — Janus

So there is no actual consciousness (i.e., thinking, remembering, sense of self) until brains are involved. Got it.

Physicalism is equally speculative, even if it might seem more plausible due to our inbuilt modernist biases, and I am sure there are very good neuroscientists out there who are devout Christians, or Buddhists, or Muslims and so on; and I am sure their work is not compromised by their metaphysical beliefs. — Janus

Aha, there we go! From now on let's spell Philosophy with a capital P since it's just another religion.

Something about material things makes them countable. — ucarr

Being countable means being able to be placed in a one-to-one relationship with the integers (or counting numbers). The integers are a human invention. Being placed in a one-to-one relationship is a human activity. Being countable is not a property of material things sans humans. Or minds, at least (corvids, monkeys, etc. may be able to count).

Math, by definition, does make material things countable.

Some thoughts :

The knee-jerk horror that philosophy majors harbor for any argument connecting consciousness and the brain needs explaining. One possibility is that it is taught at university, and to pass their courses, the suggestible young students drink the Kool-aid without question. Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on blissfully believing in : using medicine to help with depression and ADHD, wearing bike helmets to prevent concussions, brain-death being true death, and the like.

Another possible motive for denying the brain-mind connection is egotism. One thinks, "My mind is so remarkable. How can it possibly be limited to a hunk of meat?"

There are an estimated 100 billion neurons in the human brain, each connected with up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synapses (Jiawei Zhang in arxiv.com from Cornell University). That's more synapses than stars in the galaxy. The complexity is breath-taking.

The otherwise intelligent folks who frequent this forum would be better served leaving science-denial to US conservatives.

What evidence actually suggests that the brain produces rather than receives consciousness? — Janus

I know you philosophy majors hate science, but come on. Receives from where? And why can't any of us remember our thoughts before the brain received them?

GT is right on this account : wild speculation does not supersede testable science. You gotta bring more than "here there be monsters".

Get your own logical metaphysical principle.

The one I gave to you is elegant, logical, and real, not some intellectual rambling that may or may not provide the answer to how life and thought came to be on a pile of rocks. — Joe Mello

There are a couple of posters here who readily appreciated the principle and welcomed it into their thinking like they were waiting for it.

These posters have not destroyed their imaginations from a bombardment of superficial opinionated thoughts shot out of ego and the worship of mathematics.

It doesn’t seem you’re ever going to appreciate anything other than what you have thought up yourself, even if another Einstein showed up. — Joe Mello

Someone needs to look up Messiah Complex. You seem easily angered for one so enlightened.

Let me toss another one on the fire :razz: : Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I'm not advocating, just mentioning.

The reason I keep pressing you to name a source for your ideas is that I intend on Tuesday (Monday's a holiday) to reveal to my students that lines do not consist of points. When I inevitably get called in by my chairperson, I would like to be able to defend myself.

I concede the floor. I am no match for your brilliance. But I beg of you one thing - please do not deny the math community access to these ideas. Believe me when I tell you that they are ground-breaking. No one has seen their like before. I implore - on bended knee - write them up and send them off to prestigious math journals. They will fight to be the first to publish your insights.

And I'll be able to say, I was there. I was the first to doubt, but be brought into the light.

In particular, mention that the line does not contain an uncountable infinite set of points, then explain the limit concept. We've been languishing under the epsilon-delta definition for far too long.

It's a little bit of a stretch, but Hare's egocentric presentism in On Myself, and Other, Less Important Subjects. It's the closest work I could think of.

Who said that? :gasp:

Haw haw. Just playing devil's advocate. Actually, I'm a physicalist.

But that points out why I find immaterialism so ridiculous : either the immaterialist is essentially claiming solipsism to be true, or they are just giving another name to the transcendent.

I'd say what needs to be explained is the commonality of experience. I see a cat, and others will also see it just where I do — Janus

But perhaps "others" report seeing a cat because you expect them to. Maybe there are no others.

Has any thinker formulated a complete system of philosophy that did not necessitate postulating the existence of a Transcendent Factor? — charles ferraro

Caspar Hare?

I only state things that I believe I understand. And you haven't shown that I misunderstand. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I have. But I fear that you will refuse to accept any explanation that counters the ideas you have invented for yourself. That is the way of all true-believers : the more they are shown reason, the harder they cling to the irrational. (That's why so many still support Trump.)

Pick up any set theory textbook. Search Youtube. The explanations are not that difficult to understand. And they are certainly not open to speculation. (In fact, the "weirdness" of the infinite might appeal to you.)

All you are attesting to, is that an incoherent, illogical concept, (that non-dimensional points could somehow form a dimensional line), underpins a vast part of modern mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

And again you fail to bother to learn about the difference between countable and uncountable. Your initial notion of stacking points is dealing with a countable infinite set, but the points on a line are an uncountable infinite set. Both sets are infinite, but they're not the same size.

Your claim of an "incoherent, illogical concept" underpinning math is like knowing half the alphabet and then claiming the dictionary is faulty. And refusing to learn otherwise.

I wrote about the concept of approaching a limit, and I explained how I understood this concept. — Metaphysician Undercover

Alright, try again. Admittedly, I've lost the thread of some of your ideas. On second thought, don't bother. If you won't accept that a line is made up of an uncountable infinite set of points, your definition of limit will be your own invention.

I will ask again : Where do you come by your ideas? Who else believes them?

You don't seem to understand what I wrote. You just dismissed it as inconsistent with what you believe, therefore wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

My apologies for being a bit harsh - I was tired and lacking sleep.

Not everyone has math concepts at the forefront of their mind. I think about math a lot because its my job.

I will caution this however : If you don't understand a concept, you don't get to make up your own interpretations and expect everyone else to agree. And your ideas about infinite sets (and lines, etc.) are not consistent with any text, course at university, or discussion on this subject.

An analogy : I am not a philosophy major. In fact, I have never taken a philosophy course. When discussions on TPF get too esoteric, I know to back off and not add my two cents. If I find the thread interesting but beyond my immediate understanding, I'll either look up the sources, or I'll sit back and read the exchange of comments.

It's OK to talk about math if you're not a math major. Just make sure you're on solid ground with your ideas.

I'm not going to teach a lesson in set theory - there are innumerable easily-understood texts on the subject. I'll just say this : countable does not mean finite. I went to Youtube, and one of the first videos I found was this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRhdpyaOhEo

We actually do not teach this to most high school geometry students in the US (they're just told a line consists of points - they simply don't have the background to understand the explanation). But the notion that the points of a line form an uncountable infinite set underpins geometry, calculus, topology, and every topic more complicated than arithmetic.

Here's a weird fact : Because the points on a line are uncountable, if a number line consisted only of rational numbers (a countable infinite set), you would not even see the line. Countable infinite sets are that much smaller than uncountable ones.

Once you wrap your mind around it, you might want to re-think your ideas of time and motion (time being represented by a line and thus an uncountable infinite set of instants). Or you can dig your heels in and keep inventing your own version of math.

...what is represented by the function is what is between the points — Metaphysician Undercover

Holy cow. You need to talk to some mathematicians. I'm not kidding. Where did you get this? I have to read that source. This upends every geometry class being taught in US high schools.

I took this from Math Insight, but you can find these ideas in any elementary description of infinity :

A set is countably infinite if its elements can be put in one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers. Countably infinite is in contrast to uncountable, which describes a set that is so large, it cannot be counted even if we kept counting forever.

The points on a line are an uncountable infinite set. Thus they "fill" the line. There is NO space between points. Much of your misunderstanding of calculus (and time as a continuum) starts here.

Sorry, but a "countable infinity" is blatant contradiction to me... — Metaphysician Undercover

Same as above. Its climate-change-denial, flat-earth talk. ANY elementary text on infinite sets will explain this.

Discrediting common mathematical axioms is kinda my thing... — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess so.

I'm going to leave it here.

You missed the point. Velocity, no matter how you interpret it, classically or in the modern way, implies motion. Motion implies that the thing moving has no definitive location. That's the real outcome of Zeno's paradox, we cannot say that a moving thing has a definite location. And since all things are moving, relatively speaking, nothing has a true location. In the modern interpretation, this creates problems like the uncertainty principle. So Zeno's paradox is not resolved, it has just taken another form. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is simply not the modern view of motion. The modern theory of motion is sometimes call "at-at" :

Motion is : being at different places at different times.

Math helps. A graph representing an object's motion can be drawn as position vs. time. Each point on the curve is a location the object is at, at a given moment in time. Then velocity is defined as the slope of the tangent through that point.

But the early philosophers and mathematicians had no access to these ideas. So the classical theory of motion was the best the early thinkers could do before the development of the Cartesian coordinate system and (most importantly) calculus. And the classical theory works fine for linear motion (constant velocity), because then the slope of the tangent and the slope of the graph of position are equal. But it fails utterly for more complicated cases. In fact, it was this problem - amongst others - which spurred the development of calculus.

An infinite number of points cannot make a line, as you say yourself, stacking up points will not get us anywhere. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you need to differentiate between countable infinities (stacking up points) and uncountable infinities (a line). The integers are a countable infinity, but the real numbers are not. Stacked points can be put into a one-to-one relationship with the integers (you can count them as you stack). But the points on a line have a one-to-one relationship with the reals. Now the integers are a subset of the reals. So this implies that your stacked points - even though infinite - are a subset of the line.

(Again, math. Kinda my thing.)

That God puts one moment of time after the last, does not necessitate that God determines everything within each moment. In fact, it is this break, between one moment and the next which allows for free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Two points :

1. But I thought you said God creates the universe at each instant of time. So either God is determining all that exists in that instant, or God is being directed by us (i.e., told what to do).

2. The breaks you posit between one moment and the next means that time is not continuous, and Zeno's Arrow pops back up. You can't have continuous time consisting of discrete instants anymore than you can have a married bachelor.

God fearing creatures will be worried that God could pull out his support at any moment. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem here is that you are positing a solution to a problem that doesn't seem to exist. You have to first assume that time could potentially go haywire under a lack of divine intervention (based on what I don't know), then insert God to fix it. This is what I meant by, "The problem with positing God is that you have to find something for God to do."

And why would God "pull his support"? Is God whimsical? Easily angered? Cruel? Such a God would be petty and beneath contempt.

Velocity is a concept which is time dependent, meaning that a thing could only have a velocity if it exists over a period of time. So what could velocity at an instant mean? It must mean that an instant consists of a very small period of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yours is the classical interpretation of velocity (pre-calculus), not the modern one (post-calculus). In fact, your definition is what we now call the average velocity over the interval. To point out a problem with your definition, imagine a moving object that is accelerating over the small period of time. Clearly its velocity at the beginning of that period of time is less than its velocity at the end (no matter how short the period is). So how can we assign a single value to its velocity?

So why does the classical view of velocity exist? Zeno, Archimedes, et al., were doing the best they could with the limited math of the day. The classical view works perfectly well for objects moving with constant velocity. Which was all they could handle. Think of Newtonian physics being replaced by Einsteinian. Newtonian worked fine for the simpler problems, but not so well as the 20th Century dawned.

If a point has no spatial dimension, then no matter how many points you stack up, you do not get a line which has spatial dimension. — Metaphysician Undercover

But that's looking at it backwards. Sure, stacking up dimensionless points gets us nowhere, but when we draw a line we say it contains an infinite number of points. And nowhere on the line is a place "between" points.

One thing to remember is that there are two types of infinities : countable infinities and uncountable infinities. Your notion of stacking up points creates a countable infinity. But the continuum (the set of real numbers that are one-to-one with points on a line) is uncountable.

The dimension of time which we know and understand is what exists between points, Within a point in time, there is no temporal extension in that sense of duration. However, within a point in time there is another dimension of time, a type of "time" which is completely different from the temporal duration which we know because it involves a different sort of activity. But we have absolutely no understanding of this dimension of time until we posit the possibility of its reality, look for the evidence of it, and establish a way of relating the dimension which we know, to the other dimension which we do not. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ooh, this really smacks of speculation (sorry). You mention looking for evidence - do you have any? This would really shake up the scientific community, if true.

...consider that God must recreate your hand, (as well as your entire body, even the universe), at each moment of passing time, to maintain the continuous existence of that hand. That is how we account for the inertia of that mass — Metaphysician Undercover

Couple questions :

1. If God is creating the universe at each moment in time, how is free will possible? Let's say I wish to reach out for the hot pan. By your argument, God is the one creating the moment of contact, not me. In fact, God created the moment when I decided to reach out. Through infinite regress, God creates all causes. It sounds like your arguing for determinism.

2. Does God ever withhold temporal ordering? ("I'm gonna mess with you sinners and make every day Monday!") If the claim is that God has been creating temporal order at every instant since the beginning of time, how would we know? Is the claim testable? Is there any evidence?

3. Does God actively order other continuums (the line, the set of reals, etc.)? Could 37 suddenly be less than 2?

The problem with positing God is that you have to find something for God to do.

I am familiar with this so-called resolution, and I would call it an illusion of a resolution, rather than a true resolution. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm, just to let you know, I'm a math professor at a medium-sized college in upstate New York, so I know a little about this stuff (been teaching classes from Calculus I through Differential Equations for almost 30 years). Actually, there is no ambiguity here. The limit concept has been well understood since the middle of the 19th Century (Cauchy, Weierstrass, et al.). True, its rather abstract and difficult to master - Newton and Leibniz didn't know it. In fact, it was almost the last idea defined in the development of Calculus (only the definition of number followed it). But it stands on solid ground. The concept of "approaching zero" is just an informal definition to help the newbs get some idea.

No I don't think it is a widely held solution — Metaphysician Undercover

That's fine. I just wondered if I was missing out on some secret cabal of universe-pancake conspiracy folks. :wink:

I said I knew someone who held this position - check out Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science.

I believe that the time line which we understand as duration of time, and as a continuity, is actually composed of discrete "instants", which appear to us as a continuity — Metaphysician Undercover

OK, you give me something to think about. Discrete instants would mean Zeno's Arrow is back in play. But continuity would suggest something else : if time is continuous and universe are instants of time, then universes also form a continuity. This means not many universes, but one (long, continuous) universe. But your answer is more nuanced than that. I'll have to chew on it a bit.

With respect to your last answer (about causes and God), I wonder if you could give an example. Maybe the burnt hand situation? Your idea is new to me and I'm having trouble following it.

I'm thinking we should rename this "The Theology Forum".

Please forgive this primitive naif. I have been enjoying our exchange, but now I see that it has been an annoyance to you. Still, I cannot help myself : I feel that I must continue to put my prattle before the public. So please deign to consider this poor bumpkin's thoughts.

As far as I know, no one has demonstrated an acceptable resolution to the arrow paradox. — Metaphysician Undercover

If time is taken as continuous, the Arrow Paradox is resolved. Calculus helps. From the IEP :

The Standard Solution to the Arrow Paradox requires the reasoning to use our contemporary theory of speed from calculus. This theory defines instantaneous motion, that is, motion at an instant, without defining motion during an instant. This new treatment of motion originated with Newton and Leibniz in the sixteenth century, and it employs what is called the “at-at” theory of motion, which says motion is being at different places at different times. Motion isn’t some feature that reveals itself only within a moment. The modern difference between rest and motion, as opposed to the difference in antiquity, has to do with what is happening at nearby moments and—contra Zeno—has nothing to do with what is happening during a moment.

Now a few questions to help me better understand :

1. Is your theory of time-instants-being-distinct-universes widely held in philosophy? Can you cite sources that I might peruse? (Full disclosure : I do know of one somewhat prominent thinker who shares a similar outlook, but I'll hold off until you tell me who you read.)

2. Do you think time is continuous or discrete? I.e., do instants have duration?

3. Are all, some, or no causes do to God? In the burnt hand example, what is the causal chain? Does God play a role?

Looking forward to your insights. I have follow up ideas to questions 2 and 3 based on your answers.

You should have said this right away, when I said things in the past are not in the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're correct. I apologize. I should have been upfront from the beginning.

How do you differentiate between future and past then? Surely you'll agree with me that the past is radically different from the future. What has already happened cannot be undone... — Metaphysician Undercover

Same as you do. Given your view, how do you avoid Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow? Even if instances butt up against each other, they are still disjoint.

And, also by your view, what holds an instance together? If smacking a pool ball creates a new universe what happens to the dart that has been thrown on the opposite end of the bar? We don't experience instances as separate universes, so (trying not to offend) it seems like speculation.

We've gotten far from my original question though. Let me try it this way : Presumably there are effects that are generated by mundane causes (the hot pan burns my hand). But the premise was that there are effects that are caused by God. How can we tell the difference? Is there something about the effect that gives it away?

The problem with understanding what is meant by an "exact" number in math is tied to the concept of number systems.

In a standard positional number system, the base is a positive counting number greater than 1. The standard number system we are most familiar with is base10, but computer scientists also use base2 (binary), base8 (octal), and base16 (hexadecimal).

Consider a baseN number system where N is a positive counting number greater than 1. Let set A be the primes that divide N, and the number 1. For base10, A = {1, 2, 5}. Let set B be all the counting numbers which are products of numbers in set A only. For base10, B = {1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16, 20, 25, ...}. Then any fraction whose numerator and denominator are integers, and whose denominator comes from set B, can be expressed as a terminating decimal number in baseN. For base10, 3/8 = .375, 17/25 = .68, etc. But in base10, 1/3 = .33333333333...

So what does it mean to say π is exact? It means the same thing as saying that 1/3 is exact. 1/3 and π are simply symbols (or names) for well-defined numbers that cannot be expressed as terminating decimals in base10. But they are, nonetheless, well-defined : 1/3 is the ratio of 1 to 3, π is the ratio of circumference to diameter.

Where 1/3 and π differ, is that 1/3 can be expressed as a terminating decimal if we choose a different base, so long as that base is a positive integer greater than 1. In base3 for example, 1/3 = .1. However, π cannot be expressed as a terminating decimal in any standard number system (i.e., a number system with a positive integer base greater than 1). This is because π is irrational.

You might ask : Why can't we use a basePi number system? Then 10 = π. Seems reasonable on its face, but the problem is that basePi is what we call a non-standard number system, and weird stuff happens in these number systems. For example, 10 basePi = 3.14159... basePi.

You can look it up if you really want to know more (it might make your head hurt).

I disagree with the premise that there is a succession of universes, one every moment, stacked like pancakes. This leads to Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow. The only way out is to make the boundaries between adjacent universes vanishingly small - which essentially collapses the distinct universes into one temporally continuous universe.

To me the universe is everything that has ever existed, from the Big Bang to the Big Fade-Out. All causes and all effects exist in one universe. To continue our pancake analogy, you see infinite universes stacked like pancakes, I see one universe consisting of the entire stack.

It all comes down to our conception of time - you see time linking the multiple universes in a particular order, I see time as a component of the one universe.

If you really believe that an order could come into existence without being created, I'd like to hear your explanation. You'd have to start with a description of what a pure, absolute, lack of order would be like, then explain how an order could spontaneously occur.

First, I repeat that "order" is a human interpretation of the universe. Second, assuming order to exist, why do I have to start with absolute lack of order? If cause-and-effect is true of the universe then it provides a mechanism for instances to follow one after another. There is no need to insert God.

In fact, requiring God to provide temporal order seems to me to endanger free will. If God is directing the action, then what is my role?

... things do not just get up and go to the right place on their own. So we might conclude that there is a cause of temporal order, no?

Not sure why you think this true. Again, it seems like theology. And you realize that its impossible to refute because its untestable, yes?

I might add this though. Of course the universe appears ordered to us. Because we are in this universe, we believe it to have order. Humans see order because our evolution occurred in this universe. We evolved to survive and understand this universe. If we came from somewhere else, then this universe might not appear ordered.

The cause is temporally prior to the effect. So wouldn't you agree that a cause is "outside" its effect, as distinct from it?

Of course a cause is outside its effect. The question was : How do you know the cause came from outside the universe? Your initial response was that causes and effects do not share the same universe. Which was why I suggested you see temporally separate universe-pancakes. (I happen to disagree, by the way.) By your view, every cause is outside the universe that contains its effect. But since causes were once effects themselves, they must have been inside some earlier universe.

The suggestion that God must be outside because God is the creator implies that God is outside all universes - the universe of the cause and the universe of the effect. That's the nut you must crack.

The first thing to come to grips with, is that there is no such thing as "the universe", "our universe", or "my universe". As you'll see from the description, each living being, living at the present, does not occupy a line of division between a past universe and a future universe. A person has one foot in the past and one foot in the future (so to speak), and therefore exists as a bridge between a multitude of universes. This is important, the present, which we know as our lived experience, is not itself a single universe, but it is a conglomeration of universes.

Forgive me, but I'm not a philosophy major : Is this your idea or someone else's? Is there a source you can cite? I must admit I find it needlessly complicated.

...at the same time, anticipation and prediction represent a part of us which is in a future universe (or universes), like memories represent a part of us in a past universe (or universes).

You acknowledge a distinction between past universes, future universes, and (presumably) the present. So you do recognize time as a dividing line between universes. Like temporal universe-pancakes.

And God as temporal organizer seems like an explanation that has gone looking for a problem. Why do you assume that God, and only God, provides an objective relationship between moments in time? Does something suggest to you that a world absent of God would suddenly go haywire? Water flowing uphill? Cats living with dogs? I think you need to show that God is necessary for temporal order.

And finally, when I asked how do you know that certain effects have an outside cause, I meant, what is it about them that reveals this? (Of course, other than your speculation that God is needed to provide temporal order.) What can you point to about them that will convince skeptics?

Alright, let me see if I understand your position (correct me if I’m wrong) : there are many (an infinite number of) universes, each containing all that exists at one moment in time. So Dead Grandma exists in the universes in which she was alive, just not in the current universe, where she is dead. Universes are stacked up like pancakes.

I can kind of get on board with this, it’s a version of the multi-verse idea. A few questions, though :

How do we access the past? I mean, you claim I have a relationship with Dead Grandma. How? Through memory? Not only is memory faulty, but the memory of a thing is not the thing being remembered. Is it?

And where is God in all this? Even if I can access past universes through memory, that would not seem to be possible with God.

A somewhat unrelated question : How do you know that an effect is due to an outside cause? That’s a unique skill.

Pascal's opinion was the believing in God was, at most, a minor inconvenience! Thereby hangs a tale: Pascal was already a religious person and there would've been little change in the way he lived Pascal's wager or not!

I disagree. Assuming you do not want to experience eternal torment, the moment you consider Pascal's wager to be a valid argument, it becomes your primary reason for believing in God. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it can't be stuffed back in.

Pascal's wager immediately takes away your free will. If you want to avoid the lake of fire, you can't choose to believe in God, you have to!

...a cause is outside the universe by the time the effect occurs.

You've met your grandmother, so you know she's real, yet she's outside this universe, being no longer in existence.

et al.

Sure, what no longer exists (causes, dead grandmas) is no longer in the universe. But does that mean it then moves to an existence outside the universe? A junkyard for spent causes? Or does it cease to exist anywhere? (And no, I do not have relationships - or interaction - with dead relatives. I have never seen a ghost. I did have relationships with them while they were IN the universe.)

These once-in-the-universe-but-now-no-longer-existing things are very different from things that somehow exist on the outside.

By the way, it was my assumption that God is pure speculation, not Agent Smith. How can it be otherwise? How can you tell when causes from the outside have generated effects on the inside? Its like trying to use quale to discern things-in-themselves. You can't do it. At best, you can only say of an unexplained event that you fail to know the cause. In simpler times, unexplained events were called miracles and attributed to gods, because people didn't know any better.

It seems to me that claiming knowledge of the outside is theology, not philosophy.

Hmm…you applaud 180’s take down of Pascal’s wager…

So all this time your insistence on the validity of Pascal’s wager has been a sham? Just toying with the rubes. Well I guess I’ve been clowned.

I had been wondering why anyone over the age of 15 believed in that nonsense. Now I see it was all a joke.

You could ignore God if you want, just like you can ignore the fact that you had a grandmother. But if you want to understand the reality of your existence, then if God is real, understanding that there is a God is essential to understanding that reality, regardless of whether God is here now. Just like your grandmother who is no longer existing, you can ignore the reality that you had a grandmother, but this is not conducive toward understanding the reality of your existence.

But I've met my grandmother, so it's hard to ignore the fact of her existence. Agent Smith makes the claim that God is not in this universe. So his God is not real. His God is speculation, nothing more. And if you agree with him (a position you dance around and don't seem to commit to), then I guess God can be anything you want.

How is a made-up God essential to understanding reality? Even if you need God to be your Prime Mover, a god-that-is-not-present adds nothing to the understanding of reality. Only things in the universe can give us information about the universe.

How can you have a relationship with your dead grandmother?

I can't. She's dead. And thanks for reminding me. Now I have to relive that trauma.

Haha. Not really. She was an abusive alcoholic. Good riddance, you old crone.

The initial claim was, "God created the universe but is not part of it." You may or may not agree (it wasn't your claim). My question then was : If God is not a part of our universe, then God does not exist for us. So why can't we just ignore God?

Possible answers may include : God somehow enters the universe at a later date. Or, God left clues as to what was expected of us at the moment of creation. Or, God is watching us like some cosmic Santa Claus, just waiting for some doubt to creep in. Or, something else. But its not up to me to fill in the blanks. It's not my claim either.

But just to be clear, whatever answer is given, it needs to be supported. This is a philosophy forum, not a theology forum.

And the question of why-can't-we-just-ignore-God raises another question : Why does God care? Apparently, there is some danger of God getting into a snit and dropping this poor unbeliever into a lake of fire for all eternity (Agent Smith keeps throwing Pascal's wager at me). Would you do that? I know I wouldn't do it to anyone else. Nor do either of us (I presume) require worship or evidence-free belief in the existence of our persons. So you and I must be morally (or at least, emotionally) superior to God!

I guess I just find it difficult to accept that an adult - especially one who has obviously spent some time thinking about these things - can believe in such a petty, cruel god that Pascal’s wager seems reasonable. Don’t you realize that Pascal’s wager suggests that most humans are morally superior to God? Think about it : Eternal torment just for not swallowing the party line. Kind of negates free will, don’t ya think?

Pascal’s wager posits a ridiculous Santa-god. Actually an evil Santa-god, because worse than Santa, The god of Pascal’s wager doesn’t just give toys to the “good” girls and boys (eternal bliss for believers), but takes the toys away from the “bad” ones (eternal torment for the non-believers).

Why does God care whether we believe or not? Shouldn’t God be bigger than all that? Doesn’t God have anything better to do?

And you are still dodging my original question : How can we have a relationship with an entity that essentially doesn’t exist (not in our universe anyway)?

You should be! E-T-E-R-N-A-L T-O-R-M-E-N-T!

So I ask how we can have a relationship with an entity not of this universe, and you come back with PASCAL’S WAGER? Um, hate to burst your bubble, but you know those presents under the tree each Xmas? That was your parents - not Santa Claus.

I get it if you don’t want to answer my first question, so let’s try another: so God exists, just not in this universe. Are you proposing a multiverse? Or a metaverse? Which of course begs the question, who created the multiverse/metaverse? A bigger God?

And infinite regress sets in, and we run screaming out of the house with our hair on fire. I’m just trying to save you from madness, friend.

Pascal’s wager?

Are you suggesting that Pascal’s wager is a good reason why God should NOT be ignored? Hmmm…I’m just not that scared of the consequences.

I was just trying to follow your claim that God is outside the universe. I still want to know what relationship we can have with an entity we cannot interact with. Either we or God must be able to cross the boundary between universe and non-universe. Both possibilities pose problems.

Can an android marry an android? Can they get divorced? That would mean alimony for all eternity!

Oh my god, that's my nightmare!

It's just that God isn't a part of the known universe

Then God can be ignored. For all intents and purposes, God doesn't exist.

How can we interact with anything outside the universe? What relationship can there be? If God can reach back in to meddle in our affairs, then God is (at that point) part of the universe God created.

And if God doesn't reach back in, what use is the concept?