I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. — S
Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion? — EnPassant
But that does not mean you can place an extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you cannot reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me.But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. — S
What on do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion? — S
But that does not mean you can place and extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. — EnPassant
There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you can reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me. — EnPassant
As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. — EnPassant
[...] the "people" claiming "atheism" don't like the term I use, "God hater."
They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you? — Daniel Cox
I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant
And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy? — EnPassant
I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant
Tell me something about this entity you call "God." — Frank Apisa
Devans99
1.7k
Tell me something about this entity you call "God." — Frank Apisa
Timeless
Just As St Thomas Aquinas claimed, the first cause must be timeless.
Powerful But Not Omnipotent
Creation of the universe requires considerable power but not omnipotence. Could God create a copy of himself? By doing so, he would cease to be omnipotent, so effectively God cannot be omnipotent.
Intelligent But Not Omniscient
The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence.
But to know everything, you first must know yourself. That 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. So God cannot be omniscient.
Benevolent But not Omnibenevolent
Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:
- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.
The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be good.
Omnibenevolent would require infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. So this is impossible.
Sexless
Referring to God as ‘Him’ is the judaic tradition. But of course ‘he’ cannot be the product of bisexual reproduction.
Not Omnipresent
Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. This means they are casually disconnected from each other (can have no effect on each other - not in each other’s future light cones). To class as one being, all parts of the being must be causally connected, so God cannot be omnipresent.
Not Infinite
Infinite implies unmeasurable. But a being can always measure itself - it is called self-awareness. So God cannot be infinite.
Non-Material / Extra dimensional
Spacetime started 14 billion years ago. The first cause must be from beyond spacetime. We know the first cause cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). A key question is, can space exist without time? IE can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So space cannot exist without time (in our universe anyway). So the first cause might be ‘spaceless’ too. That might mean the first cause is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A non-material or extra dimensional first cause would be able to cause the Big Bang without destroying itself. — Devans99
EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. — Devans99
It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. — Devans99
don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind. — EnPassant
The concept of a circle for example; is independent of any particular mind so it must have existence outside of all minds. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.