Oh well. On the plus side, I can (and do) drive a manual transmission. So that may allow me to retrieve at least one or two of my lost points! :wink:

i had a manual transmission (delivering pizzas) and i burned up two clutches in two years. I don't drive a manual transmission any more unless in the future its for a truck company.

50 cents on amazon. consider it done.

even if i get kicked off this site, atleast i found the author "lovecraft". Thanks Theologian.

I think discovering Lovecraft is worth a significant price. My only caution to you is that he is by far the most racist author I've ever read. But he was writing in the early 20th century, and was of his age.

In real life his views were more complex and nuanced than you may suspect from his writing alone: he did ultimately marry a Jewish woman.

Anyway, if you can get past that, there is a lot there that's worth experiencing. Any time we explore authors from outside our own time and culture, we almost inevitably encounter values at odds with our own. But I think on balance it's better to have such encounters than not.

If for no reason other than that seeing all the crazy and stupid things that highly intelligent people from other times and places have believed may make us at least a little more inclined to ask which of the things that we ourselves believe are no less crazy and stupid.

Yes, I was wondering what exactly Dfpolis has in mind by the term "being." Although if God is completely unlimited in ability to act the point becomes moot, since that would include the ability to act in all the ways that one would attribute to a sentient being. — Theologian

Well, but what is acting? Are we talking about shape-shifting, or? If so, then we are talking about an old man in the sky sometimes. It would just be that we're not only talking about that.

i agree with that.

Well, but what is acting? Are we talking about shape-shifting, or? If so, then we are talking about an old man in the sky sometimes. It would just be that we're not only talking about that. — Terrapin Station

I can't speak for @Dfpolis, but I'm guessing he might draw a distinction between actually acting, vs simply having the ability to act. So God can act as an old man in the sky, but probably just doesn't on account of the whole thing being... kinda stupid really... :razz:

Cool :smile:

There are a bunch of issues with the proof. We should tackle one at a time.

First, "not being able to do things that are logically impossible" would be a limitation. So if a god can't do things that are logically impossible, then the god isn't infinite, either.

If, instead, we say, "'infinite ability' refers to 'no limitation of ability within the scope of abilities that are possible'," then we invite discussion as to why we should consider logical-but-not-physical possibilities as within the scope of abilities that are possible, because we seem to be conflating what "ability" refers to.

Or otherwise, with a nod to the Euthyphro problem, it suggests that logic is prior to any god. That would need to be explained (how is that the case ontologically for example), and it would need to be justified why god should be given an exalted position in that case rather than logic, since god would be logic's lapdog so to speak.

Of course, the points about logic also have problems depending on one's ontology of logic. The comments about logic do not work if one isn't a platonist on logic.

Yet placing God, or at least God's ability to act, wholly inside this universe seems to be a premise of your argument. Remember: post Einstein, time is very much a part of the fabric of this universe. So it is difficult to say that God exists outside of time and yet is somehow constrained by the limits of the universe. — Theologian

I think that the term universe is the source of your confusion:

- If we define the universe as everything then God must be within it by definition
- Everything must also be finite
- Hence we cannot have an unlimited God in a limited universe
- So God exists outside of spacetime but he still exists within the context of a larger, finite, timeless universe

I can't speak for Dfpolis, but I'm guessing he might draw a distinction between actually acting, vs simply having the ability to act. So God can act as an old man in the sky, but probably just doesn't on account of the whole thing being... kinda stupid really... — Theologian

But then we need to alternatively explain the major religions, who supposedly had their god(s) speaking to them.

Or is this supposed to be a proof for a god that bears no resemblance to the god of any major religion?

If we define the universe as everything then God must be within it by definition — Devans99

Okay, I follow you there. But...

Everything must also be finite — Devans99

Still not entirely sure how you get to that. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not at all sure how you justify that claim in a positive sense.

The real problem is that the proof is in violation of proof theory.

Proving a theorem amounts to demonstrating that it necessarily follows from the explicitly-stated axiomatic construction logic of the abstract, Platonic world in which it is provable.

God is defined as the creator of the real, physical world.

Therefore, to prove the theorem, we would need access to the axiomatic construction logic of the real, physical world, also called, the theory of everything (ToE).

In his lecture, Gödel and the End of Physics, Stephen Hawking quite successfully argued, however, that we cannot possibly discover the ToE. Gödel's incompleteness theorems prevent us from achieving that feat.

This implies that it is not possible to prove anything at all about the real world. It is not possible to prove that anything exists, and science does not prove anything about the real world.

Since you cannot prove anything about the real, physical world, you cannot prove anything about its creation.

This does not mean that God exists or does not exists. It only means that our knowledge methods fail to reach the answer to this question. Hence, the belief that God exists or does not exist is necessarily the result of something else than knowledge.

There is nothing special about that, actually.

For example, access to existing knowledge is insufficient for the purpose of discovering new knowledge. Therefore, the most important ingredient in the discovery process of new knowledge is something else than knowledge. Otherwise, our existing knowledge would allow us to enumerate all possible knowledge theorems, and use that to discover new knowledge. That is exactly, however, what Gödel's incompleteness theorems disallow.

You can also prove this impossibility from Turing's halting problem. In fact, that is how you can trivially produce an alternative proof for Gödel's incompleteness theorems from Turing's halting problem (for the weaker form).

But then we need to alternatively explain the major religions, who supposedly had their god(s) speaking to them.

Or is this supposed to be a proof for a god that bears no resemblance to the god of any major religion? — Terrapin Station

GIven @Dfpolis's background, I doubt the latter. But I really shouldn't speak for him.

Proving a theorem amounts to demonstrating that it necessarily follows from the explicitly-stated axiomatic construction logic of the abstract, Platonic world in which it is provable. — alcontali

You don't have to buy anything a la platonism to do proofs.

God is defined as the creator of the real, physical world. — alcontali

That's not necessary in a proof. You can define something any way you like in your proof, really.

Therefore, to prove the theorem, we would need access to the axiomatic construction logic of the real, physical world, also called, the theory of everything (ToE). — alcontali

How are you arriving at that conclusion?

Still not entirely sure how you get to that. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not at all sure how you justify that claim in a positive sense. — Theologian

There is a separate thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5791/musings-on-infinity/p1

In summary I would say:

- Reality is constrained to what is logical
- Actual infinity comes with a bunch of illogical behaviours (see Hilbert's Hotel etc...)
- So Actual infinity does not feature in reality

- If we define the universe as everything then God must be within it by definition
- Everything must also be finite — Devans99

I hesitate to ask, but how are we arriving at "everything must also be finite"?

See the post one up.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/303825

Reality is constrained to what is logical
- Actual infinity comes with a bunch of illogical behaviours (see Hilbert's Hotel etc...) — Devans99

And if the second premise is true, how would you be arriving at the first premise?

How are you arriving at that conclusion? — Terrapin Station

Proof is context-sensitive.

It is only valid in the abstract, Platonic world in which it necessarily follows from its construction logic.

For example, you can prove a theorem from number theory, or from set theory, or from the lambda calculus (and so on). These are three different axiomatizations, i.e. abstract Platonic worlds, with each their own set of theorems.

None of their theorems prove anything about the real, physical world. The real, physical world has another (unknown) construction logic.

Furthermore, none of the theorems of one abstract, Platonic world (=axiomatization) proves anything about another abstract, Platonic world.

In the thread you're linking to you're talking about finite/infinite quantitatively. Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in this sense, but in the sense of limited vs unlimited abilities.

Well, but what is acting? Are we talking about shape-shifting, or? If so, then we are talking about an old man in the sky sometimes. It would just be that we're not only talking about that. — Terrapin Station


I can't speak for Dfpolis, but I'm guessing he might draw a distinction between actually acting, vs simply having the ability to act. So God can act as an old man in the sky, but probably just doesn't on account of the whole thing being... kinda stupid really... :razz: — Theologian

I've yet to see you not (keyword not) say something, brilliant. You would impress me more if you threw in something dumb. Watching you is glorious. Please show some humanity. lol.

So part of the background assumptions you're working with is that the physical world has different (and unknown) logic?

You'd need to support that claim.

By experience. Everything in reality is fundamentally logical. 2000 years of science has taught us that logical answers are out there. We may not have all the answers at present but they are out there and they are logical.

Contrast to actual infinity. ∞+1=∞. IE something that when you change it, it does not change. How is that logical?

I consider the existence of actual infinity in reality as likely as a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

You would impress me more if you threw in something dumb. — christian2017

Not to worry: it's bound to happen sooner or later!

And you know, some folks here might say that it's happened already. Some might even say that it's happened more than once! :gasp:

Contrast to actual infinity. ∞+1=∞. IE something that when you change it, it does not change. How is that logically. — Devans99

Okay, but again, Dfpolis stresses that he's not talking about finite/infinite in this (quantitative) sense, but in the sense of limited vs unlimited abilities.

At least criticize his argument from the perspective of his argument. Not from what you'd rather talk about re infinity.

your probably right, simply because different backgrounds and chosen mind sets effect our perception of reality. For my own sanity i won't reply to what you say too much. I can't stress this enough, you are brilliant!

I can't stress this enough, you are brilliant! — christian2017

I've always thought so...

But, it's adios from me for now. 'Night all!

Yes sorry, my original point was that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe.