The foundations of mathematics are examined in metamathematics and the foundations of physics by metaphysics. — Dfpolis
Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence.
— Dfpolis
This is where you should have started and ended. Positing an unexplained God as an explanation of what cannot be explained is conjuring. — Fooloso4
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. — Terrapin Station
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. — Terrapin Station
Assuming there is one, if it is timelessly, it is necessarily. This necessity is either intrinsic (in which case it is self-explaining), or it is derived (in which case it is explained by another). In either case, it has an explanation. — Dfpolis
I made no claim that God is "in" (limited to) the cosmos. — Dfpolis
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
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. — alcontali
Since you cannot prove anything about the real, physical world, you cannot prove anything about its creation. — alcontali
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. — alcontali
For example, access to existing knowledge is insufficient for the purpose of discovering new knowledge. — alcontali
Otherwise, our existing knowledge would allow us to enumerate all possible knowledge theorems, and use that to discover new knowledge. — alcontali
That is exactly, however, what Gödel's incompleteness theorems disallow. — alcontali
Do *I* have an explanation, and if so, what is it? You seem to be saying that every being has a purpose. — Pattern-chaser
I have not said that God is unexplained, but self-explaining. — Dfpolis
In fact, your entire line of thought seems self-contradictory. On the one hand, you claim we can prove nothing about reality, and, on the other hand, you seem to claim to have proven that we can prove nothing about reality -- which is proving something about reality. — Dfpolis
Since you came to be, you need to have been actualized by something already operational. — Dfpolis
I have not said that God is unexplained, but self-explaining. — Dfpolis
As metamathematical proofs do not belong to mathematics, so metaphysical proofs do not belong to physics. — Dfpolis
So progress (or lack of progress) toward a physical ToE is entirely irrelevant. — Dfpolis
I think that Godel's work has little to say about a ToE, because the method of physics is not the method of mathematics. Physics is not built on a closed axiomatic foundation, but an open experiential foundation. That does not make a ToE possible, but it does make the analogy with mathematics highly questionable. — Dfpolis
Again, you are confusing methodologies. Natural science uses the hypothetico-deductive method, while metaphysical proofs often use strict deduction. — Dfpolis
On the one hand, you claim we can prove nothing about reality, and, on the other hand, you seem to claim to have proven that we can prove nothing about reality -- which is proving something about reality. — Dfpolis
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of knowledge as awareness of present intelligibility. Knowledge is new if previously unactualized intelligibility is actualized by awareness. Yes, what is new may have been implicit in existing knowledge, but that only means that it was intelligible, not that it was actually known — Dfpolis
This is a complete non sequitur. Just because what we already know can be the basis of some new knowledge, does not mean that it can be the basis for all possible knowledge. New knowledge can come both from reflection on what we already know and from new types of experience, e.g. the kinds of observations and experiments that have informed science since antiquity. — Dfpolis
Let's consider the second incompleteness theorem, which rules out self-proofs of consistency. If we have a set of axioms that are not merely posited, but properly abstracted from reality, we do not need to prove that they are consistent, because no contradictions can be instantiated in reality. That means that simultaneously instantiated axioms have to be mutually consistent. It is only if one restricts the knowledge base to an abstract system that there is a problem. Opening ourselves to reality can often resolve such problems. — Dfpolis
I suggest you read Roger Penrose, The Emperor's Mew Mind, in which he shows that human minds are able to solve uncomputable problems. — Dfpolis
I object to your claim that "explanation must exist". First, I'll note that this contradicts your definition of existence (" Existence adds a new note of comprehension: that the thing we are talking about can act in reality"): an "explanation" cannot act, and therefore explanations don't exist. Explanations "exist" (in a broadened sense of "exist") in minds, but only after theory has advanced to do so, and theory depends on the prior existence of minds that are capable of articulating it. The universe operated without existing explanations for quite a long time (and we obviously don't understand every aspect of material reality even now). I expect you're actually referring to the fact that mind-independent laws of nature exist, rather than semantic/mathematical descriptions of these laws. However, this can't suit your argument: laws of nature exist, but this provides no grounds for extrapolating beyond the universe (i.e. the totality of material reality) as you're trying to do. Everything within the universe is causally connected to everything else; it is these causal connections that constitute the laws of nature. But the existence of these intra-universe causal connections does not imply there is a causal connection to something external to the universe - there's no basis for assuming that to be the case.Premise 4: If a being exists, its explanation must exist.
If this were not true, science would be impossible. If things "just happened," the observations would not be underlying dynamics, and could neither confirm nor falsify hypotheses. Note that “explanation” has two senses: (1) the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is. (We may or may not know these.) This is the sense I am using. (2) Our attempt to articulate our understanding of (1). This is not the sense I am using here. — Dfpolis
My point was and is that the completely unlimited is logically incapable of being the fact that makes some state of affairs be as it is. It is incapable of being that fact because by definition it is equally of making the same state of affairs not be as it is. — Theologian
:Being human: is present tense affirmative (nominative). Human is being, and therefore the human exists.
At one point you say that being human means the human exists, at another point you say being human means that the human does not exist. — god must be atheist
I'm not sure how much formal philosophical education you've had (I'm just a beginner myself), but the term "metaphysics" is just a historical accident. — Theologian
If you're saying that unlimited being has free will, — Dfpolis
God must have free will to be truly infinite — Dfpolis
'Rationality' is merely a mental exercise with a particular 'coherence' claim, 'logic' being merely one such exercise. And you appear to be using 'truth' in an absolutist sense which for me begs the question of dubious status of any 'absolute' including 'God'. — fresco
Yes, I know that it is because of the placement of Aristotle's work on first philosophy after his work on nature; nonetheless, there was a reason for the placement, viz. because the Metaphysics examines issues fundamental to, but outside of the scope of, the Physics -- just as metamathematics does with math. — Dfpolis
I appreciate the thought you and other commenters are expending on my post. — Dfpolis
Timeless things should be able to exist without an explanation (as a brute fact). — Devans99
Asking for an explanation is like asking what engine size an elephant has; the first cause simply does not have a 'why' property. — Devans99
So there must be a wider (timeless) container that contains God and the cosmos. — Devans99
It must be something, and if it is something, then it is finite (infinity has the property ∞+1=∞ which implies it can be changed without being changed which is a straight contradiction). — Devans99
God must clearly be benevolent, so how do you account for the problem of evil? — Devans99
In fact, the term "Platonic" is just a figure of speech to refer to an abstraction, i.e. a mere language expression. I just use it to distinguish them from physical, real-world objects. So, a chair is a physical object, but the language expression "chair" is not.
There is a simple litmus test for platonicity of the target of a language expression.
If you can translate it into other languages, then it must be a language object. For example, "5" is a language object, because you can also write "five", "cinque", "fünf", or "101" (binary). Therefore, it has nothing to do with the real, physical world. It is an idea instead of something physical. — alcontali
I agree that ideas are not physical, but I rather prefer a dualist interpretation, whereby humans are able to interface between the Platonic realm of abstractions, and actual objects, to produce neat things like: — Wayfarer
"Should"? Why? What is the force of this "should"? And, what is the error of my analysis? — Dfpolis
It's a category error to think an infinite being can be confined to a location. If a being is contained, it can act in the container, but not outside of it, and so is limited. — Dfpolis
This argument fails because we are not speaking of numerical but ontological infinity -- the capacity to do any possible act. An infinite being cannot change because an infinite being is a necessary being, and whatever is necessary cannot possibly be different. — Dfpolis
I agree that it is a real problem, but having a problem does not mean that the proof is unsound. I think the problem is that what might be good for other things need not be good for humans. If dinosaurs could think they would have thought the asteroid that ended their era was evil, but it was good for us. — Dfpolis
Still. Where does god enter the picture? Just because something is not explained, (the finite to his self) AND assuming an explanation is possible, it does not necessarily follow that there is someone or something that can and will explain it. — god must be atheist
Alcontali claimed (I wasn't there, but I believe you) that we can prove nothing about reality Alcontali SEEMED to have claimed (so he did not claim... you put words in his mouth, which he did not say, and you defeat his argument based on something he did not say... hence the strawman) to have proven (which he did not) that we can prove nothing about reality. — god must be atheist
This is actually not true. A lower-level movement can create a higher-level movement, and there need not be, there is no, actualization process. — god must be atheist
This is actually not true. A lower-level movement can create a higher-level movement, and there need not be, there is no, actualization process.
— god must be atheist
Then no potential ever becomes actualized and there is no change, — Dfpolis
Still. Where does god enter the picture? Just because something is not explained, (the finite to his self) AND assuming an explanation is possible, it does not necessarily follow that there is someone or something that can and will explain it.
— god must be atheist
I think you are confusing the two meanings (verbal and effective) of "explanation" I distinguished. the proof deals with what makes things so, not with our articulation fo what makes things so. Things work in a certain way whether or not anyone tells us they do. — Dfpolis
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.