I do not post nonsense. I do not believe you read it.

Where was the flaw in the argument?

A made a separate post as I had not seen a proof of God's intelligence before so I thought that was discussion worthy

Thats good to hear. But why was my post taken down?

To exist permanently, the only option is to exist outside time - if you exist inside time 'forever' then you have no temporal start, no coming into being, IE you can't exist.

The trick is when imagining 4D, is to think of 3D and drop one spacial dimension. So think of 2 spacial plus one time dimension as being a 3D object - the universe.

A torus is a donut. A 4d torus is to a 3d torus as a sphere is to a circle.

Not really set up to do that. Imagine a snake that has swallowed a crocodile and has its own tail in its mouth.

My favourite model of the universe is a torus in 4d spacetime with the time dimension running around the outside of the torus. The torus would be thin at one point (the Big Bang / Big Crunch) as fat at the opposing point (maximum extent of the universe). 'Now' would be like a spotlight rotating around the outside of the torus. In this model we all live the same lives again and again endlessly.

This seems paradoxical: eternal and finite. — TheMadFool

It's not if you think in 4d spacetime terms; then eternal objects have finite dimensions in space and time. So in 4d spacetime, we for example look like long thing snakes (the lengthwise dimension being time). So we can be eternal but finite at the same time. So can the universe.

We don't have to worry about its beginning but it seems to me that it'll extend into the infinity of the future — TheMadFool

I am mainly eternalist and finitist so I think time may have an end.

Do you think this self-reference is important? Does it result in the paradoxes we see in the math of infinities? — TheMadFool

The infinity paradoxes tend to be related to trying to measure the unmeasurable. Galileo's paradox (the number of squares is less than the number of non-squares yet each number has a square) is typical - there is no valid way to compare the size of two infinite sets and trying to do so yields contradictory results as Galileo noted.

Self-Reference is a large class of paradoxes. If it is recognised that the liar statement (and similar constructs) is not actually a statement, I believe this class of paradoxes will cease to be paradoxes.

Sorry to butt in like this but I think the correct term is interminable and not unmeasurable. The difference is that the former captures infinity as a quantity while the latter seems to treat infinity as a quality. — TheMadFool

Infinity is not a number/quantity:

1. Basic arithmetic says infinity is not a quantity. If it were a quantity, it would be a quantity X greater than all other quantities. But X+1>X
2. Quantities are magnitudes or sizes. Infinity is not measurable so has no size; it is not a quantity
3. Numbers have a fixed value; that is their defining characteristic. Numbers are not variable. Infinity has no fixed value so is not a number.

Godel's incompleteness theorems are discussed here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5602/the-liar-paradox-is-it-even-a-valid-statement

Beware the words 'clearly' and 'obviously'. When used, they are nearly always wrong. That is the case here. If you think otherwise, try to prove that a set of all sets exists! — andrewk

I still maintain that infinity is unmeasurable so has no size - that is the real cause of most of the paradoxes of infinity.

At this level, it is estimated that the there are far less than a googol of atoms in the observable universe. As stones consist of more than one atom, obviously two googolplex of stones cannot exist. — ssu

OK fair point, but my meaning was if sufficient stones existed, the a googolplex of stones would be possible.

I have to disagree with you in this one. The set of natural numbers N does exist in the Mathematical realm. It is an infinite set as it surely isn't a finite set of numbers. — ssu

The set of natural numbers exists in our heads only; in does not and can cannot exist in reality. Infinity has conceptual existence in our minds but so do talking trees; so conceptual existence is not enough to prove real existence.

I offered original solutions to the paradoxes!?!

Also, you can't flippantly apply an infinitesimal understanding of cause and effect to events in the universe and beyond it for which there's no method of quantitative or qualitative exploration apart from complex abstract symbolism which no one outside a small number of specialists understands. — whollyrolling

It does not matter too much what the pre BB universe is like; as long as it follows cause and effect, we can reason about it at a high level without knowing the specifics. We know the universe has to follow some basic common sense rules; infinite regresses are impossible for instance, which leads to a timeless first cause. We can deduce that without solving the BB singularity etc...

You have been discussing nothing but "the axiom of cause and effect", you've just recently added the word "axiom" to the only thing you ever discuss — whollyrolling

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5704/poincare-reoccurrence-theorem-and-time
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5749/cantors-paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5735/bottle-imp-paradox
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5726/unexpected-hanging-paradox

So I only discuss cause and effect?!?

We were discussing the axiom of cause and effect. The connection between the two was inductive evidence:

1. The way we assess the danger of an airplane journey with reference to examples of previous successfully completed journeys.

2. Is similar to the way we observe causality around us happening and thus assume it holds.

So my argument is that there is overwhelming inductive evidence of cause and effect and that evidence is of a similar nature to that which we already take potentially life threatening decisions.

Well that's a wild theory. But according to it there should be Martians right now — khaled

There are aliens they just don't visit earth very much or at all. It's a long way to come, +4 light years.

But what I'm suggesting is that the start of the universe wasn't autonomous. Would you call the movement of the earth around the sun autonomous? I wouldn't. And besides even if we give that the first cause of existence was intelligent that doesn't mean it's conscious or that it still exists now. — khaled

What could the start of the universe be if it is not a first cause. The first cause logically has to be timeless - itself uncaused - beyond causality. So because it is timeless, it should still exist now. A timeless thing probably has a 1:n relationship with time - it can see all of time in one go.

Modern physic says not only that you can, but that we have, and do — tim wood

Modern physics respects the conservation of energy - virtual particles only only transitory effects - if that was not the case, matter density would be infinite by now (with infinite time).

A timeless something is incoherent. Make it coherent. — tim wood

As far as origins of the universe are concerned, there are only two possibilities:

1. An infinite regress in time.
2. A timeless first cause that created time.

The first has no start so its impossible. The second, we know from relativity that things can be timeless like the photon so it maybe possible. As the first is impossible, it timelessness has to be possible.

Let's try this. If something has a start, then there is either something or nothing prior to it. — tim wood

There is something prior to it; a timeless first cause. There are many arguments for this. A classic from Aquinas is:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

I count this a logical language that leads to a logical conclusion. I think metaphysics has a role to play in guiding science towards the right solutions.

I'm sure Hawking has been mentioned in your threads. He opined that time is akin to the surface of a sphere in that it is boundless, yet has no beginning or end. — tim wood

His theory has time as an imaginary variable I think? It sounds a little far fetched, that would make the universe in effect 5D? And I believe even with the no boundary proposal, that real time still has a start (imaginary time does not)?

Democritus, for example, may have given us "atoms," but he couldn't manage, or even imagine, nuclear physics and sub-atomic particles, and that because he was looking in the wrong place (among a lot of other reasons). — tim wood

I do not believe we need to know the bits and bolts of time before knowing whether it has a start or not - you find out the basic stuff first do you not?

PS Even better argument for time has a start here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

Stones can exist. Yet Again you have the same illogical idea here: two googolplex of stones cannot exist. And where in reality exists this '54'? — ssu

I'm not sure what you mean? Two googolplex of stones can exist IMO.

The existence of the paradoxes show simply that our understanding of infinity is still lacking. — ssu

My view is that paradoxes indicates that there is an error in the explicit/implicit assumption underlying the problem. In this case the problem is the assumption that an infinite set has a size that leads to the paradox. A paradox is just a contradiction so it is a form of proof via contradiction that infinite sets do not have sizes / infinity does not exist.

To call them proofs, or anything more definite than the guesses they actually are, is misleading and damaging to the reasoning which follows. — Pattern-chaser

The axiom of cause and effect is just an axiom. Proofs built upon it stand or fall depending on whether the axiom is correct or not. This is the way with all our theories.

Anyway, that the large number of observations you made, and that they all confirmed your expectations, is not "statistics". Medians and means, and normal distributions: those are "statistics". — Pattern-chaser

I think that is the nature of induction. Should I get on that plane today? The last ones did not crash so yes. So we make potentially life threatening decisions based on induction. To make any progress with the whole metaphysical debate about the origins of the universe requires some axioms. If I would trust my life to induction, I would trust induction for the question of origins of the universe.

The only way to "put forth atheism" is to state that I don't believe in gods. There is nothing else attached to it. — whollyrolling

Have no belief in any particular god?
Or
Believe that no gods exist at all?

Well, you simply have to prove it[/i] in mathematics. If you show that either all or some the axioms of ZF are incorrect, then that is that's a positive breakthrough. — ssu

Axioms are commonly evaluated by two criteria:

First, the axiom should not lead to logical inconsistencies in the system under question. I think the discussion above on transfinite arithmetic is enough to show that the axiom of infinity does lead to logical inconsistencies.

Second, axioms are chosen because they are inductively very likely to be true. We have strong reasons for believing in our axioms. A problem with axiomatically defining infinity to exist is that it is not clear that infinity exists:

1. We have no examples from nature of infinity
2. Constructing anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time
3. Constructing anything infinity small is impossible; one would never finish chopping it up
4. Basic arithmetic says infinity is not a number. If it were a number, it would be a number X greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X

Bearing in mind the above doubts, is the assumption of the existence of infinity a good axiom? A house rests upon its foundations. Set theory rests upon the decidedly shaky foundation of the axiom of infinity.

Does the number 54 exist in reality? Show me where the real 54 is. — ssu

54 stones can exist. An infinite number of stones cannot. Spacetime is a creation so it must be finite and discrete.

Besides, I think infinity is used a lot in math and is a very useful, very logical mathematical object, which is inherent to mathematics in order for it to be logical. — ssu

Potential Infinity (limits in calculus) is useful. Actual Infinity (transfinites) is not useful and misleads people. We have a whole bunch of cosmologists out there thinking that infinity is a grounded, logical mathematical concept when it is no such thing. They are wasting time on infinite universe models that could be better employed on the correct models (finite models).

REALLY? You think that defining something in math is something like 'writing it down'? — ssu

If you can't even say what size something is or iterate a complete list of members, I think calling it defined is a massive stretch and that stretch leads to paradoxes. The OP is just one of many paradoxes that go away once it is realised that infinity has no size. Set theory is rife with paradoxes because of infinity.

We assume that cause and effect hold to get our everyday lives done. I assume that typing this will show up on my screen for example. Our devices use cause and effect. Every time I type, maybe 100000 different cause-effects are caused and effected in my computer.

I think the statistics I've given indicate that the universe does get things done with cause and effect in the vast majority of cases - all cases probably; we know of no other mechanism to replace it.

But I acknowledge that the support for the axiom is only inductive. Cause and effect is still a goof axiom though.

Is it as good as 'the whole is greater than the parts'? I think probably almost. Its almost as good an axiom as I know.

So the bijection 1+2=3 you don't agree with? — ssu

I don't believe you can use bijection with infinite sets - infinite sets are by definition not fully defined; IE they are UNDEFINED and you cannot operate with them logically.

So now you are dismissing totally set theory. Good luck with that. — ssu

Finite set theory is OK. The rest is shot through with holes. The definition of a set is polymorphic:

- A finite set may be specified as a list of items
- A infinite set maybe specified by selection criteria such as ‘all real numbers’

However, this is not a valid polymorphism. An infinite set is not a-kind-of finite set and vice-versa. The two object types have very different properties:

- An infinite set clearly does not have a cardinality property. Cardinality or size implies the ability to measure something. Infinity is by definition unmeasurable so infinite sets have no size property.

- A finite set has a completely defined list of members. An infinite set does not have this property.

These are very different types of objects; to try to treat them the same is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. An infinite set is just a partial description of a set - it is the selection criteria for the set: ‘all natural numbers’ does not completely define a set, it just describes what type of objects go in the set. Contrast that to a finite set, which is fully described and defined.

It is never possible to fully define an infinite set - there is not enough paper in the world - so when working with infinite sets we are always working with a partly defined IE UNDEFINED objects. This is one of the reasons why so many paradoxes occur with infinite sets - they are not fully defined logical entities.

What has been done in set theory is an abomination to the principles of sound design; instead of treating finite and infinite sets as different objects each having different operations and properties, Cantor simply made up fictitious numbers (the transfinites) to represent the nonexistent cardinality property of infinite sets.

Ok. Is infinity bigger than 54? Does 54 have size? No?
If 54 has size, then where does infinity loose it? — ssu

Infinity only exists in our minds, not in reality. Conceptually (and it is a broken concept) infinity is bigger than everything but has no size itself.

But 15,000,000 observations of cause and effect and no observations of non caused effects is quite a bit of evidence in support of 'cause and effect is the way the universe gets things done'. For inductive evidence, when do you draw the line?

How does it work?

We are in the modern day, awash with complexity. Maths and science are layer upon layer of complexity. Some of the foundations are wrong; that is where the some of the complexity comes from. If something is wrong in the foundation and it is not spotted, people over elaborate in higher layers to compensate. I've seen this effect 1st hand in computer systems, but it applies equally to maths/physics/cosmology as well.

Sets are just ideas. They're something we made up. Can we make up ideas that run into consistency problems? Sure. And then we can make up modifications or restrictions to avoid the consistency problems. — Terrapin Station

But if you start with clean ideas (non contradictory axioms) you get clean theories.

Set theory is all the fudges and hacks because the axiom of infinity is wrong - infinite things exist in our minds only, they cannot have real existence.

Only a madman would claim infinity is measurable. It has no size. Infinite sets do not have a cardinality.

Well… what is your definition of a number? Numbers you see are used to measure something and when you have something that isn't measurable / countable, you have bit of a problem — ssu

I'd associate size with something measurable. If its unmeasurable, I would not try to measure it. Unmeasurable things can have no size. Infinite sets have no cardinality. Making up fictitious numbers is not the way to go. For example, the rules of transfinite arithmetic assert that:

∞+1=∞

This assertion says in english:

’There exists something that when changed, does not change’

That is deeply illogical.

Or:

∞/2=∞

'The whole is greater than the parts' is flaunted.

So these fictitious numbers, the transfinites, have no basis in logic IMO.

So what do you then think about Cantor's finding that there are more real numbers than natural numbers? Or said another way, that you cannot put into 1-to-1 correspondence the real numbers with the natural numbers, as you can put the rational numbers with the natural numbers? — ssu

I do not agree with the bijection procedure as a valid way to compare two things. It produces results like the size of the set of naturals is the same as the size of the set of rationals or the number of squares is the same as the number of non-squares (Galileo’s paradox):

- For each natural number there is clearly an infinite number of rationals so the two sets cannot be the same size
- By induction we know that for any reasonably sized sample, the number of non-squares is greater than the number of squares.

How can a procedure that is meant to demonstrate equality produce such obviously wrong results? It is because infinity has no size (it is unmeasurable) so it is impossible to compare the size of infinite sets.

If you guess that cause and effect is (say) 99% likely - 0.99 probability - where do you get that figure from? What is the statistical science that justifies and demonstrates a numerical probability for this value? How do you assess the probability of an axiom being true? A simple, clear and explicit answer would be appropriate, and appreciated. — Pattern-chaser

OK I estimate I witness 30 instances of cause an effect a minute, so that's 43200 in a day, 15,379,200 in a year versus no examples of causeless effects. That 99.99999% certainty from 1 year of data.

An axiom is an assumption, not a proof. An axiom is declared only because there is no proof (of the concept in question). If there was proof, we'd just state it and move on, wouldn't we? — Pattern-chaser

I am a traditionalist when it comes to axioms. They have to be good axioms - in agreement with our everyday experience and science - I only adopt them if they are very likely to be true.

I am not sure. Concepts maybe only could be have said to have existence in the mind but the 'template' for the concept is always the same. There are only 5 possible platonic solids. That is a fact that exists in our minds and it is always the same fact. I think concepts are ultimately deduced from reality so reality must mirror these concepts in some rough form.

For example, approximate triangles exist in nature. Is that where we get the idea? But then just thinking about object shapes in general leads to the abstract idea of a triangle.

I think maybe there exists common sense and reality and concepts are deducible from common sense and reality - so they do not have existence until they are discovered/deduced at which point they exist in our minds.

If it existed prior to our 'discovery' of it, where, in the real-life space-time universe, was it kept? What was its location? It couldn't be in human minds, because we hadn't yet 'discovered' it. — Pattern-chaser

Concepts are not material so they don't exist in spacetime. I am not sure it can even be said of concepts that they 'exist' - there is the theory of forms of cause - but I don't really buy that.

Concepts are discovered by intelligence, but different intelligences discover the same concepts; so they have independent existence of a non-material manner.

God's mind precedes the creation of spacetime I would say. But maths predates that. Maths reduces to Logic. What is logic? Just information (trues and falses) and ways to differentiate between them. Information predates everything because everything is information. God is information.

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. Concepts like circles (and maths) exist and await discovery. It is not possible to create the concept of a circle (or maths) - you discover it. π will always be 3.1416... its not possible to have a non-circular circle.

1 and 0 are true and false. All mathematical propositions ultimately reduce to logical propositions.

LOL! We don't know if he is immanent within the universe but if he is and is visiting earth, yes maybe big bodybuilder would be a good form for him.

No it's not. If it was why would there be so many useless stars and planets elsewhere. Why wouldn't it be just earth and the sun. — khaled

Those are for the aliens to live on.

Why not? — khaled

Explain how autonomous movement is possible without intelligence then?

And why should I care about cosmology exactly? — khaled

You are on a philosophy forum. Metaphysics and cosmology overlap.

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.

Why? You're giving this thing human properties such as drives. They don't necessarily apply to it. How do you define "drive" anyway? Does the moon have a "drive" to revolve around the earth? That statement is just too vague. — khaled

The earth's mass causes the moon's motion.

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to also 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. So it all seems to point to an intelligent first cause...

Whatever this first cause is it's either no longer a factor, or is one of the forces we see in physics — khaled

Its important for cosmology; there are competing models, some have first causes others do not. People are wasting a lot of time working on models without first causes.