Teleology clearly exists in human affairs; a house is built from the ground up with a plan in mind. Why do materialists argue that while this is ubiquituous in human affairs it is absent in the rest of the natural world?

The example of rain is sometimes cited to illustrate the argument; it does not rain 'to' water the plant. But, looking at it from the opposite view point, we can say that the plant is there 'to' make use of the rain. That is, if the plant is evolved by an intelligence with a view 'to' make use of rain.

So the question of teleology comes down to whether there is intelligence driving evolution.

Kummer said that God created the integers and all else is the work of man. He did not believe that real numbers are real. If we consider, for example, the square root of 2 as an infinite expansion, we can argue that the digits of the expansion are only a 'map' of a (geometric) quantity. What is real is the proportional relationship between the unit and the square roof of 2. In geometry the unit is often taken to be the radius of a circle (or side of a square) and square root 2 is such in proportion to the unit line. When this proportion is translated into a real number the digits map the ratio.

This poses a number of questions-
1. Is the algorithm that generates the digits real? If so, are not the digits also real?
2. Does number precede geometry or vise versa? Some extraordinary infinite series have been discovered that map, with infinite precision, real numbers like Pi, e, etc.

If infinite series can map Pi exactly does that mean that number precedes geometry (space)? Do numbers exist in God's Mind before space or do numbers arise out of (Euclidean) space?

It seems to me that number is more primitive than space and as such they precede space.

The materialist implicitly asserts that a person is no more than a collection of molecules. How can a bunch of molecules produce a person? The person and the psyche are far too sublime and evolved to be merely a property of molecules. So I believe in dualism but not that Trump is a critter...

A mind in isolation is hardly alive. Life is a discourse between minds, between what is self and not self. Life is union.

In the "beginning" God was alone, in the void. 'Then' creation came into being and God emerged from mere existence - the void - into life and being. Through creation God becomes the living God.

Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence. — S

The argument hinges on the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

What is evidence? In the simplest terms evidence is a body of facts and objects that are to be interpreted: what do they mean?

The difference between evidence in this basic sense and 'evidence for' is that 'evidence for' exists in the mind. What the evidence supports is determined subjectively according to our mental machinations.

Every dust mote, every star, planet or galaxy is evidence. Every living thing from a house fly to an oak tree is evidence: it is there.

Evidence for what?

Atheists continually use the expression 'evidence for' in terms of provable things. But not all truth is provable in these terms. Therefore 'evidence for' needs to be extended into the subjective realm. That is, when atheists say 'there is no evidence for' they are usually saying 'subjective evidence is not objective evidence'.

But it should always be kept in mind that there is no 'evidence for' anything; evidence is mute. We must interpret it if it is to become 'evidence for' because what the evidence supports is determined in the mind, not out there, objectively. Without mind there is no 'evidence for'.

The slit experiment seems to be reviving idealism given that we supposedly change the universe by observing it. — Martin Krumins

This, to my mind, is a confusion of terms. When a scientist observes a quantum event, that whole process involves

1. Planning the experiment.
2. Implimenting it = detection.
3. Observing the results.

All this comes, loosely, under the heading 'observing'. But, for clarity, these three parts need to be separated. Observation is not important in terms of what physically happens. What is important here is detection. A particle can be detected without observation (the observation can take place months after the fact.)

Detection must be defined as follows:

Quantum particles live in their own spacetime, which is not classical spacetime.
When a quantum event interacts with a classical experiment it leaves a trace effect on the experiment. A spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect.

These trace effects are NECESSARILY classical objects because they exist in classical spacetime. Detection then is defined as a quantum event leaving a classical trace effect on classical spacetime.

Consequently, these trace effects are measured in classical terms. It cannot be otherwise. So the scientists are reduced to interpreting quantum spacetime, in classical terms; the measurements are according to a classical ruler.

The trace effects exist at the interface between quantum spacetime and classical spacetime. But they are classical objects.

If detection is defined in these terms it can be seen that the effect on particles is produced not by observation per se, but by detection; the 'collision' of a particle with a classical object (ie the experimental apparatus, which is a classical object). It is detection, not observation, that effects the change. Changing reality by 'observing' it is a confusion of terms; a confusion between detection and observation.

Time is not simply change. Change is evidence of time but not a definition of it. Time is that order according to which change happens. In the physical universe that order is outlined in General Relativity. (Space)time is essentially a mathematical description of how change happens. That is not exactly the same as our pedestrian experience of change. As for your experiment; the earth, including your room, has moved between Sunday and Monday and this has to be taken into account. The room is not in the same place, therefore it is not in the same time.

The mind is a construct of the brain. — Llum

Hmmm...

http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysteries-of-the-Mind/Living-without-a-Brain.html

Presumably to have it filled instead by wife beaters like Rob Porter, thieves like Scott Puritt, and sexual assault defenders like Bill Shine. — StreetlightX

Yes, but relatively speaking, they are only knaves compared to the truly dark people that have occupied the White House down through the years...

That is a joke, right? — Akanthinos

No it's not a joke! Removing evil people and replacing them with dubious knaves might be a great improvement, relatively speaking. That is all it may take to save the world, for the time being. Where can I find a LoveTrump site?

Trump is to be applauded for at least one thing; he 'drained the swamp' of the genocidal gargoyles and vampires that were crawling all over the White House. Don't be down on Trump, he may have saved the world.

What is the "non-physical mind"? Is it the sum of all the information stored in our brains, like the software is to the hardware of a computer? — Ron Besdansky

In my understanding it is what is traditionally known as 'spirit'. A living mind that does not arise out of material relations.

If a definition of irrational is required it might look something like;

Irrational thinking is when thinking is not in accordance with the natural order of the world.

Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 minute later is being irrational.
Someone thinking they can be in Berlin and then be in London 1 day later is being rational.

Being rational is when thinking is congruent with the order of the world.

Maybe 'transrational' is a better word than irrational in some cases. Going by Richard Dawkins use of the word rational, religious people might be 'transrational'.

Because if you have free will you have to sin. — GreyScorpio

Not at all. Free will means you have a choice between sin and virtue. If you 'have' to sin you would not have the choice not to.

Alright yes, that's true: When it isn't known that a topic is unknowable and indescribable, then it's a legitimate topic of philosophy, for discussion about that. — Michael Ossipoff

If there is a fundamental substance that is and always has been and is the source of all contingent things we can say three things about it-

1. It is
2. It has creative potential because it evolved into everything that is not fundamental
3. It has the power to become life and consciousness, because this is what happened.

I dont think you can have a universe of processes or properties only. I tend to think of it in terms of properties. Suppose you have a bronze coin with the property 'circular'. You cannot remove the substance of the coin from the property circular; the property 'circular' IS the substance of the coin, but we conceive of it abstractly.

Consider the following propositions;-

1. A property must be supported by substance. This substance is either relative or absolute.
A relative substance is such when it too can be shown to be a property, playing the part of absolute substance. Absolute substance is not a property.

2. Every property is perfectly identified with its supporting substance.

Keeping these two propositions in mind we can examine properties and see if they hold.

In the example of the bronze coin, the supporting substance of the property 'circular' is bronze. But bronze, being matter, is a property of energy because matter is a pattern in a field of energy. What then is energy? Is it an absolute substance or is it too a property of some deeper substance?

Any analysis of this property/substance relationship in physical reality will quickly lead to this question; what is energy? Is it a relative or absolute substance?

Proposition 2. says that matter is perfectly identified with energy; it is merely a pattern in a field of energy. It is the energy in the way 'circular' is the bronze of the coin. Matter is a property; it is nothing. Can we have a universe made of nothings/processes? or is there a fundamental substance keeping the hierarchy of properties in being?

I think the confusion is purely semantic. POTUS is a position in a hierarchy that can be occupied by many people. Trump is only one person. T = P, is meaningless if P = 'the top position in the hierarchy'.
T = P has meaning if P = 'the present occupier of the top position in the hierarchy'

I think, at best, IQ tests can only measure very basic mental abilities. Intelligence is many different things. A stand up comic can have amazing social intelligence and linguistic skills. Art is another kind of intuitive intelligence. The creation of a joke requires many highly developed abilities;

Linguistic sophistication.
Social intelligence.
The ability to understand other minds.
The intelligence to understand that the joke is funny.
The pathos with which the joke is delivered.

I think computers will only be intelligent when they can spontaneously create a joke.


Teacher: Let x equal the number of sheep.

Pupil: But teacher, what if x is not the number of sheep?

Why should a omniscient being's mind be able to evolve, however? — GreyScorpio

Maybe (mathematical) knowledge is an intrinsic part of God's existence.

But you can't talk about god having a designer without talking about how he came to exist. Because that is the whole point, no? How did this complex knowledge come about in the first place? — GreyScorpio

As outlined in my first post, mathematics rests on very primitive concepts (essentially number as a set). If primitive knowledge can exist in God's mind it can evolve into mathematics, which is non physical complexity. But in God 'evolve' does not require time; perhaps God spontaneously knows mathematical truth, yet there is a logical abstract evolution in mathematics; one thing leads to another, endlessly.

Very good point. How I would answer that (and I know my view is almost universally contested on the forum) is that the philosophical understanding of the relationship of God and creation was mainly derived from the Greek tradition, principally neoplatonism — Wayfarer

I think you are correct in this. Try to get hold of Simone Weil's Letter to a Priest.

I don't follow how this would warrent God to be able to pop into existence. Why is God exempt from logical rules if he can only do what is logically possible? — GreyScorpio

The question is not about God's existence it is about how God can be complex without a designer. If abstract knowledge can exist in God's mind you have complexity right there; mathematical complexity.

Most definitely the designer needs a designer. — GreyScorpio

Not if the designer can know abstract mathematical complexity. This complexity can then be the basis for physical complexity.

At death, we stop having these choices — Relativist

Not necessarily.

What good comes from this brief period of moral freedom? — Relativist

Great good. If we become good we will be closer to God in the next life.

Why wouldn't an omnibenevolent God just create beings like THAT - without a freedom to sin, but free in infinite possibilities of goodness? — Relativist

Because freedom is necessary if goodness is to be freely chosen. Created beings must choose for themselves, God cannot make the choice for them. In time and space all creation is involved with this choice.

Are you really choosing to give up free will, or is that an unexpected consequence? — Relativist

No, I don't think so. They would give up the freedom to sin but would still be free in infinite possibilities of goodness. Like an alcoholic coming to the realization that everything good can (if with difficulty) be found in sanity and sobriety.

Is it impossible to fail in heaven, or are the souls in heaven changed in some way? — Relativist

I don't know. But maybe they choose to surrender the freedom to fall. Origen of Alexandria says that they remained loyal to God by free choice.
If all are eventually saved then maybe, at the end of time, 6. in your post above, will be finally realised.

btw, there are two 6s in your post. I'm talking about the first one.

But if there are non-sinning free-willed souls in heaven, then such beings can exist without contradiction. — Relativist

They are in heaven because they freely chose not to fall with the rest of creation, not because God made it impossible for them to fall.

Please address the actual argument and tell me what premise(s) you disagree with. — Relativist

This does not seem to be logically airtight-

4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin


4. they freely chose not to sin but could have chosen otherwise. Their choice was not determined by God, it was a free choice.

5. Omnipotence allows them to be free, it does not force them to desist from sin. The lack of sin is by their own choice, not God's omnipotence

6. He did create a world of free-willed beings who do not sin and do sin


Your argument is that God can make us free but determine the outcome of that freedom. Your argument is mostly logical except for this point. The choices must be made by created beings themselves and not determined by God. But, ultimately, God's omnipotence may create a world of free beings who do not sin, if all fallen spirits return to heaven. In other words, God may be in the process of doing just what you are saying, but that process requires a temporal fall from grace. 'All will be well, and all manner of things will be well' Julian of Norwich.


Freedom is a necessary part of goodness.

What you are saying is that God can allow creation to be free and not free at the same time, which is not logical.

I think it comes down largely to how you view the world. Many people these days are polarized between materialism and spirituality. The materialist argues that we are, to a large extent, biological entities and that is what determines our sexuality. If we were as rigidly determined as the materialists believe I doubt that gender issues would arise.

If the spiritual component makes a difference then our biological disposition may only be secondary. The mind can chemically change the body and have all kinds of physical effects on it.

The real question here is whether sex is a biological or spiritual reality, or both. If it is both, as I believe it is, it is enormously difficult to analyse. With some people it may be just a mistaken way of thinking and with others there may be a real longing to escape our biological identity. You cannot put all of them under the same label because the may have very different reasons for feeling the way they do.

I read that the physicist Boltzmann introduced probability in physics and his explanation turned out to be the correct one. I think thermodynamics was born with Boltzmann's statistical interpretation of physics. — TheMadFool

The digits in the decimal expansion of pi are said to be random. Does this mean that we can choose these digits and act upon them to make random choices?;-

If a digit is 1, do x (eg treat yourself to a coffee)
if it is 2, do y (go to the cinema)
if it is 3, do z, etc.

One could also do the same with quadratic residues, which are apparently proved to be 'random'. If we can act upon purely mathematical entities does this mean we have escaped the determinism of matter as numbers are not material things. Thoughts?

btw did you read The Diceman by Luke Rhenehart? Great read.
https://www.bookdepository.com/Dice-Man-Luke-Rhinehart/9780879518646?redirected=true&utm_medium=Google&utm_campaign=Base1&utm_source=IE&utm_content=Dice-Man&selectCurrency=EUR&w=AFFPAU9SKBXBUNA80R8S&pdg=pla-308360991107:kwd-308360991107:cmp-711089934:adg-39921983227:crv-163908794634:pid-9780879518646:dev-c&gclid=Cj0KCQjwpvzZBRCbARIsACe8vyK93wFogPY-WzE2FZ-Esv87PRLPFYCXr9kZNJtAM9744ZwgIqVX0kMaAlEcEALw_wcB

If we can generate a truly random number we can prove non determinism.

but what is evil? — Aleksander Kvam

St. Agustin says that evil is not a positive entity in itself. It is a deprivation of the good. An analogy is a perfect Rolls Royce and a battered one. The battered Rolls Royce has been damaged but nothing of substance has been added to it. And you cannot have a battered Rolls Royce unless you start with a good one.

Evil is a corruption of life, of goodness. It cannot exist without the good first existing.

"[One must] reject the common sop that somehow the indeterminism of quantum physics helps us out here. First, there is no evidence that the neurons of the brain are subject to indeterminancy in the way, say, firing of elections is (and in fact there is much evidence against it); even if that were the case, however ... the indeterminancy of some outcomes in the brain would not help with establishing personal causal origination of actions. For randomness in fact would make us more rather than less subject to unexpected turns of fact. ... — StreetlightX

It seems that if one can perform one non deterministic act in the world that would settle the issue. Here is how it could be done IF quantum events, in this case radioactive decay, are really random:-

Set up a Geiger counter alongside some radioactive material.
Count the hits on the counter.
Stop the experiment after a set period of time.
If the number of hits is odd have a coffee at home.
If the number of hits is even have a coffee at your local restaurant.
Your decision has been determined randomly and is therefore a non deterministic decision.


The determinism/non determinism of the world seems to be closely linked to whether we can create a truly random number.

There's another situation which is similar to trying to understand the unanameable -that of a baboon trying to understand calculus. Are you saying we're like the baboon? — TheMadFool

Not at all. I'm trying to argue that we can infer a substance that is the underpinning of all properties.

If you work on the principle that all properties must be supported by substance and work your way back you must, logically, come to something that is not a property. Properties are states and you cannot have a state unless something is in that state. It doesn't seem coherent to posit the existence of a universe that is made of properties only.

How do we discuss this unnameable substance? — TheMadFool

Plotinus talks about unknowable 'first things' in God/the void.

How do you discuss empty space with no-thing in it?

Remarkably there are some things we can say about this primordial existence or void.

1. It is. It is a necessary existence.
2. It has vast creative potential because it evolved by acquiring properties and became a universe.
3. It has the potential for life and consciousness because it has evolved into these too.

I do think you have a point but to talk of your ''substance'' without properties is extremely difficult if not impossible. — TheMadFool

Yes, some call it 'the void'. But from what I can see it must exist because otherwise there would be properties without substance. Try to think of a property without some substance to hold it in being.

I think I have an analogy. Your friend is in New York and you're in Washington. His existence can only be known to you through a phone for example. The phone is your senses and detects the properties, the only evidence of existence, of your friend's ''substance''.

Yes, I agree entirely. But my point is that what can be known is not enough. I think we must infer an ultimate substance.

Your ''substance'' would be incomprehensible without properties. It's the way the world is.I don't like it but that's how it is. — TheMadFool

Yes, it is incomprehensible. It is the 'no-thing' (no nameable thing but not absolute nothingness.)

The closest I can get to it is space; there is 'no-thing' in space but space is something; an actual substance.

But without the property ''hot'' or ''cold'' or whatever we couldn't say that metal or any other thing exists. — TheMadFool

Yes, but that is only the world of appearances. As far as the physical universe is concerned you will find that the substance of a property is only a 'relative substance' because it too is a property. Matter is a property of energy. So it comes down to this question; Is energy a property? If it is what is its supporting substance? But you cannot work back indefinitely, you must come to something that is not a property.

Perfection is life made free of evil. Maybe that is the purpose.