This is a weak argument, it relies on God being necessarily defined by the person claiming his existence. Philosophy would need to go deeper than what people claim to know through the use of their intellect. † — Punshhh

Yet your response goes ahead and presupposes "Him" anyway. :confused: Presupposition does not make it so (and is not particularly philosophical in this context). This is what you'd have to show in the first place.

Regardless of what people say, be they theists, or atheists, the reality on the ground is not altered. So philosophy is required to look beyond these arguments and consider reality instead. — Punshhh

Using intellect? † Let's also go by evidence. (y)

Anyway, how might we differentiate whether (fictional) characters, (imaginary) beings, (hallucinatory) claims are real or not?
Or maybe reality is what you meant by "Him" "God", then? Or maybe we're talking the unknown, personified? That's all fine (except personified); I'd just use terms with less baggage.
Should we go by diluted (watered down) phrases, that tells us roughly nothing in this respect, and are put together in such a manner that they could mean more or less anything, avoiding means to differentiate?

@Wayfarer promotes Biblical stories of miracles only to relegate Yahweh as being an archetype (no particular argument given), and without having attempted to differentiate fictional and real in the first place. So, these supposed super-beings continue to be removed from sight if you will, evading attempts to differentiate, yet continue to be claimed real in the same breath, just like ghosts of imagined entities, existentially dependent upon the minds of us.

If a giant voice would emerge from nowhere saying: [...] — EricH

Grant me "divine superpowers" for a couple days, and I might just be convinced.
Evan Baxter SceneBruce Almighty (2m:22s youtube)
(The fun I'd have...) :D

'Rational warrant' and 'empirical evidence' are different things. Empirical evidence, as construed by modern naturalism, starts, as a matter of principle, by excluding consideration of anything beyond the natural domain, and then demands evidence to the contrary, having already made the in-principle commitment not to consider it. — Wayfarer

The scientific methodologies do not inherently (heck, you could launch examinations of "supernatural magic" if there was much to examine).
They're just self-critical, seeking to self-error-correct, minimize bias, falsify, all that.
And it so happens that, say, Sagan's garage dragon, fictional characters, imaginary beings, hallucinatory claims, etc, tend to be discounted as a consequence. And why wouldn't they anyway? Mental attempts to populate the world with such ... stuff doesn't make it so.
If you cannot differentiate whether, say, Shiva or Yahweh are fictional or real, then why insist (and preach indoctrinate proselytize) that they're real in the first place? (If pressed, I might take this a step further, and say that some such activities converge on fraud or deception.)

, you're not really responding to my comment. Oh well.

Well, 'God' may be an 'invisible garden fairy' to you, but that might only be a reflection on your belief system. — Wayfarer

*whooosh* ?

what would empirical evidence for a transcendent being comprise? — Wayfarer

What would evidence for invisible garden fairies look like? Sagan's garage dragon? Fictional characters? Perhaps more pertinently, how would you differentiate?

The point is, the absence of empirical evidence for a transcendent being says precisely nothing beyond the obvious statement that empiricism itself has certain criteria which purported transcendent beings will invariably fail to meet. — Wayfarer

And thus things ranging among fictional characters, imaginary beings, hallucinations, what-have-you, come to life. Especially in the minds of humans. What would prompt insisting on their existence in the first place?

So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no? — Harry Hindu

In general? Who knows. Someone may or may not become convinced of this or that due to some evidence, and change their minds later. Formation of belief is hardly some trivial well-understood thing. And sometimes this or that is wrong, other times (hopefully) right.

OK, so the evidence as I see it, indicates that rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not. It appears to me that mosquitoes are not deterministic either. Nor do plants appear to be deterministic. So I think that inanimate things are deterministic, and living things are not. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

Rocks are predictable, as in they don't get up and walk away? :D By the way ...

Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity.

That leaves blow around in autumn is fairly predictable, their exact paths not so much, and similarly for mosquitoes. Findings like planetary orbits and quantumatics are better examples.

The question 'What came before the beginning of time?' is almost trivial. — EnPassant

"Before time" is incoherent nonsense, much like "a cause of causation".
And the quote is self-contradictory, both asserting "the beginning of time" and "what came before".
Put differently, if we proceed from such phrases, then we're moving into "anything goes" territory. :confused:

To start with, the definition of God as the source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God. — EnPassant

Not good enough.
For X to be necessary in general, X must figure in all possible worlds. What do all possible worlds have in common? Say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world (however boring). Want to continue finding commonalities among whatever possible worlds, in order to narrow down your definition? You won't find anything alive thinking dishing out commands to mankind (worthy of of worship), or Shiva, or Yahweh, down that path. It's a line of thinking reminiscent of (neo)Platonic theologizing.
Well, your definition isn't anything I'd call God or a god at least.

, I think you might be referring to Nick Bostrom's argument.

Simulation hypothesis (Wikipedia)
The Simulation Argument (Bostrom)

There are various details of these arguments, including how likely it might be for sufficiently advanced beings to put together simulations.

So, where would we start? Rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not? How about a mosquito? — Metaphysician Undercover

We go by evidence. Say, findings like planetary orbits, quantumatics, ..., whatever. The world doesn't care about our metaphysics or whatever we think. Rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.

I agree with him. That's what I was referrring to. Many of the arguments in this and other threads are based on the conviction that science delivers just such a view. — Wayfarer

But it doesn't. From memory, examples have been posted in some of these threads. Say, Lorentz transformations tell you about what other observers might see.

A view from wherever. (Or anywhere.)

A somewhat typical idealist move (ironically perhaps), is to all out hypostatize. To replace the modeled with the model, the world with our ideas about the world, ...

But sure, we might say that the block-verse is a view from nowhere, like a visualized model. Which is what some do with some scientific models, that might be informative in some ways and less so in others.

Sure, and we also have evidence that suggests determinism. How do we determine which is the case. — Harry Hindu

Can't we have both? Some things are deterministic, some aren't... Actually, this is what evidence suggests. (And perhaps with further nuance, sometimes, depending on wider context or whatever, some things are variously deterministic or not...)

, I don't think my comment was scientific realism, just deflating some inflation, the apparently universalizing self-dependence (a hallmark of idealism).
Of course, there are likely many dependencies on me, say, if I chat with someone then that chat couldn't take place without me.
Isn't self-awareness given (to some), or am I misunderstanding your comment?
OK, no one likes solipsism, so I guess we'll just use the generic term "subject".
None of which entails any universally intrinsic subject(s).
Are you converging on the old mind conundrum (Levine, Chalmers), or maybe you just like your ever-present homunculi? :)

Rocks are conscious and feel?
Imagine the silent screams of the rubble in the driveway, when running them over with the car. :scream:
(Any "defender of the defenseless" is going to be really busy.)
How do panpsychists live anyway?

So QM determines that determinism is impossible? — Harry Hindu

Might be more accurate to say that evidence suggests nondeterminism?

Incidentally noticed that one of the references had the wrong link.
Fixed in the PDF.
Quantification --- Forming Propositions from Predicates — Shunichi Toida et al, Old Dominion University

'Phenomena' are 'what appears'. 'The mind' is what phenomena appear to. — Wayfarer

Alternatively, experiences are part of what mind is. Thus homunculus-free deflation, "what appears" is sometimes one end of worldly interaction, yours. Less excess of mental furniture at least.

Aren't there always prior assumptions in everything we do?

In some cases at least, I think we might differentiate metaphysics and epistemics like so:
For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then further knowledge thereof is unattainable.
If p has ontological concerns then p is over in metaphysics.

So, in this sense, there's a certain kind of futility in metaphysics.

Either way, some such metaphysics can (rightfully) be called ridiculous.
And some can have ethical implications regardless.
And no manner of our metaphysicalizing can make it so.

I'm becoming increasingly astonished that this thread continues. — Banno

Hang on a sec, you're not trying to avoid those old record long threads of yours getting beaten? :)
Yeah, the comments here (one sub-thread in particular) have run their course.

Principle of infinite precision
1. Ontological – there exists an actual value of every physical quantity, with its infinite determined digits (in any arbitrary numerical base).
2. Epistemological – despite it might not be possible to know all the digits of a physical quantity (through measurements), it is possible to know an arbitrarily large number of digits. — Indeterminism, causality and information: Has physics ever been deterministic? by Flavio Del Santo

If we were to experimentally verify a theoretical value of ⅓ millijoule, 2½ millijoule, or π millijoule with infinite precision, then we'd be in the same predicament, yes? I mean, the particular number wouldn't make a difference?

Yes, they're both Coopers. :)

Woman who called cops on Black man birdwatching in Central Park faces charges
Melanie Schuman, Theresa Waldrop; CNN; Jul 2020

Amy Cooper Faces Charges After Calling Police on Black Bird Watcher
Jan Ransom; The New York Times; Jul 2020

There is something refreshing about this. Denial of privilege. That "enough is enough already".
I'd (personally) temper my balefire on the offender a bit, but hopefully this will tell the privileged to f__k off.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if we grant that there is a cause for the universe, this cause has to have at least some godlike qualities right? — PhilosophyNewbie

Who knows. Are, say, relativistic quantum fields "godlike"?
Depending on some details, I wouldn't say so.

Yeah @PhilosophyNewbie, you expose a special pleading fallacy.

What you list is W L Craig's argument.

Craig then proceeds to somehow make this cause "divine" (of his own flavor, too), which mostly looks like a sleight of hand move.

(1) is ampliative:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence
2. every causal chain began to exist (and there's a finite amount of them)
3. therefore causation has a cause of its existence

There's one more cause than all of them?

Spacetime is an aspect of the universe, and "before time" is incoherent. Causation is temporal, and "a cause of causation" is incoherent.

If there was a definite earliest time (or "time zero"), then anything that existed at that time, began to exist at that time, and that includes any first causes, deities, or whatever else.

If there's an "atemporal cause" of the universe, then there's no sufficient reason that the universe has a definite age (like 14 billion years). The argument violates the principle of sufficient reason. (Isn't (1) a special case thereof?)

"Atemporal" mind (and decision making and thinking and action) is incoherent in the first place. Anything "atemporal" would be strangely inert and lifeless.

Something's amiss somewhere. Craigian cosmology doesn't seem right anyway.

I'd completely forgotten this old thread. I'll just toss another comment in.

There's a trap in your question. What does 'independent' mean? 'There anyway', right? We know the moon and the earth pre-date h. sapiens by billions of years, it doesn't make any sense to say they exist only in the minds of humans. But the subtle question is this one - what is it, that provides the perspective of 'before' such and such an event, and the units in which the measurement of that duration is made? Where does that judgement reside? — Wayfarer

I'd think your mere existence is independent of my mind (might be a bit rude/arrogant to claim otherwise). Same deal with the rest. The judgement may be ours, should we do that. The judged has no existential dependence on whether we judge it or not, the judged is not the judgment. It's our judgment that's the adjustable part. And that's not a trap in the question.

Right, the great physicists of last century did discuss such questions. I'd say, though, that raising their discussions by giving them the same weight as their physics, can be a bit misleading. That's not to deflate them, just to avoid inflating them.

Do you understand that for an "equation" to be at all useful in honest mathematical practice, the right side must necessarily represent something different from the left side? If not, the equation would be a useless tautology. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you're not talking mathematics, or even logic for that matter, don't understand the formal expressions. (Which was observed earlier I guess.) Still going downhill. In a manner of speaking, proofs explicate tautologies.

prove that numbers are objects — Metaphysician Undercover

Prove? Objects? The numbers are already operands in the procedures. There isn't anything to round off (you claim (that you believe)), but do it anyway. Inconsistent. What exactly are you rounding off if not 1/9 π √2 etc? Recycle.

I guess you don't believe in pocket calculators, which do not list kilograms, claws, or square miles, for example (cf mentioned invariance). You should at least understand what you're talking about before objecting and proclaiming (vast) conspiracies. :D References have been posted.

Sarcasm, ...? :)

That's not true — Metaphysician Undercover

It is.
"the procedure proves what the procedure is supposed to", here, here, ...
Inconsistent. Recycle.

It becomes harder for @InPitzotl and @jorndoe to walk away the more they invest — Banno

You're right. Isn't the adventure into @Metaphysician Undercover's Wonderland oddly fascinating though? :) I guess it becomes trite after bit.

contradictory and infertile — Banno

By the way, @Metaphysician Undercover, despite having been given references, you may of course ask for definitions of definitions of ... but I doubt anyone is going to teach you elementary school material on up. If you don't (or won't) get it, then so be it.

:D
Seems Trump both "kills the messenger" and "sticks his head in the sand"?

I guess it's nothing new, but see for yourself:
• Visual evidence of how face masks work
• Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering

We've been through this already, application is different from theory — Metaphysician Undercover

Your previous side-track doesn't really matter much here; it's about the numbers, 1/9 π √2 ... By rounding them off, you've already admitted them. Denying them is hence inconsistent; you wouldn't have anything to round off in the first place.

"the rules of mathematics" are not invariant — Metaphysician Undercover

Saw the word "invariant" and took it for a ride? Having five fingers on each of your two hands means having ten fingers on them, not none, not a dozen. 5 + 5 = 10 = 2 × 5 (and 5 < 10 by the way). Notice how that goes for toes and claws as well? Whether yours or mine or the Pope's? You don't mysteriously get a dozen fingers in that case. That's what's meant by invariance here, + - × /, and what you tried to dismiss with a casual handwave. Oh, also, √2 × √2 = 2 (and 1 < √2 < 2), irrespective of your rounding, so there. ;)

"One" only submits to being a multitude when it is applied to a thing which can be divided — Metaphysician Undercover

As mentioned, whatever your "One" is, this is something you've added here, much like I added distaste for pizza with pineapple. Your "One" apparently does not figure as the number 1 does in arithmetic.

Stick to the topic.

As seems to be the case often, you don't seem to be able to express your point very well, and you leave me wondering what you're talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not much to it.

have to round off pi — Metaphysician Undercover

to round off at some point, carry it to two decimals, three, whatever — Metaphysician Undercover

if there are issues with similar division problems we simply round things off (like with pi, and some square roots, and other division problems) — Metaphysician Undercover

What exactly are you rounding off to decimal notation...? 1/9 π √2 ... You already acknowledge those numbers that you round off, only to go ahead and deny them. Inconsistent.

Numbers in the abstract are quantities of whatever we may want to examine, where the rules of mathematics are invariant (e.g. division) or otherwise set out. Whatever that "One" you mention is, it's apparently not among them, perhaps like distaste for pizza with pineapple. That's something you've added here.

So, I ended up thinking that you're no longer talking mathematics.

, so neither convention nor honesty works...? Now what?

Meanwhile, we all understand that half a dozen is six, and what's meant by a third of the area of the lawn, so that works fine (presumably for you as well). But of course, we don't speak of a ninth of dislike for pizza with pineapple, at least not without some further clarification.

have to round off pi — Metaphysician Undercover

to round off at some point, carry it to two decimals, three, whatever — Metaphysician Undercover

if there are issues with similar division problems we simply round things off (like with pi, and some square roots, and other division problems) — Metaphysician Undercover

That is, there's something to round off. Seems you've already presupposed what you want to deny. (The division procedure isn't really the problem here.)

Earth's biosphere rides on sunlight, and disperses energy just the same, from photosynthesis, through food chains, ever onwards.
While the Sun blazes, we're bathed in free energy that can do work (Earth isn't isolated), for better or worse.
What appears as temporary accumulation on one scale may be dispersion on another, though of course things can be more complex.

(Actually, isn't some of this stuff elementary school material...?)

(y)

Meta has revealed that one cannot subtract from a whole. Subtraction only works if you have more than one individual. And division leads to the heresy of fractions. — Banno

:D We're no longer talking mathematics. (An acute case of ∞-phobia?) Maybe we could call it metamathonomy or something.

There is no such thing as one half, unless it is a half of something whatever/anything (hence an abstract quantity) — Metaphysician Undercover

As an aside,

The criteria for truth is honesty. — Metaphysician Undercover

... doesn't seem right. You can be both honest and wrong.

So, @Metaphysician Undercover,

• A ninth is a contradiction concealed by smoke and mirrors (in metamathonomy)? (A ninth kilometer, a ninth of three dozen, ...?)
• And there's a largest natural number? And a smallest positive rational number? (The division procedure somehow becomes invalid for "too small" numbers?)
• And ...?

Your replies are vague and hard for me to understand. That the procedure proves what the procedure is supposed to prove is not the issue. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mentioned procedure just writes 1/9 as 0.111... (in the common decimals). You have to understand what you're objecting to first.

Something could be "conscious of more" than we are.

Postmodernism is good for showing what not to do. ;)
Might have some utility in literary commentary I s'pose.

This is what I disagree with. Instead, I think that one divided by nine is an impossible procedure, provable by induction. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet 1 is deductively provable. even went through the troubles of outlining the start of a proof by induction. Thus, your disagreement ain't right.

What we can't do here, is write down 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s on paper. And we don't have to, because we can reason about 1/9 nonetheless as shown, like we can for other numbers.

Is writing down 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s on paper the whole of your troubles/denial here?

(Don't confuse/equivocate base 10 algorism, decimal representation, and numbers; it so happens that 1/2 = 0.5_{base 10 (decimal)} = 0.222..._{base 5}, artefacts of procedures.)

So, @Metaphysician Undercover, am I to understand that you agree (or understand) that

1. the arithmetic procedure gives 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s (provable by, say, mathematical induction, reductio, whatever)

2. say, $(4 + \frac{1}{2}) \times \frac{1}{9} = 0.5$, and $9 \times \frac{1}{9} = 1.0$

?

I'm sure my intuition is quite different from yours — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmm... No pattern recognition...? Odd.

Doesn't the second statement directly imply the falsity of the first? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. Arithmetic works fine regardless of notational conventions.

Intuitions and conventions aside ...

We can prove that all the procedure does here is give us 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s.
And we can prove that without writing down 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s — it's an artefact of the procedure, and the proof involves mathematical induction and such.
Doesn't really matter much whatever anyone makes of it, that's how the arithmetic works.

We can prove things about switching 1/9 to decimal form without doing it (↑ stands on its own).
You understand...?

I wonder, do you ever balance checkbooks, file taxes, etc? :)


(Side note: like @fishfry, I don't know if intuitionist mathematics blocks anywhere, but offhand I kind of doubt it.)

:D