Does God exist?

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to go to church this morning, so I'll address the rest when I have the time.

Starting from an arbitrary point, working back to front.

Attempt to save determinism? You’re attempting to plug a desperate form of objectivism without addressing the attacks that we have made upon it, nor adequately countering the defences of determinism in this case.

Right, when it's you that says, 'this is not a sociological debate, and I believe this is a sociological position, and hence not relevant'.

Bollocks! It is a major problem of determinism, to account for the retention of personal identity despite physical changes over time.

That is exactly what it boils down to. I have provided reason for that, the ball is now in your court to show me otherwise.

Why must God adhere to the conditions you have confined him to?

However, all of that aside, it would seem pertinent now that I ask you to clarify, explain, and qualify your argument for God’s existence, in an attempt to make you seem less oblique here. You never know, you might even get some concurrence!

There have been many defenses already posted in the thread, including the one from St. Aquinas that you posted in the opening post.

You have not managed to knock down Aquinas' defense, so why do you ask me for another? You have not shown that you can have a infinite regress of causation within a finite universe.

For now, I use that as my defense for God, since you have chosen to use this defense.

You wouldn’t have to if you were prepared to operate within the critical rules of a debate, whereby you have to adequately support yourself instead of issuing profundities in an attempt to look clever and convert the heathens.

I don't mind having the burden of truth. Just don't pretend that it's anything more than a burden game that many people are very fond of to shore up weaknesses in their own position.

Within myself, I am the same person, hence I still have that same responsibility. Nonetheless, assuming that problems exist, their existence does not make their cause not so and fails to refute the argument. Reductio ad absurdium in this case would only work in a sociological debate, which I am not going to let this turn into.

You know this is a perfect case of Reductio Ad Absurdum. Either stand by your arguments, or let them fall by the wayside. Don't try to prop them up through debating techniques to fudge the issue.

The fact is that if you believe we are always changing physically, you are left to show how personal identity can be retained over time.

I have a very good case for this, but of course, I assume existence to be a property and not contigent on others.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Take a mirror.

Shatter the center, so that you end up with shards.

Each shard has part of the image of God, and part of God, but is not God any more than one shard is the mirror.

Call each of these shards a different name.

Is this not most of the polytheistic pantheons? Shards of one God? Some aspects yet lacking in the whole capacity?

Among the diverse cultures of ancient man there are those in which virtually every object, especially living ones, has a god-spirit that governs it. These religions are often classified aas "Animistic". Then there are those religions that have a select pantheon of human-like gods with powers over fairly large sectors of the perceived universe. Both types of religions are polytheisitic, though since the greco-roman religions are more familiar to us when we use the word "polytheistic" we are usually referring to the later. Perhaps the later type should be referred to as "pantheonistic" since their gods generally seem to form a sort of community. Cultures possessing the later type religion are generally more sophisticated than those having animistic belief systems, though often if you examine the later type of religion you find elements of animism. The major gods often have underlings who resemble the object-spirits found in animistic religions. It seems to me that the two types of polytheism form a continuum. The more primitive animistic religion arises from the ability of hunter-gatherers to appreciate emotionally the complex causality of their environment though they are yet unable to objectivize these relationships. As their cultures develop and they are able to control their environment to a greater extent the character of the gods begins to reflect the nature of the social environment of the community.

[Whaleboy]

Right, when it's you that says, 'this is not a sociological debate, and I believe this is a sociological position, and hence not relevant'.

Bollocks! It is a major problem of determinism, to account for the retention of personal identity despite physical changes over time.

As you’re so insistent upon addressing the point, fine. Existential subjectivism solves the problem nicely, whereby determinism holds in an “objective” context, i.e. as far as science or ones view of other humans and retrospect is concerned, but as far as the individual consciousness is concerned, free will applies. Thereby, in the context of society, one can be held responsible for ones actions in retrospect, but as the individual (you’ll recall the distinction between life-form, being and person), you are responsible for them as you take them.

Why must God adhere to the conditions you have confined him to?

Awww poor God. Should I be fearing bolts of lightening and bouts of pestilence? If you assign to God properties such as infinite, omnipotent and omniscient among others, you must be prepared to examine and define those properties in a consistent way, and not take them in the familial sense which I have shown to be absurd.

There have been many defenses already posted in the thread, including the one from St. Aquinas that you posted in the opening post.

You’ll note that I tackled that in the same post. I’ll even quote myself…

My favourite refutation of this is Russell’s sufficient reason principle. I especially like it because I thought of it independently and was rather pissed off when I found someone had thought of it 21 years before I was born but hey c’est la (mal) vie. That’s the idea that nothing happens without a sufficient reason/condition. (I personally find it very similar to Hume’s is-ought gap, if you reconcile is-ought with necessary and sufficient conditions and the nature of deductive and inductive reasoning, but I digress). Put very simply, sufficient reason answers the question of the possible existence of the universe with “the universe is there, it exists”. If you want to explain why something is, you have to look at its premises, and theirs, and everything in the universe that might affect that outcome. That would require infinite knowledge, and the reconstruction of the entire universe in order just to make a critical point, which obviously is too demanding. God therefore, as infinity is unknowable and in our case, cannot rationally exist. This is basic determinism.

Also, the notions of cause and consequence are pretty distinct, in your mind you can think of something’s existence without the idea of something that caused it, as Hume calls it, “a productive principle” if I recall. If the mind can do it and so if it can be done logically there is no absurdity (internally inconsistent) in claiming that something can exist without a cause. The key term is absurd, it is self-evidently an easily refutable position, but since the cosmological argument relies upon the assumption that a cause with no consequence is absurd, then the argument itself falls.

You will note that latterly I have provided a mechanism for that… the notion of contextual infinity.

You are attempting to show a failing in my use of determinism and that the sufficient principle is somehow irrelevant or fallacious but I am not satisfied that you have done so, so I would ask you to restate your points in a coherent fashion.

You have not managed to knock down Aquinas' defense, so why do you ask me for another? You have not shown that you can have a infinite regress of causation within a finite universe.

Russell and Hume, among others, are generally considered to have defeated Aquinas’s defence, my argument merely elaborates upon the notion of the infinity. Nonetheless, that something can have infinite causation within a finite context is demonstrated with my ruler analogy. Do you not understand how that also illustrates the vertical and horizontal casual series and thus causes that argument to contradict itself? . Millimetres are causal to centimetres, micrometers are causal to millimetres, nanometers are causal to micrometers and the rest of it. In a given finite set, you can introduce infinity to it that is only solvable if you take our temporal dimension as spatial, thus going into 5D.

I don't mind having the burden of truth. Just don't pretend that it's anything more than a burden game that many people are very fond of to shore up weaknesses in their own position.

Are you suggesting that I’m playing a game with you in order to attempt to distract from some weakness in my own position? For shame BK, you’d know I’d be the first to admit a weakness. Unlike some I don’t have a kind of testicular (read biblical) attachment to my arguments. Nonetheless, it does make it exceptionally awkward in a debate if someone refuses to meet their obligations with the burden of proof, as though someone playing chess has to make two moves. Disadvantageous to the person neglecting their argument but annoying, inconvenient and disruptive to everyone else.

You know this is a perfect case of Reductio Ad Absurdum. Either stand by your arguments, or let them fall by the wayside. Don't try to prop them up through debating techniques to fudge the issue.

If we are talking about the existence of God, I fail to see how the consequences of the sociological implications of one argument are to have any bearing upon the original course of the debate. You are familiar with the term “red herring” no? Now, I believe earlier in my post I have refuted that cry of “PROBLEMS!!” so I’ll let you off the hook, however, my point stands that merely because out of context (in other words, we aren’t discussing here what is best for society) there may be problems (I emphasise, since addressed) does not refute the original statement that causes them. That is not reductio ad absurdium. If we were having a sociological debate and you could make those problems stick, then you’d have a consequential argument and RAA would apply, though would still have to go further to refute an argument by intent. None of that is relevant here I think you will agree, but if you wish to press the issue, feel free, but set up another thread for it.

The fact is that if you believe we are always changing physically, you are left to show how personal identity can be retained over time.

I will address that statement because it’s quite interesting. It also answers itself. Retained over time. You’ll remember earlier how I paraphrased Husserl by saying that consciousness itself has similar properties to time. Do you find that wholly incompatible with notions of identity, if so, please explain those notions (in a new thread if you wish to pursue this). I cannot proceed unless you have established your manner of definition for personal identity.

I have a very good case for this, but of course, I assume existence to be a property and not contigent on others.

And this is incompatible with my position? I won’t go into it before you have since it would be folly to debate a position I am unaware of, but you take an objectivist viewpoint as ever, but from a subjectivist, whether or not existence is a contingent property varies per context, namely the (pseudo) objective and the subjective.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The point is that the reasons for prayer go well beyond asking for stuff. That's all.



Why is it a lie to be a Christian and truthful to be an Atheist? I do believe in these things, just as much I'm sure as you reject them as an atheist.



Right. I'm afraid of dying, so I believe? Not really. I believe because I believe it to be the truth, that Christ died and rose again.

Okay I'll respect your beliefs and back off.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, you deal in speculation. What we do know is that there was big bang that created the mass of the universe and propelled it away from the origin. Prior to that, there was only energy, sufficient to create the mass of the universe, but concentrated at a small point in space.

So the question is, how could so much energy be concentrated in so small a space?

[Giancarlo]

Ned, everybody deals in speculation. The notion of god is speculation.

So the question is, how could so much energy be concentrated in so small a space?

Ever heard of a black hole? One pin drop of it weighs more then the earth, I think.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
So the question is, how could so much energy be concentrated in so small a space?

Black Hole. Just a bit bigger than the ones we've observed.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Drogue

Black Hole. Just a bit bigger than the ones we've observed.

Beat you to it.

[Ned]

You mean that the universe could have been created by the collapse of a black hole?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
You mean that the universe could have been created by the collapse of a black hole?

I just answered your question, nothing more.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, you deal in speculation. What we do know is that there was big bang that created the mass of the universe and propelled it away from the origin. Prior to that, there was only energy, sufficient to create the mass of the universe, but concentrated at a small point in space.

So the question is, how could so much energy be concentrated in so small a space?

Ned, we don't *know* about the big bang. With all questions of metaphysics, its little more than educated speculation. I've studied astrophysics for years, with all due respect, I'd know. According to my argument, primarily it is irrelevant, secondarily, I have a mechanism for that which involves the question of infinity.

The trouble with black holes in the strict sense people is that at most we're dealing with stellar masses, the largest BH's theorised are still on the scale of galactic mass. But they form in this universe according to our timeframe, which is a product of the big bang, not a property of it externally.

[Jon Miller]

joining the sabbath keepers Ben?

JM

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Now consider a three-dimensional object. Consider a life form living upon it. Now to us, it has no time, hence three-dimensional. No life form could exist below our time as far as we are concerned because it would be a steady state part of that object. That is of course limited to our perception, there is no logical barrier to a three-dimensional realm. We cannot communicate with it however, because communication and consciousness requires time. Imagine trying to communicate with someone whose life to you is at once infinitely long and infinitesimally short. It would be impossible by definition. Similarly for God. If you take God to be 5 dimensional as far as we are concerned (this is necessary objective existence, not my argument but this supposition rests upon the assumption that God exists infinitely for the sake of argument) then he would be unable to communicate with us. In order to interact with this universe, he would be unable to manipulate things in terms of time. Time as we see it is merely a spatial dimensional to him, if he changes that, then Feynman’s “Sum over Histories” concept applies.

Hrmm, did you see my post a couple pages back? I'll paste it below with a bit of editing to the first sentence. But it seems that some form of 'communication' would be possible just that it would only ever appear as normal communication to one of the parties involved. The point though is that if God was a 5d entity it seems that from our point of view it would appear to communicate to us and it would only appear otherwise from the point of view of God.

Originally posted by me
Consider the case of an nd entity and an n-1d entity where the nd's time dimension is imperceptable to the n-1d entitity and the n-1d's time dimension appears to be a spatial dimension to the nd. In such a case it would seem that the nd entity might manipulate a n-1d entity's environment in such a way that the n-1d entity percieves communication. However, the real result of this would be the creation of an entire new n-1d spacetime that would alter the 'past' of all events which otherwise had occured in the absense of the 'commication tinkering'. An obvious work around for this would be to assume a case in which the nd entity created the n-1d entity and it's environment such that the communication was imbedded in it's timeline from the moment of it's creation. In this case the n-1d entity might percieve communication with the nd entity but to the nd entity the entire n-1d environment would appear to be a static unchanging object.

One thing remains clear though. You cannot have true two way 'communication' between such a n-1d and nd entity simply because for the nd entity all information from all points of the n-1d entitys timeline are all available at once and any 'response' to that information in the form of further tinkering with the n-1d entity directly or it's environment would destroy all events that such a response would effect 'after' the moment of alteration ('after' in this case refering to time points 'futureward' along the n-1d's time axis from the site of the 'response'.

In the circumstance that both entities shared the same time dimension but one enjoyed access to an additional space dimension it seems as if maybe true communication could occur. but in that case both would be constrained by that same time dimension. And so while the entity with more dimensional access could be practically omnipotent in interfering in the fewer spacial dimensions environment it would lack the omniscience that being able to percieve the time dimension of the environment with fewer dimensions as a spatial dimension would confer.

So if my understanding is correct, a 5d entity interacting with our universe might allow for it to exhibit the capabilities of God and would even instantly imply that it would be in some sense our creator, it would also mean that it would have direct responsibility for all events in our universe.

Whaleboy, is the entire reason that you reject the possibility of a 5d entity interacting with our universe the fact that such interaction would inherently disrupt the timeline? Would you reject the possiblity of a creator interacting but only in the act of creation? Such 'interaction' could appear to be continuous and ongoing to us since it would effect various points of our timeline but to the 5d entity it would simply be a single event.

[Whaleboy]

However, the real result of this would be the creation of an entire new n-1d spacetime that would alter the 'past' of all events which otherwise had occured in the absense of the 'commication tinkering'. An obvious work around for this would be to assume a case in which the nd entity created the n-1d entity and it's environment such that the communication was imbedded in it's timeline from the moment of it's creation. In this case the n-1d entity might percieve communication with the nd entity but to the nd entity the entire n-1d environment would appear to be a static unchanging object.

This is an intriguing concept, I commend you on your thought . However, in order for it to embed a communication in the timeline from the moment of creation it would need to interact with the universe which is impossible. Essentially, you could say that the universe is like God's fart in a swimming pool, and God can only call into being the point "fart" and not manipulate in any way the bubble itself, if thats clear. Effectively, that point would be infinitesimally small in 5-D context, which of course invokes 6D, to which God is subject but which cannot perceive us (hence the 5-d infinitesimal).

In the circumstance that both entities shared the same time dimension but one enjoyed access to an additional space dimension it seems as if maybe true communication could occur. but in that case both would be constrained by that same time dimension. And so while the entity with more dimensional access could be practically omnipotent in interfering in the fewer spacial dimensions environment it would lack the omniscience that being able to percieve the time dimension of the environment with fewer dimensions as a spatial dimension would confer.

Another good point. My assumption here is that a lifeform or indeed any kind of existence requires no more or less than one temporal dimension... so perception of 5d as time would mean perception of 4d as spatial. I do not believe a dimensionally transcendent being could exist, unless time is not the basis for being, but then, that would be to deny human consciousness which is a tough one.

Whaleboy, is the entire reason that you reject the possibility of a 5d entity interacting with our universe the fact that such interaction would inherently disrupt the timeline? Would you reject the possiblity of a creator interacting but only in the act of creation? Such 'interaction' could appear to be continuous and ongoing to us since it would effect various points of our timeline but to the 5d entity it would simply be a single event.

Not too happy with that, for it to be continuous to us that would be to deny deterministic causality. You could claim uncertainty principle is a manifestation of that of course, but that's simply another function of relativistic 4-d space time.

However, some very well thought out questions there, consider me impressed!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


This is an intriguing concept, I commend you on your thought . However, in order for it to embed a communication in the timeline from the moment of creation it would need to interact with the universe which is impossible. Essentially, you could say that the universe is like God's fart in a swimming pool, and God can only call into being the point "fart" and not manipulate in any way the bubble itself, if thats clear. Effectively, that point would be infinitesimally small in 5-D context, which of course invokes 6D, to which God is subject but which cannot perceive us (hence the 5-d infinitesimal).



Another good point. My assumption here is that a lifeform or indeed any kind of existence requires no more or less than one temporal dimension... so perception of 5d as time would mean perception of 4d as spatial. I do not believe a dimensionally transcendent being could exist, unless time is not the basis for being, but then, that would be to deny human consciousness which is a tough one.



Not too happy with that, for it to be continuous to us that would be to deny deterministic causality. You could claim uncertainty principle is a manifestation of that of course, but that's simply another function of relativistic 4-d space time.

However, some very well thought out questions there, consider me impressed!

thanks!

However, you appear to recognize that it is fundamentally impossible for a nd entity to make any change to (or dictate any attribute of) an n-1d environment and this is something which I need some help to understand. I do understand that an nd entity can only manipulate the n-1d environment in a way that essentially resets or even destroys and recreates the n-1d environment after each change but it also seems to me that such a reset would only occur to that portion of the n-1d environment which was 'futureward' along its n-1d time axis from the point of manipulation. Furthermore if an nd entity were capable of creating an n-1d environment could it not have true creative control up to the 'moment' (in its own nd time dimension) the creation is 'finished'? I can see that such a creation 'process' would raise all sorts of complex issues such as what would the condition of the n-1d environment be at various 'moments' 'during' the creation 'process' but can't we dispell such complexities by postulating a creation process in which the components of the n-1d environment are incable of interacting until a single 'event' in nd 'time' instantly completes the creation, perhaps crudely analgous to writing a program that will display a 2d image? You can tinker with the image indefinately via tinkering with the program but the image doesnt actually exist until the moment you first execute that program.

I suspect there is something about what you have been saying which I am not properly grasping.

Edit I forgot about this part:

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Not too happy with that, for it to be continuous to us that would be to deny deterministic causality. You could claim uncertainty principle is a manifestation of that of course, but that's simply another function of relativistic 4-d space time.

I agree completely about denial of deterministic causality in the event that God or in fact any 5 or more dimensional influence exists. In such a situation the 4d (or more generally n-1d) entities will always encounter totally non determinisitc events connecting to points of higher dimensional influence. However deterministic causality is actually preserved in the higher dimensional context. IE: there would be no lack of causality from the pov of God. Furthermore, isn't the whole point of invoking such higher dimensional influences to explain the inherently non-deterministic miracles and prophesies which theists insist have occured? If we state flat out that everything must be deterministic entirely within the 4d context then naturally we have rendered moot any speculation about 5d or higher influences before we have even started the discussion.