The greatest coincidence

[goout]

It will make sense hopefully.

We know that everything is made of particles some, electron for example, are stable and others unstable, neutron for example.

Yes, you are looking for the beginning. I can show that the beginning cannot be initiated. The argument is very simple. The process of the creation or Big Bang from nothing has two steps one follows another. This means that we need time before the act of creation. Putting that with this fact that time is a part of creation leads to a paradox.

You need to show that matter which moves based on laws of nature in causative way could breaks the causality and self-causes something with itself. That is to me is irrational. Therefore the will is an illusion in materialism. Dualism has its own problem.

What dies is the only the experience of subject matter in this realm.

Please let me know if you have any issue with my arguments.

A few posts ago you claimed creation is self sufficient.
Can you just answer two simple questions about “self sufficiency”?

1. Did you will yourself into being?
2. Can you will yourself from dying?

Answering those two questions should tell you something about your claim of self sufficiency.
Avoiding them tells a story also.

 

[STT]

I am sorry that you left my argument without any answer. Are you willing to question them?

A few posts ago you claimed creation is self sufficient.
Can you just answer two simple questions about “self sufficiency”?

Yes.

1. Did you will yourself into being?

No.

1. Can you will yourself from dying?

No.

Answering those two questions should tell you something about your claim of self sufficiency.
Avoiding them tells a story also.

I am sorry that that didn’t take me anywhere.

 

[Gorgias]

Really? How do you resolve this paradox?: You can ask God in Heaven about what you are going to do and do the opposite.

The problem is, there’s no paradox here. You can ask, but you won’t get an answer. (Over and over, God commands his people not to seek out soothsayers. Over and over, God tells his people “do not put the Lord your God to the test.” What makes you think that, if you were to “put God to the test,” that he’d respond to you? What makes you think that, if you even get an answer it won’t be something like “you’ll find out, soon enough” or “you’ll do whatever I see that you will do”?)

And so, still not knowing what you will do, it is impossible for you to “do the opposite.” No paradox.

 

[Gorgias]

No.

No.

I am sorry that that didn’t take me anywhere.

What he’s getting at is that, if you’re unable to will yourself into existence, and unable to will yourself out of existence, then you are not what sustains your existence; in other words, you are not “self-sufficient”, as you claim.

(Oh, don’t get me wrong – you are able to act in such a way that you feed yourself and provide shelter for yourself. However, that’s what we’re not talking about here. We’re talking about the sustenance of your very existence as created material, not the sustenance of your life. The material that makes up your body has been in existence for billions of years, and will continue to exist long after you die.)

Therefore, metaphysically speaking, there is something else that creates and sustains you. We would call that entity ‘God’.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I cannot conceive of a biologist who cannot describe what makes a horse a horse and not a cow.

Not philosophically. Maybe biologically, but I rather doubt that any biologist would waste even a few minutes on that.

It says precisely that thing! However, you’re correct in pointing out that biologists and philosophers use different professional jargon: biologists talk about sub-systems and functions and philosophers talk about esse.

Those are not the same categories. And there is no correspondence between the two.

This is a good question. A really good philosophical question. But it really is its own subject. Maybe you might consider starting a new thread posing the question of the implications of species mutation on the philosophical concept of esse?

Possible. Though “esse” and “essence” are two different concepts.

 

[Gorgias]

Not philosophically. Maybe biologically

Right; and that’s the point: biologists do biology, and philosophers do philosophy. There are correspondences, and touchpoints, in their respective work, but neither can replace the other or make the other superfluous.

, but I rather doubt that any biologist would waste even a few minutes on that.

That’s because, in general, it’s foundational to their craft. They’ve learned it before they even got out of undergrad…

Those are not the same categories. And there is no correspondence between the two.

And yet, they both drive toward the same goal: understanding how to distinguish between creatures based on what makes them what they are (as well as what range of properties they may have that don’t make them distinct species).

Possible. Though “esse” and “essence” are two different concepts.

Fair enough; maybe I should have stated it as “the effect of species mutation on the nature of ‘being’”?

 

[STT]

The problem is, there’s no paradox here. You can ask, but you won’t get an answer. (Over and over, God commands his people not to seek out soothsayers. Over and over, God tells his people “do not put the Lord your God to the test.” What makes you think that, if you were to “put God to the test,” that he’d respond to you? What makes you think that, if you even get an answer it won’t be something like “you’ll find out, soon enough” or “you’ll do whatever I see that you will do”?)

And so, still not knowing what you will do, it is impossible for you to “do the opposite.” No paradox.

Of course I can do opposite. I have free will. The only problem is that God sees two different thing in His foreknowledge which is problematic.

 

[STT]

What he’s getting at is that, if you’re unable to will yourself into existence, and unable to will yourself out of existence, then you are not what sustains your existence; in other words, you are not “self-sufficient”, as you claim.

Yes, that I understand. But the matter which build me can sustain itself.

Therefore, metaphysically speaking, there is something else that creates and sustains you. We would call that entity ‘God’.

I already argued that the universe cannot be created.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Fair enough; maybe I should have stated it as “the effect of species mutation on the nature of ‘being’”?

Yes, but that simply goes back to the original question: “what is the NATURE of a specific being”? Biology is strange discipline, it is the only branch of sciences which is unable to define its own subject. Biologists cannot agree on “just WHAT is LIFE, and what differentiates it from INANIMATE matter”? Life is usually defined as:

responsiveness to the environment
growth and change
ability to reproduce
have a metabolism and breathe
maintain homeostasis
being made of cells
passing traits onto offspring

But this list is something that is derived from observing what we call “life” here and now on Earth. How could we decide if these are applicable to any form of “life”?

The only attribute that can be said to be essential is to maintain homeostasis in a changing and complex environment. Complex responses to complex stimuli.

Even biologists cannot agree if “viruses” are alive or not.

---

Of course now we are miles away from finding out how does God “know” things…

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

The foreknowledge is a wrong concept because the future cannot be in the way you decide and at the same time the way that God sees if you decide to do the opposite of what God sees.

God’s seeing the outcome of something where we have the discretion and initiative to make a change to something comes over as paradoxical because God crosses over the boundaries between many different spectrums of dimensions.

When we reach near to the boundaries between the spectrums of dimensions, the curves on the graphs suddenly become very steep or very flat.

A manufactured, perfectly straight stick of glass or metal, seen part within water, shows itself as having a bend.

This is a description.

You need to prioritise which are the part or parts of the various philosophies that you want to explore further. A full frontal assault on everything will get you nowhere if you can’t respect your own thinking potential and keep all the hypotheses on a giant hypotheses table, indefinitely. Then you can compare them in a more relaxed and thorough way.

It’s as if an irate Mum wants all the jigsaw pieces swept off because she has to lay tea for 4 o’clock. Or it’s like the Wimbledon knockout.

Real science isn’t done that way.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Vera, a word for what we were discussing is “generality”. That through genes or something like that peach trees will probably tend to continue, doesn’t stop someone chopping down one of them. Quite often, the generality of peach trees does indeed look the same as the one that got chopped down plus all the ones that didn’t.

“Sustain” only means, “not cause to be brought to an end”.

 

[STT]

God’s seeing the outcome of something where we have the discretion and initiative to make a change to something comes over as paradoxical because God crosses over the boundaries between many different spectrums of dimensions.

When we reach near to the boundaries between the spectrums of dimensions, the curves on the graphs suddenly become very steep or very flat.

A manufactured, perfectly straight stick of glass or metal, seen part within water, shows itself as having a bend.

This is a description.

You need to prioritise which are the part or parts of the various philosophies that you want to explore further. A full frontal assault on everything will get you nowhere if you can’t respect your own thinking potential and keep all the hypotheses on a giant hypotheses table, indefinitely. Then you can compare them in a more relaxed and thorough way.

It’s as if an irate Mum wants all the jigsaw pieces swept off because she has to lay tea for 4 o’clock. Or it’s like the Wimbledon knockout.

Real science isn’t done that way.

Are you trying to resolve the paradox? I don’t really understand how? Let me explain the paradox to you again: I ask God what I am going to do. God answer X. I do opposite Y. This means that God see two opposite things in His foreknowledge which is problematic.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you trying to resolve the paradox? I don’t really understand how?

Let me explain the paradox to you again:
I ask God what I am going to do.
***God answer X. ***
I do opposite Y.

This means that God see two opposite things in His foreknowledge which is problematic.

Let me explain the lack of the paradox again:

God isn’t required to take the second step (“God answers X”.)

When He doesn’t respond in the way you expect, there is no subsequent paradox.

 

[STT]

Let me explain the lack of the paradox again:

God isn’t required to take the second step (“God answers X”.)

When He doesn’t respond in the way you expect, there is no subsequent paradox.

That is not an appropriate way to resolve the paradox.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let me explain the lack of the paradox again:

God isn’t required to take the second step (“God answers X”.)

When He doesn’t respond in the way you expect, there is no subsequent paradox.

If God does not answer, then the whole “omniscience” becomes an unsubstantiated assumption - AKA “taken on blind faith” - which is fine. But the apologists are not satisfied with that. They would like to show that God is really omniscient, who knows the future. It may be that the unrevealed future can be known to God, but the revealed future cannot be. But that - again - shows that God’s knowledge is contingent upon NOT revealing his knowledge.

 

[Gorgias]

That is not an appropriate way to resolve the paradox.

Why not?

Why is God obligated to answer that question?

 

[STT]

Why not?

Why is God obligated to answer that question?

As Vera said “to prove that He is omniscient”.

 

[Gorgias]

If God does not answer, then the whole “omniscience” becomes an unsubstantiated assumption - AKA “taken on blind faith” - which is fine. But the apologists are not satisfied with that. They would like to show that God is really omniscient, who knows the future.

I think we know it by definition, don’t you think? What we define as ‘God’ must have the property of omniscience.

It may be that the unrevealed future can be known to God, but the revealed future cannot be.

Interesting proposition…

But that - again - shows that God’s knowledge is contingent upon NOT revealing his knowledge.

I would disagree. It’s not contingent; it’s predicated on that feature. Big difference. It simply means that God knows all because he knows all.

 

[STT]

I would disagree. It’s not contingent; it’s predicated on that feature. Big difference. It simply means that God knows all because he knows all.

The problem is where does the knowledge that something is unrevealed or revealed come from?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Hmm… that wasn’t a “yes/no” question, so… let me try again:

In your OP, you seem to be attempting to make a link between “human decisions” and “God’s sustenance”. What is the link you’re proposing? In response to a human decision, what are you proposing that God does, vis-a-vis His sustaining of creation?

The same as with knowing. Our decision comes first, and God follows what we decided. Just consider a bullet fired from a gun. Before we pull the trigger, God sustains the bullet within the gun. Once we pull the trigger, God sustains the firing pin in motion, then sustains the gunpowder blowing up, then sustains the bullet on its trajectory, and then sustains it penetrating the head of the target. God “plays” a catching up, which started with OUR decision with pulling the trigger.

I think we know it by definition, don’t you think? What we define as ‘God’ must have the property of omniscience.

You mean, we define God and his omniscience INTO existence? Am I allowed to define God as the meanest being imaginable? (MBI) And will that definition make God into this MBI? Or only the believers are “allowed” to define God’s attributes into existence, the non-believers are not allowed?

Interesting proposition…

A tad more than that. A revealed future allows us to act against the revelation.

I would disagree. It’s not contingent; it’s predicated on that feature. Big difference. It simply means that God knows all because he knows all.

It is “contingent”. Unrevealed future can be known, revealed future cannot. That is what “contingent” means. And to say that: “It simply means that God knows all because he knows all” is a nice tautology.