The "Problem Of Evil" does not exist

[JOHNONEVI]

:hypno:Its like talking to a brick wall. There really is no excuse for not being able to grasp a simple thing like what you have just written here. You can say it a thousand times, but if your opponents not willing to listen…well…around around the mulberry bush.:hypno:

Can you see now why i get upset and frustrated?

Alduous Huxley wrote an true account of demonic possession of 12 Ursuline nuns and the Mother Superior during the 17th century in the French town of Loudon. The exorcisms lasted 9 years and resulted in a priest being accused of sorcery and subsequently tortured and burned at the stake. The remarkable details were that the priest named Grandier had never visited the Ursuline convent at Loudon or met any of the possessed nuns or the Mother Superior. After the exorcisms faded out over a period of 9 years because the exorcists passed away due to old age the possessions stopped.Huxley gives testimony in this remarkable account that had the priests not accused the nuns of demonic possession there would never have been any. That is the intrinsic nature of evil. It is fabricated of fear. If we eliminate the idea of evil and monsters that element is exorcised from our reality. The inherent nature of God and of good is not so precarious. If we cease believing in the reality of God and the Universe will it simply vanish like the Devils of Loudon? Truly the reality of God and the Universe is more substantial.

 

[Oreoracle]

of course. 0 is “nothing” and nothing doesnt exist. if you have zero apples, what do you have? “nothing”, as far as apples go.

I agree, hence my saying that a universe whose sum is zero would lack existence. Is there a problem?

who said anything about a sum of no things?

By definition, a universe is a sum of all that exists. If “0” can be considered an accurate expression of “a sum of no existing things” then it can express the contents, or lack thereof, of a universe (or, in your metaphysical jargon, “possible world”). If a universe is a sum, and nothingness (0) is a sum, then a universe can be nothingness. This is as simple as I can put it. A seven year-old could understand this. You could understand it, but your mind is so clouded by the metaphysical assumptions you cling to that you can’t see what’s right in front of you.

since you havent made it out of high school yet, save the condecsencion. its laughable

By the way you talk, I bet you opted to get away from schooling as quickly as possible, eh? Aquinas taught you all you would need in life, and those blasted teachers didn’t help, did they? How can you expect people who care about things like logic, evidence, elaboration, and conventions of English, such as capitalization, to do anything but slow you down? Heck, God and his convoluted…I mean, “elaborate” metaphysical structure is all you need!

how is that? the universe is no more than the sum of its parts, is there some universe aside from its individual parts? please tell me what a universe with no parts consists of?

It consists of nothing, but it’s still a universe, since it is the sum of all that is, which is inversely proportional, in this case, to what it is not. The definition of “universe” doesn’t require it to be anything other than a sum that expresses what exists. If that sum is zero, then no conflict with the definition is made. Would you like to re-define “universe?”

you admit you havent read it

I’ve read enough of Aquinas to know how he and his arguments operate, and I’m not impressed. A true philosopher does not start with his destination in mind. Aquinas assumed that the Church was the finish line from the very start, so he saw exactly what he wanted to see.

it means highest possible value of magnitude, how bout that?

How do we judge the “height” of a value (objectively, that is)? Can a computer calculate what the highest value is? Can it measure any values? If not, why not? Or perhaps I can use a beaker, or simply a yardstick?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Alduous Huxley wrote an true account of demonic possession of 12 Ursuline nuns and the Mother Superior during the 17th century in the French town of Loudon. The exorcisms lasted 9 years and resulted in a priest being accused of sorcery and subsequently tortured and burned at the stake. The remarkable details were that the priest named Grandier had never visited the Ursuline convent at Loudon or met any of the possessed nuns or the Mother Superior. After the exorcisms faded out over a period of 9 years because the exorcists passed away due to old age the possessions stopped.Huxley gives testimony in this remarkable account that had the priests not accused the nuns of demonic possession there would never have been any. That is the intrinsic nature of evil. It is fabricated of fear. If we eliminate the idea of evil and monsters that element is exorcised from our reality. The inherent nature of God and of good is not so precarious. If we cease believing in the reality of God and the Universe will it simply vanish like the Devils of Loudon? Truly the reality of God and the Universe is more substantial.

Interesting. Okay. In laymans terms can you please explain the moral point of the story, and how it applies to the discussion, in a less cryptic fashion.
By this i mean just be plain about what you intend to convey.

 

[Oreoracle]

actually living by a moral code wouldnt be the illusion of discipline it would be discipline, no?

That depends. For example, our high school is going through some revision, to say the least. This means that a few rules may be prone to change. One highly disputed rule at this time concerns itself with the size of purses students are allowed to carry. Needless to say, this only affects the girls (unless a boy is carrying a purse for his girlfriend, I guess), and they aren’t at all happy about it. Upholding this rule effectively makes our school look more secure, because weapons could be stored in larger purses.

Can you guess which group supports this rule the most? That’s right, the guys. No skin off their bones, right? And while this isn’t hurting us (the guys), the school looks safer. A group of people can create the illusion of discipline without the discipline if they force the discipline on another party and are not affected themselves. Can you guess who attacks gays the most? Right again, the straight people. The rules don’t have to be difficult for everyone, just some.

as to acquired wisdom, havent you heard the expression that the path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom?

Yes. What about it?

its not nearly as easy as it sounds.

I bet it isn’t, because most people aren’t dead certain that they will live forever. (LOL I made another pun! “Dead” certain!)

I’d wager that if you had no doubt at all, though, it would be a piece of cake to get by without the baser pleasures. Isn’t that how Jesus got by: without doubting?

no, the kids i have raised, love me and i them, but i wish to spend time away from them sometimes, and someday they will feel the same way.

I see. So because you wish to escape from familial and friendly bonds every once in a while, you prefer that the relationships will end some day? Sorry, but I don’t know of one person who thinks that way. We’re perfectly capable of getting away and coming back later, and we employ this tactic very often. Being humans, we like to have our cake and eat it, too.

Messianic prophecy. no other faith has that. Allah, is G-d the father, in our theology, but you have to trust mohammed and mohammed alone, the koran is a revealed text. it just showed up one day.

Weren’t these prophecies you speak of supposed to be extremely vague? And how do we know that someone didn’t write them after the fact?

if i had accounts from unrelated witnesses spanning hundreds of events over thousands of years, all describing the same flying spaghetti monster, yeah, that would be a neat trick , no?

…but would you believe it? Neat tricks or not, belief in psychic or telepathic powers (however you believe the info for the prophecies was communicated) is farfetched. A “neat trick” isn’t enough for justification.

Now that I think of it, this point is sufficient. If you wouldn’t believe the same people if they instead posited the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then your arguments don’t have legs to stand on. To believe, or not to believe? That is the question.

 

[MindOverMatter]

a universe is a sum of all that exists.

This is an assumption, if by this you mean that all is physical. And the mere statement as such does not prove that it is. A true philosopher should know that.

I’ve read enough of Aquinas to know how he and his arguments operate, and I’m not impressed.

The invalidity of his arguments is not determined by your mere opinion.

A true philosopher does not start with his destination in mind.

This seems like a purely assertive notion that has no real place or basis in logic. Aquinas may have come to believe on other grounds such as intuition, a personal experience of the divine such as miracles, including scriptural revelation along with the emotion fulfillment that such may bring. But I don’t see why one cannot make a philosophical attempt to prove ones beliefs as they are presented in revelation and tradition. Aquinas begins with the physical world and proves that, “divine revelation”, in so far as it describes the existence of a supernatural personal will which brought all physical events into existence, is an accurate description of objective reality; as far as observation, necessity, and logic, is concerned. He has certainly prove the existence of a “super-nature” that is transcendent of physical reality. And many members of this forum have provided the proof to support that.

How do we judge the “height” of a value (objectively, that is)? Can a computer calculate what the highest value is? Can it measure any values? If not, why not? Or perhaps I can use a beaker, or simply a yardstick?

How does one measure the length of an idea or the width of emotion? Can you place personal experience in a beaker?

 

[Oreoracle]

This is an assumption

No, that’s the definition of “universe.” The universe is all that exists, regarded as a whole. It is a sum.

if by this you mean that all is physical.

I don’t. In fact, I don’t think I even used “physical” in my argument. I know that accusing people of being physicalists and naturalists is a hobby of yours and others on this forum, but I’m neither a physicalist nor a naturalist, and those doctrines have nothing to do with my point.

And the mere statement as such does not prove that it is. A true philosopher should know that.

But then I suppose a true philosopher would learn the definitions of terms before he tries to make an argument using those terms. And a true philosopher would probably refrain from shouting, “PHYSICALIST!” every time someone disagrees with his metaphysical view.

The invalidity of his arguments is not determined by your mere opinion.

Actually, it’s the soundness of his arguments I’m worried about. Anyone can create a valid metaphysical argument. Even solipsism can be a valid metaphysical stance. It’s the soundness of the position that we question.

But then I suppose you’ll say, “The unsoundness of his arguments is not determined by your mere opinion.” That’s true, and I never stated that my opinions can change reality. Rather, it’s my opinion that we have no reason to believe Aquinas’ metaphysical arguments are sound and that his consequent assumptions are accurate. We can make anything sound bad by calling it a “mere opinion” but that’s all we’ve got.

This seems like a purely assertive notion that has no real place or basis in logic. Aquinas may have come to believe on other grounds such as intuition, a personal experience of the divine such as miracles, including scriptural revelation along with the emotion fulfillment that such may bring.

I’m just saying that if we believe first, and collect data second, we have a high probability of fooling ourselves. But I have a question: Why do you think a Christian who truly believes that possessing faith is virtuous would look for evidence/justification in the first place? You’re attempting to negate the virtue of faith–that is, believing in God without evidence/justification–by doing so.

How does one measure the length of an idea or the width of emotion? Can you place personal experience in a beaker?

I wouldn’t try to do so. Personal experiences are subjective.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree, hence my saying that a universe whose sum is zero would lack existence. Is there a problem?

umm… yes, something that has no existence doesnt exist. so your universe that doesnt exist, simply doesnt exist. this is ludicrous, but if you want to keep denying the obvious in public, im happy to oblige.

By definition, a universe is a sum of all that exists.

and if nothing exists, then what do you have? nothing.

you trade between condescending comments, and comments evidenceing ignorance of some basic philosophy with aplomb. quite funny. something like the pink panther.

By the way you talk, I bet you opted to get away from schooling as quickly as possible, eh? Aquinas taught you all you would need in life, and those blasted teachers didn’t help, did they? How can you expect people who care about things like logic, evidence, elaboration, and conventions of English, such as capitalization, to do anything but slow you down? Heck, God and his convoluted…I mean, “elaborate” metaphysical structure is all you need!

um… yes, at 16 i got a GED…because i went to college a little early. you shouldnt assume things that you dont know.

It consists of nothing, but it’s still a universe, since it is the sum of all that is, which is inversely proportional, in this case, to what it is not. The definition of “universe” doesn’t require it to be anything other than a sum that expresses what exists. If that sum is zero, then no conflict with the definition is made. Would you like to re-define “universe?”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

The Universe comprises everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them

it seems that i dont need to change the definition. take away all these things and what do you have? nothing.

I’ve read enough of Aquinas to know how he and his arguments operate, and I’m not impressed. A true philosopher does not start with his destination in mind. Aquinas assumed that the Church was the finish line from the very start, so he saw exactly what he wanted to see.

since his title is often The Philosopher, i suspect you dont know that universities are are founded on his ideas, that entire philosophies arise from his writings? what you say here is like saying plato, Atristotle, or Descarte were simple scribblers in the dust. he believed in g-d yes, but that doesnt make his proofs any less convincing. in his age these things were a given.

How do we judge the “height” of a value (objectively, that is)? Can a computer calculate what the highest value is? Can it measure any values? If not, why not? Or perhaps I can use a beaker, or simply a yardstick?

you mention the words objective and subjective so often as to make me suspect that you have not read annything more than a book or too on subjective morality. is this the case? is that why you use those terms whether thwy

and as to judging maximal Qaulities, we can simply say infinite, at least in regard to thiose qualities of existence. what limit can there be?

though im curious as to what you think the quality of being “objective” has to do with it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That depends. For example, our high school is going through some revision, to say the least. This means that a few rules may be prone to change. One highly disputed rule at this time concerns itself with the size of purses students are allowed to carry. Needless to say, this only affects the girls (unless a boy is carrying a purse for his girlfriend, I guess), and they aren’t at all happy about it. Upholding this rule effectively makes our school look more secure, because weapons could be stored in larger purses.

Can you guess which group supports this rule the most? That’s right, the guys. No skin off their bones, right? And while this isn’t hurting us (the guys), the school looks safer. A group of people can create the illusion of discipline without the discipline if they force the discipline on another party and are not affected themselves. Can you guess who attacks gays the most? Right again, the straight people. The rules don’t have to be difficult for everyone, just some.

really? priests, monks, and nuns are celibate. all single people are supposed too be celibate. the rules apply to us as well as others, something you seem to be missing. did you think that the difficult rules only applied to others? until i remarry im celibate and have been for 2 years. there is nothing easy about it. it is one of the most difficult things i have ever done. do you think it is any more difficult for homosexuals than me? please.

if your just mad that the Church doesnt allow gays to fornicate, then take heart, it doesnt allow any singles to fornicate. even within marriage the sex act is for procreative and unitive purposes. get over it.

though, is that why you hate religion, because it says something youre doing or want to do is wrong?

Yes. What about it?

its self explanatory.

I bet it isn’t, because most people aren’t dead certain that they will live forever. (LOL I made another pun! “Dead” certain!)

I’d wager that if you had no doubt at all, though, it would be a piece of cake to get by without the baser pleasures. Isn’t that how Jesus got by: without doubting?

who has no doubt at all? Jesus was G-d. big difference there, He sweated blood knowing the torture that would be coming to Him before He was allowed to die. me, i have doubts. i used to be an atheist. doubts are common to my rational mind, though at this points my doubts are more theological in nature, i get by on an attitude of obedience at any cost, even then i fail. but as the song says “i get knocked down, but i get up again, aint never gonna keep me down.” Christianity is more about perseverance than most people realize.

I see. So because you wish to escape from familial and friendly bonds every once in a while, you prefer that the relationships will end some day? Sorry, but I don’t know of one person who thinks that way. We’re perfectly capable of getting away and coming back later, and we employ this tactic very often. Being humans, we like to have our cake and eat it, too.

ive lost some family members, i cried for a while, the ones i knew were going to heaven, i cried for, the ones i knew probably werent, i cried for them too. but its a part of life, the other day i put down one of the cats that got too old and senile to enjoy life, after 14 years, i buried her, shed a few tears, petted her a fews times before i laid her in the grave. i covered her, said a prayer, thanking G-d for the time we had. but then i got on with life. the way all people do whether its just a pet, or a person. people die. thats all there is to it.

Weren’t these prophecies you speak of supposed to be extremely vague?

not in the least. think of how many pieces of information it takes to identify your address, lets see. a name, a street, a house number and a zipcode. 4. it takes about 4 pieces of information to narrow down the address of anyone on the planet. 4 pieces to tell you from the other 6.7 billion other people on the planet. in the case of Jesus we have several hundred pieces of information, time of birth, location, name, lineage, many different events in life and after death, many about people surrounding Him such as John the baptist.

And how do we know that someone didn’t write them after the fact?

because the Jews had these prophecies as part of their Scripture centuries before the fact. that wall that still stands in Jerusalem, it proves the existence of the Jewish faith prior to the life of Christ among many other artifacts.

if you mean the Apostles, then why would they invent stories that got them lives of suffering and misery? lies that would lead to a torturous death they could have avoided by admitting they were lies? doesnt make alot of sense.

if you care to assert some conspiracy theory then that would take alot of evidence. if thats your defense to their veracity then , i should expect that you be able to prove the declaration of independence, the magna carts, the moonlanding, and the gettysburg address were not simply faked after the fact. but we alll know that there is no defense to that charege. so it would take some pretty good evidence to show it.

…but would you believe it? Neat tricks or not, belief in psychic or telepathic powers (however you believe the info for the prophecies was communicated) is farfetched. A “neat trick” isn’t enough for justification.

Now that I think of it, this point is sufficient. If you wouldn’t believe the same people if they instead posited the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then your arguments don’t have legs to stand on. To believe, or not to believe? That is the question.

if they had the mathematical certainty that Messianic Prophecy has, then of course i would believe. your talking certainty on the oder of 1x10(38) if only a few prophecies were true, much less the dozens that are. we can safely assume the fllying spaghetti moster doesnt exist because it seems ridiculous, right up until we discover a secret stash of video showing the FSM getting off of a flying saucer.

the whole FSM thing is really an attempt at loaded language, its meant to be so ridiculous as assumed to be false, but like anything else, sufficient evidence should prove it to the most skeptical mind. statinng a ridiculous jsubject doesnt alter the general rules of evidence.

 

[wussup]

I agree, hence my saying that a universe whose sum is zero would lack existence. Is there a problem?

By definition, a universe is a sum of all that exists. If “0” can be considered an accurate expression of “a sum of no existing things” then it can express the contents, or lack thereof, of a universe (or, in your metaphysical jargon, “possible world”). If a universe is a sum, and nothingness (0) is a sum, then a universe can be nothingness.

Hmmm, interesting logic going on here. In order to rationally determine what you mean by this, what do you mean by ‘exist’, ‘existence’, and what are you measuring to get a ‘zero’, or even a ‘1’? I think you have a hard row to hoe here. Also, your stating that ‘0’ can be considered an accurate expression is unsupported. For example, if we continue on with your logic, what of the mathematically possible universe with a sum of negative existing things? While at first glance this may seem a ridiculous statement, according to some philosophies, anything that can be imagined can be real. If we consider the law of conservation of mass and energy, a universe with zero energy is a collapsed universe, a universe with any amount of positive energy is a universe attempting to get back to a zero state following the law of entropy. By logic, wouldn’t a universe with a theoretical negative energy then have a desire to increase order? It should be remembered that ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ energy are not moral values but mathematical constructs. I think it would be clear that while a Universe that has ‘negative’ energy is not God, it is an interesting avenue to investigate to look into an ontological explanation of how God can interact (organize) our universe something from nothing.

So, a universe whose sum is zero would not lack existence, but would be a transitory state from nothing to something. Incidentally, I was inspired by Aquinas in this argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

umm… yes, something that has no existence doesnt exist. so your universe that doesnt exist, simply doesnt exist.

“Universe” isn’t an item that exists, it’s a collective term; a sum. It is a concept, very much like any number.

and if nothing exists, then what do you have? nothing.

I don’t see the problem. Nothingness being nothing doesn’t prevent it from being a possibility. You once said that the causal chain never had to have existed. This is just another way of saying that there is a possible world without a causal chain and existence. By your own admission, nothingness is a possible world, though you might not call it a “world.”

um… yes, at 16 i got a GED…because i went to college a little early. you shouldnt assume things that you dont know.

That’s even worse, because now I don’t see how you could be excused from your buffoonery.

it seems that i dont need to change the definition. take away all these things and what do you have? nothing.

Again, I don’t see the problem. There’s no reason to discount nothingness as a possibility.

since his title is often The Philosopher, i suspect you dont know that universities are are founded on his ideas, that entire philosophies arise from his writings?

This is true for many philosophers that you seem to dislike. Many appreciate Epicurus, Nietzsche, Bentham, Russell, Hobbes, and others for their works. I assume that you don’t hold them in such high regard? Heck, have you ever read up on Aristotle’s idea of the perfect man? I bet you and your ilk wouldn’t defend him so stoutly upon reading that! Many people praising a fool doesn’t make the fool in question any less foolish.

what you say here is like saying plato, Atristotle, or Descarte were simple scribblers in the dust.

That’s not entirely true. Some of Descartes’ works were worthwhile. But yeah, I think Plato and Aristotle were pretty much jokes. Aristotle contributed to some major advancements, yes, but if we look at all of his assertions and tally how many were correct and how many were (demonstrably) incorrect the sum of his works doesn’t seem very impressive. And one can’t ignore the fact that people relied on him instead of science for well over a millenium, all because he was careless enough to disregard ideas for no reason. In Chemistry we just talked about how he buried the idea of atoms for about 2000 years because he denied it, again, for no reason.

you mention the words objective and subjective so often as to make me suspect that you have not read annything more than a book or too on subjective morality. is this the case? is that why you use those terms whether thwy

I don’t know what “whether thwy” is supposed to mean, but “subjective” means “dependent on perception” and “objective” means “independent of perception.”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if there were no sentient life, all sense of morality would vanish. Reality is what it is, and there are no “shoulds” to discover. We invent them to make our lives easier, like any other tool.

and as to judging maximal Qaulities, we can simply say infinite, at least in regard to thiose qualities of existence. what limit can there be?

Okay, so in keeping with our lingo, “infinite” can mean “without a definite height.” You still haven’t explained how we determine height, and so I can only imagine how we would go about concluding that something is without a definite height. I’m waiting patiently for your explanation.

And now I realize that this point, too, is sufficient. I don’t even need the “nothingness as a possible world” argument if you can’t explain how to objectively determine the value or greatness of something. Have fun trying.

though im curious as to what you think the quality of being “objective” has to do with it?

Was it not you who asserted that goodness is objective, among God’s other qualities? If not, then these supposed maximal qualities are “mere opinions” as you like to say. The idea of what is greatest would be dependent on our perception.

 

[Oreoracle]

really? priests, monks, and nuns are celibate. all single people are supposed too be celibate. the rules apply to us as well as others, something you seem to be missing.

I’m not missing it. I’m saying that many rules are more difficult for some people to follow. The “no large purses” rule applied to boys too, but that’s not very difficult for us to follow. It’s easy to impose a rule that necessitates practicing a lifestyle that you already practice. If I said that everyone should have to post on internet forums daily, most people would gag. The rule would be easy for me to abide by, though.

did you think that the difficult rules only applied to others?

No. Rather, I think the rules are only difficult for some. There are only a few “universally difficult” rules imposed by Catholics. One such rule, I would say, is “thou shalt not covet.” (In any form of the rule, including not coveting thy neighbor’s wife and so on.) For nearly any rule, you’ll find some who can acclimate themselves to the rule, if not already acclimated, with relative ease.

if your just mad that the Church doesnt allow gays to fornicate, then take heart, it doesnt allow any singles to fornicate. even within marriage the sex act is for procreative and unitive purposes. get over it.

though, is that why you hate religion, because it says something youre doing or want to do is wrong?

Right, it has to be about what I want to do. It’s impossible for an evil atheist such as myself to care about the desires of others. That’s simply beyond my ability. There’s no way an atheist can experience even basic empathy without Christ holding his hand along the way. Give me a break.

its self explanatory.

Metaphors are never self-explanatory. What is the metaphor’s relevance to this discussion?

who has no doubt at all?

No one (I think), I just think it’s funny that you treat something that you doubt relatively strongly as a fact, especially when your Church advertises the idea of God as an obvious truth.

ive lost some family members, i cried for a while, the ones i knew were going to heaven, i cried for, the ones i knew probably werent, i cried for them too. but its a part of life

Yes, and apparently the pain is so unbearable that you assume there’s an afterlife. It’s your way to avoid thinking about true death–complete oblivion–directly. No one wants to comtemplate it, so you’re not alone, but at least some of us don’t have to make up stories about an afterlife to cope. Death, we have every reason to believe, is the end of the line, and not just an event that displaces you to another plane of existence. Your religion has ended many lives by trivializing death in this way.

not in the least. think of how many pieces of information it takes to identify your address, lets see. a name, a street, a house number and a zipcode. 4. it takes about 4 pieces of information to narrow down the address of anyone on the planet. 4 pieces to tell you from the other 6.7 billion other people on the planet. in the case of Jesus we have several hundred pieces of information, time of birth, location, name, lineage, many different events in life and after death, many about people surrounding Him such as John the baptist.

What were the specifics mentioned in the prophecy?

if you mean the Apostles, then why would they invent stories that got them lives of suffering and misery? lies that would lead to a torturous death they could have avoided by admitting they were lies? doesnt make alot of sense.

Think about it. These martyrs were poor. They weren’t going anywhere in life. The only thing guaranteed to them was a few years longer of their miserable existence. It makes sense that they would delude themselves into thinking there was something more: a powerful savior who would aid them in their time of need and smite their enemies. Judaism considers your “loving” god to be quite vengeful, in case you haven’t read up on that. These martyrs were folks who were bullied, and so they dreamed up an even bigger bully who was on their side. It makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view.

if they had the mathematical certainty that Messianic Prophecy has, then of course i would believe.

If you are speaking the truth, I question your sanity.

your talking certainty on the oder of 1x10(38)

Where on Earth did you get that figure from? A website?

the whole FSM thing is really an attempt at loaded language, its meant to be so ridiculous as assumed to be false, but like anything else, sufficient evidence should prove it to the most skeptical mind. statinng a ridiculous jsubject doesnt alter the general rules of evidence.

Being an agnostic, I don’t think anything can count as evidence of a god’s existence. You can’t prove an infinite quality. No matter how much power God demonstrated (however you define “power”), we couldn’t know that he is all-powerful. The same goes for omnipresence, omnibenolence, omniscience, and so on. Finite examples can’t prove infinite qualities.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Being an agnostic, I don’t think anything can count as evidence of a god’s existence. You can’t prove an infinite quality. No matter how much power God demonstrated (however you define “power”), we couldn’t know that he is all-powerful. The same goes for omnipresence, omnibenolence, omniscience, and so on. Finite examples can’t prove infinite qualities.

You can prove an infinite by identifying a finite or contingent quality. If physical being is in principle finite, contingent or unable to account for its self by its own nature, then one must look to another kind of nature for an answer that explains the contingency or finiteness of physical reality. The only sufficient logical explanation is a perfect transcendent timeless cause. Its not a mater of if buts or maybes. We have to transcend physical events if we want to account for physical events logically. Otherwise we fall into logical contradictions such as trying to get something from absolutely nothing for no reason. This to me far more of a fantasy then the existence of God, and so if logical inference points to a transcendent nature as the only explanation in so far as “existence”, then why should one look for an explanation in nothing, if one can find an explanation in an infinitely perfect being?

I have failed to find an arguement that concludes a valid naturalism.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m not missing it. I’m saying that many rules are more difficult for some people to follow. The “no large purses” rule applied to boys too, but that’s not very difficult for us to follow. It’s easy to impose a rule that necessitates practicing a lifestyle that you already practice. If I said that everyone should have to post on internet forums daily, most people would gag. The rule would be easy for me to abide by, though.

Are you saying that priests argue for celibacy just because they do it? Its a common mistake and a huge fallacy.

 

[wussup]

“Universe” isn’t an item that exists, it’s a collective term; a sum. It is a concept, very much like any number.

Hmmmm, a your going to have to explain in which of the multitudinous philosophical applications of the word ‘concept’ you are using it here. It almost sounds like your using the word in a Fregeian manner. Technically, every single ‘named’ item is a concept because most language (especially that pertaining to abstract arguments) is an abstract symbolic representation of one beings perception of reality in a common language to be interpreted by another being (letters → words → sentences → idea). However, in the common vernacular, a Universe is an item in the exact same manner a chair is an item; it is composed of an almost infinite number of parts (at least electrons, protons, and neutrons) to form an identifiable physical presence. While it is a collective term, a Universe has at least to the outward appearance galaxies, suns, solar systems, planets, and all they contain) that is not to mean it is an abstract concept in the same manner a number is. A number is the ultimate abstract because it has no inherent meaning other than to be an adjective to a noun.

I don’t see the problem. Nothingness being nothing doesn’t prevent it from being a possibility. You once said that the causal chain never had to have existed. This is just another way of saying that there is a possible world without a causal chain and existence. By your own admission, nothingness is a possible world, though you might not call it a “world.”

You keep referring to ‘nothingness’ as a possible world. There are two arguments I like that displays how ‘nothingness’ is not a possible world.

One I have already explained as:

“In order to rationally determine what you mean by this, what do you mean by ‘exist’, ‘existence’, and what are you measuring to get a ‘zero’, or even a ‘1’? I think you have a hard row to hoe here. Also, your stating that ‘0’ can be considered an accurate expression is unsupported. For example, if we continue on with your logic, what of the mathematically possible universe with a sum of negative existing things? While at first glance this may seem a ridiculous statement, according to some philosophies, anything that can be imagined can be real. If we consider the law of conservation of mass and energy, a universe with zero energy is a collapsed universe, a universe with any amount of positive energy is a universe attempting to get back to a zero state following the law of entropy. By logic, wouldn’t a universe with a theoretical negative energy then have a desire to increase order? It should be remembered that ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ energy are not moral values but mathematical constructs. I think it would be clear that while a Universe that has ‘negative’ energy is not God, it is an interesting avenue to investigate to look into an ontological explanation of how God can interact (organize) our universe something from nothing.”

So, a universe whose sum is zero would not lack existence, but would be a transitory state from nothing to something. Incidentally, I was inspired by Aquinas in this argument

.

But before I take the time to develop it here, do you really believe it to be a possible world in the same sense as David Boem felt that all possible worlds exists?

That’s even worse, because now I don’t see how you could be excused from your buffoonery.

One request, this is an interesting topic, one that can go on practically forever with many permutations. However, the moderators here have very quick kill buttons and will shutdown a topic if the personal name calling gets out of hand. Please attempt to refrain from such things so we can continue to enjoy a rational spirited discussion.

 

[Oreoracle]

Hmmm, interesting logic going on here. In order to rationally determine what you mean by this, what do you mean by ‘exist’, ‘existence’

I’m not sure that I can adequately define those terms, but I’ll give it a shot. I would say that “to exist” means “to possess an identity.” An identity is the collection of an entity’s qualities; how they manifest themselves as a group. “Existence” is just “the state of existing.”

and what are you measuring to get a ‘zero’, or even a ‘1’?

We obviously need to assign the numbers to entities in order to get any meaning from them. I assign “zero” to all items (notice that I didn’t say “objects”) that exist, resulting in “zero existing items.” “One” could be applied to anything you wish. We could speak of a universe with one apple, or one bear, or even one lone existing item.

For example, if we continue on with your logic, what of the mathematically possible universe with a sum of negative existing things?

I don’t believe I said that all numbers can be used in this way. Negative numbers, obviously, can only represent instances of subtraction in a universe. I don’t think this argument invalidates the usage of zero, however. We can have zero fairies, unicorns, and goblins. We can continue our nasty habit of exterminating animal life and end up having zero pandas, polar bears, and snow leopards. There’s no reason to believe that it’s impossible to extinguish everything, since we already know that some things can be swept from existence without much effort at all. If you can crack one egg, and another, and another, there’s no reason to believe you can’t crack the whole dozen!

While at first glance this may seem a ridiculous statement, according to some philosophies, anything that can be imagined can be real.

…philosophies that I don’t subscribe to. I’m not what you’d call a metaphysician; I don’t worry about existence too much. Some people, however, have this strange urge to formulate ethics based off their metaphysical assumptions, so people like me have to jump in regardless of our apparent disinterest.

So, a universe whose sum is zero would not lack existence, but would be a transitory state from nothing to something. Incidentally, I was inspired by Aquinas in this argument.

I’m not sure I follow. Wasn’t zero supposed to represent nothing? How can it be in the middle of a transition away from nothing when it is nothing? And I see no reason to discount the possibility of “static nothingness” other than a few dubious theories.

 

[wussup]

I’m not sure that I can adequately define those terms, but I’ll give it a shot. I would say that “to exist” means “to possess an identity.” An identity is the collection of an entity’s qualities; how they manifest themselves as a group. “Existence” is just “the state of existing.”

I won’t nit pick. That is a fair enough definition… The tricky word in your comment was ‘concept’. There are two general theories on ‘concept’; either abstract symbols to denote ideas; or mental constructs to represent reality. I hope hope you can see the difference in how what you consider a concept will determine how to interpret what you say.

We obviously need to assign the numbers to entities in order to get any meaning from them. I assign “zero” to all items (notice that I didn’t say “objects”) that exist, resulting in “zero existing items.” “One” could be applied to anything you wish. We could speak of a universe with one apple, or one bear, or even one lone existing item.

I am really sorry, but I don’t see why we have to assign a number to get meaning out of an entity. I think for the sake of your argument, can we say there is either zero, none, or this Wussup guy insists a potential less than zero? And while it may seem pedantic for me to insist on an accurate definition of zero, I think I can show that any ‘zero’ you define will have ramifications you are not intending.

I don’t believe I said that all numbers can be used in this way. Negative numbers, obviously, can only represent instances of subtraction in a universe. I don’t think this argument invalidates the usage of zero, however. We can have zero fairies, unicorns, and goblins. We can continue our nasty habit of exterminating animal life and end up having zero pandas, polar bears, and snow leopards. There’s no reason to believe that it’s impossible to extinguish everything, since we already know that some things can be swept from existence without much effort at all. If you can crack one egg, and another, and another, there’s no reason to believe you can’t crack the whole dozen!

Ok, let’s review your approach to 'zero…

Post 240 you said 'I’m not speaking of something that has form. Rather, I am speaking of the negation of all that exists".

I don’t think you are referencing the Aristotelian vision of ‘form’, a distinction on this forum that is vital to having rational conversation and one I have only recently was so important to RCC logic. Also, by ‘negation’ you seem to be at odds with the statement you just made, “How can it be in the middle of a transition away from nothing when it is nothing?”, after all a negation of something to nothing is exactly a transition. I will just chalk this up to losing track of your statements. Ok…I’m just teasing you. With few exceptions, most of the thinking going on here is a work in progress of people developing and working in their own paradigm…

…philosophies that I don’t subscribe to. I’m not what you’d call a metaphysician; I don’t worry about existence too much. Some people, however, have this strange urge to formulate ethics based off their metaphysical assumptions, so people like me have to jump in regardless of our apparent disinterest.

Everyone is a ‘metaphysician’, the only difference is how sound their thinking is…

I’m not sure I follow. Wasn’t zero supposed to represent nothing? How can it be in the middle of a transition away from nothing when it is nothing? And I see no reason to discount the possibility of “static nothingness” other than a few dubious theories.

Zero can represent nothing. But, what is nothing? Current trends in physics suggests that all the sub-particles in the universe eventually function as complex waves. These waves work under numerous laws, a primary one being the law of entropy. Entropy is:

/\s=/\Q/T​

where /\s is the change in entropy
/\Q is the change in energy
and T is T in Kelvins.
Temperature is the measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance. Entropy is the tendency for matter to move from a more organized, higher energy state to a lesser. So, notice that as temperature approaches zero, what happens to the equation? Essentially the matter becomes non-existent. But what happens if the T goes into the negative (and yes, this is theoretically possible)? Then entropy moves into a more and more organized state as a natural function. In essence, what was once nothing, passed through into something.

Great job Oreacle! You have proven a number of special problems…

1. The necessity for there having been ‘nothing’
2. The importance of there being ‘less than nothing’
3. and the discovery of how ‘nothing’ or ‘non-existence’ (-/**s) created all of existence (+/**s)!
4. If we take (-/**s) to an infinitesimally small negative number, than with even the smallest amount of energy, a perfectly organized existence will be. If the (-/**s) is a small enough negative number, that organized existence can be thought of as almost perfectly organized substance. DUDE! you’ve provided a rational and logically sound proof for the existence of GOD!
   
   :bowdown:
   :bowdown:
   [SIGN]King Dude[/SIGN]​
   :bowdown:
   :bowdown:

 

[Oreoracle]

You can prove an infinite by identifying a finite or contingent quality. If physical being is in principle finite, contingent or unable to account for its self by its own nature, then one must look to another kind of nature for an answer that explains the contingency or finiteness of physical reality…Or we could just be wrong about the principle. If we’re going to go so far as to posit a sort of “nature” that we’ve never experienced, our original assumptions start looking a little suspicious.

And because we can’t sense this nature, and would only know of it through your dubious deductions, we can’t say much more than “a necessary being exists.” Nothing else can really be said of the necessary being, so attributing a personality and a history to it, i.e., making it God, is wishful thinking.

The only sufficient logical explanation is a perfect transcendent timeless cause.

I never asserted naturalism, did I?

 

[Oreoracle]

Hmmmm, a your going to have to explain in which of the multitudinous philosophical applications of the word ‘concept’ you are using it here.

A “concept” is a thought (or “mental image”) that represents a corresponding object (or group of objects) in reality. “Two,” for example, represents “two of anything.” So if we have an equation such as 2-1=1, we’re saying that subtracting one item from any group of two (whether it be sticks, rocks, or so on) it will result in there being only one of that item. Numbers are not applicable to reality by themselves. You’ll never find a two in this world; rather, you’ll find two of certain items. You won’t find the noun form of two, just the adjective.

It almost sounds like your using the word in a Fregeian manner.

Who are you talking about?

Technically, every single ‘named’ item is a concept because most language (especially that pertaining to abstract arguments) is an abstract symbolic representation of one beings perception of reality in a common language to be interpreted by another being (letters → words → sentences → idea). However, in the common vernacular, a Universe is an item in the exact same manner a chair is an item; it is composed of an almost infinite number of parts (at least electrons, protons, and neutrons) to form an identifiable physical presence.

It’s an item in that sense, yes. I’m just saying that “universe” doesn’t need to encompass any items according to the definition; it doesn’t need to be substantial. I guess you could say that the universe of nothingness I’m referring to is the possible world in which the causal chain never came about. That’s how I explained it to Pete, at least.

While it is a collective term, a Universe has at least to the outward appearance galaxies, suns, solar systems, planets, and all they contain) that is not to mean it is an abstract concept in the same manner a number is.

I agree that “universe” isn’t abstract. I’m saying that numbers can represent the universe if we explain what the numbers represent.

But before I take the time to develop it here, do you really believe it to be a possible world in the same sense as David Boem felt that all possible worlds exists?

Truly, I don’t buy into the “possible world” idea at all. By asserting that there are possible worlds ahead of us, you are dismissing determinism for no apparent reason. There’s no reason to believe that this isn’t the one and only possible world. Or do you think you have an argument against determinism too?

One request, this is an interesting topic, one that can go on practically forever with many permutations. However, the moderators here have very quick kill buttons and will shutdown a topic if the personal name calling gets out of hand. Please attempt to refrain from such things so we can continue to enjoy a rational spirited discussion.

Name-calling? I feel that I’ve toned it down quite a bit. “Brat” (to MoM) and “buffoonery” are hardly insulting.

 

[wussup]

A “concept” is a thought (or “mental image”) that represents a corresponding object (or group of objects) in reality. “Two,” for example, represents “two of anything.” So if we have an equation such as 2-1=1, we’re saying that subtracting one item from any group of two (whether it be sticks, rocks, or so on) it will result in there being only one of that item. Numbers are not applicable to reality by themselves. You’ll never find a two in this world; rather, you’ll find two of certain items. You won’t find the noun form of two, just the adjective.

‘Universe’ as you/we have been using it is a noun. Your use of it in the sentence, ““Universe” isn’t an item that exists, it’s a collective term; a sum. It is a concept, very much like any number.” [pg. 18, #270] implies the use as an adjective, and here you agree the number, ‘zero’ in the case discussed, is an adjective. Ok. I am not into semantics word games, but the discussion does mandate a bit of precise language or it is difficult to understand what your saying and your being a bit inconsistent. It is difficult to discuss this if the concepts are slippery eels. Your explanation of ‘concept’ mixes the two prevailing ideas of concept, and while these are not antithetical, they do not mix well because it creates a discussion that is difficult to address accurately.

Who are you talking about?

Gottlob Frege. He is a famous logician most known for his creation of Predicate Calculus and philosophy of language. Explaining Frege is outside of the scope of this thread, but basically he divided concepts as language into sense and denotation, concept and object. There is lots on the internet. I did not get into Predicate Calculus so am ignorant. I only studied Frege in a survey of ontology and the study of being (in this case language as ontology).

So universe as concept, such as a number (in your language), and adjective, is not the same as your statement where the universe is a noun. Frege would suggest that the term Universe is an abstract word of ephemoral meaning until it is given context in denotation.

It’s an item in that sense, yes. I’m just saying that “universe” doesn’t need to encompass any items according to the definition; it doesn’t need to be substantial. I guess you could say that the universe of nothingness I’m referring to is the possible world in which the causal chain never came about. That’s how I explained it to Pete, at least.

Here is the problem your having, on one side of your mouth you are espousing a specific concept of noun and adjective, ‘a universe with nothing’, and then an abstract word without definition. Then when an argument is made, you can point to the one or the other and claim foul. Really, not good form old man.

I agree that “universe” isn’t abstract. I’m saying that numbers can represent the universe if we explain what the numbers represent.

This is a brief definition of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

Truly, I don’t buy into the “possible world” idea at all. By asserting that there are possible worlds ahead of us, you are dismissing determinism for no apparent reason. There’s no reason to believe that this isn’t the one and only possible world. Or do you think you have an argument against determinism too?

And yet you don’t buy into it. I’m getting the feeling of schizophrenia here. You just said, “you could say that the universe of nothingness I’m referring to is the possible world in which the causal chain never came about” and yet now you are arguing against the ‘possible world’ of your scenario. And then in this quote you say “I don’t buy into the ‘possible world’ idea at all” and then you say, “there’s no reason to believe that this isn’t the one and only possible world”. So which is it. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

It is easy to ridicule the use of language, claiming ignorance and not be a ‘metaphysician’. This is just an excuse for sloppy thinking. You have some interesting ideas, but you need develop them sufficiently so they can be discussed rationally and seriously. Also, I was serious about the ‘negative entropy’ idea, and you aren’t addressing it… Come back when your argument is consistent.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Universe” isn’t an item that exists, it’s a collective term; a sum. It is a concept, very much like any number.

thats what we have been telling you except for your insistence on numbers.

I don’t see the problem. Nothingness being nothing doesn’t prevent it from being a possibility.

sure it does, because it is literally nothing, its not something that exists, and if it doesnt exist, and cannot exist, then it cant even be a possibility.

You once said that the causal chain never had to have existed. This is just another way of saying that there is a possible world without a causal chain and existence. By your own admission, nothingness is a possible world, though you might not call it a “world.”

this causal chain need not have existed, no causal chain need have existed, but that is not “nothing”, you still have bare existence, G-d. that would just be the situation had G-d decided to do nothing creative.

though now i see you have left off defending the erroneous understanding of nothing, and are now trying to pose it as something that i think also, erroneous as that is, it indicates that you want your position to be true even if you cant prove it. welcome to theism,

That’s even worse, because now I don’t see how you could be excused from your buffoonery.

mayhaps then, i am not the buffoon, senor. quixote.

Again, I don’t see the problem. There’s no reason to discount nothingness as a possibility.

and again, something that does not and cannot exist, isnt even a possibility. thats the problem.

This is true for many philosophers that you seem to dislike. Many appreciate Epicurus, Nietzsche, Bentham, Russell, Hobbes, and others for their works. I assume that you don’t hold them in such high regard? Heck, have you ever read up on Aristotle’s idea of the perfect man? I bet you and your ilk wouldn’t defend him so stoutly upon reading that! Many people praising a fool doesn’t make the fool in question any less foolish.

since you cant understand his work yet, maybe he isnt the fool? if a man looked at a page out of an algebra text, and declared the author a fool, would he be right? probably not, he would be the fool unknowingly exposing himself. which is why you are so much fun!

I don’t know what “whether thwy” is supposed to mean, but “subjective” means “dependent on perception” and “objective” means “independent of perception.”

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that if there were no sentient life, all sense of morality would vanish. Reality is what it is, and there are no “shoulds” to discover. We invent them to make our lives easier, like any other tool.

and yet they dont make our lives easier, they indeed make it more difficult. back to those pesky commandments. i would like to be able to lie, steal, and fornicate, after all why not?

Okay, so in keeping with our lingo, “infinite” can mean “without a definite height.” You still haven’t explained how we determine height, and so I can only imagine how we would go about concluding that something is without a definite height. I’m waiting patiently for your explanation.

youve received it twice now. infinite. what need do we have for a further definition? its objective. there is even a mathematical definition for it.

And now I realize that this point, too, is sufficient. I don’t even need the “nothingness as a possible world” argument if you can’t explain how to objectively determine the value or greatness of something. Have fun trying.

what does one have to do with the other? your conclusion doesnt follow the premise here. nothingness fails on compltely different grounds than “value” or “greatness” .

you admit in another thread that most definitions are circular in nature, so your really just trying to depend on this fact as a way to avoid the erroneous understanding of “nothingness” or to avoid the maximal qualities, they are “infinite” simple as that. you cant actually argue against them can you?

what does “objective” or “subjective” have to do with the maximal attributes or “nothingness”?

you seem to have one drumn to play, and it doesnt seem to apply to the current discussion, the last time it made sense was when you were talking about morality.

Was it not you who asserted that goodness is objective, among God’s other qualities? If not, then these supposed maximal qualities are “mere opinions” as you like to say. The idea of what is greatest would be dependent on our perception.

whose opinions are they? if i said that i am a male, is that an opinion? so when G-d says He is good, is that an opinion? where do you think we draw the maximal qualities from?