What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[Partinobodycula]

.
Getting this argument clear in my head, and then down on metaphorical paper in a manner that you’ll hopefully read and understand, has been a bit of a chore. So some things may not be as clear as I’d like. Find fault where you will, and I’ll attempt to clarify.

Pure-actuality is a perfect act of existence and only a perfect act of existence can be considered a necessary being. But what is a perfect act of existence?

A Perfect being cannot be anything that changes.

It cannot potentially become more than what it is or be added to, or come into being, because then it would always be in a state of being potentially something else.

Here’s where I think that your argument runs into the exact same shortsightedness that Catholics often accuse their opponents of falling victim to. It’s a misunderstanding that I may have intentionally or unintentionally caused. You assume the property of time. Which is understandable because I did give that impression. But let’s assume for a moment, the absence of time. What does our changing set of random numbers look like then?

Well, absent time, what you, me and Aquinas perceive as change, i.e. the transition between potency and actuality, becomes simply a relationship. A relationship between two things, neither of which were ever in the act of becoming, but were always in the act of being. The potency, the relationship, is still there. It’s just that we who exist in time, and that which doesn’t, perceive it differently.

For us, we perceive it as the actuality in one thing, changing the potency in another thing. But for that which is outside of time, it’s simply a relationship which always was.

Take my set of changing random numbers, and remove them from time. What you end up with is every set of numbers that could ever be, and every potential relationship between those numbers, that could ever be.
":

If a being is necessary-reality - this is to say that everything that it is is necessarily real - there would be no potency in it at all, because everything that it is and ever could be is already what it is.

An infinitely large set of random numbers would contain every potential iteration of those numbers. What could be…would be. But not merely the numbers themselves, but the relationship between those numbers. What a number is, and what it could be. Everything that could possibly be, would exist within that set of random numbers.

Another way to explain this is to say that the antithesis of absolutely nothing is the fullness of existence,

The antithesis of absolutely nothing is infinity. Numbers are by their very nature, infinite.

because out of nothing comes nothing and therefore its opposite is an absolute necessary act of existence. None of what it essentially is can be contingent for its existence on anything else because its very nature is to exist, its nature is existence.

So a necessary being is something which isn’t contingent upon something else for its existence. Something like numbers for example. Which exist, even if nothing else exists. And can neither be created nor destroyed.

The fullness of being cannot be made up of distinct parts with there own essence, because then each essence or nature would be the fullness of existence which leads to a contradiction since there can be only one fullness of existence.

Although it might seem like numbers are made up of distinct parts, they’re really not. Can you remove one from infinity, and make it one number smaller? Can you remove a hundred, or a million, and have any greater effect?

No part can be removed from them, and no part can be added to them. They’re complete, and will always and necessarily remain complete.

.

 

[IWantGod]

.
Getting this argument clear in my head, and then down on metaphorical paper in a manner that you’ll hopefully read and understand, has been a bit of a chore. So some things may not be as clear as I’d like. Find fault where you will, and I’ll attempt to clarify.

Here’s where I think that your argument runs into the exact same shortsightedness that Catholics often accuse their opponents of falling victim to. It’s a misunderstanding that I may have intentionally or unintentionally caused. You assume the property of time. Which is understandable because I did give that impression. But let’s assume for a moment, the absence of time. What does our changing set of random numbers look like then?

.

So your argument boils down to saying change does not exist? Then this discussion does not exist at all since there is no activity.

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.

 

[IWantGod]

.
Getting this argument clear in my head, and then down on metaphorical paper in a manner that you’ll hopefully read and understand, has been a bit of a chore. So some things may not be as clear as I’d like. Find fault where you will, and I’ll attempt to clarify.

Here’s where I think that your argument runs into the exact same shortsightedness that Catholics often accuse their opponents of falling victim to. It’s a misunderstanding that I may have intentionally or unintentionally caused. You assume the property of time. Which is understandable because I did give that impression. But let’s assume for a moment, the absence of time. What does our changing set of random numbers look like then?

Well, absent time, what you, me and Aquinas perceive as change, i.e. the transition between potency and actuality, becomes simply a relationship. A relationship between two things, neither of which were ever in the act of becoming, but were always in the act of being. The potency, the relationship, is still there. It’s just that we who exist in time, and that which doesn’t, perceive it differently.

For us, we perceive it as the actuality in one thing, changing the potency in another thing. But for that which is outside of time, it’s simply a relationship which always was.

Take my set of changing random numbers, and remove them from time. What you end up with is every set of numbers that could ever be, and every potential relationship between those numbers, that could ever be.

An infinitely large set of random numbers would contain every potential iteration of those numbers. What could be…would be. But not merely the numbers themselves, but the relationship between those numbers. What a number is, and what it could be. Everything that could possibly be, would exist within that set of random numbers.

The antithesis of absolutely nothing is infinity. Numbers are by their very nature, infinite.

So a necessary being is something which isn’t contingent upon something else for its existence. Something like numbers for example. Which exist, even if nothing else exists. And can neither be created nor destroyed.

Although it might seem like numbers are made up of distinct parts, they’re really not. Can you remove one from infinity, and make it one number smaller? Can you remove a hundred, or a million, and have any greater effect?

No part can be removed from them, and no part can be added to them. They’re complete, and will always and necessarily remain complete.

.

We are not dealing with abstract numbers, we are dealing with ontological objects that are changing. It is irrelevant whether or not there is an infinite number of changes. If we are not dealing with an object made up of distinct numbers then we are not really dealing with something made up of numbers and your argument becomes a fallacy.

 

[Nixbits]

What do you mean by

IWantGod:

More reality is being added to it

As a property of a thing, is ‘reality’ not a binary? A thing is either real or it is not. It cannot be fairly real or 32.4% real. What does adding more reality to something mean? Is it adding more real substance?

 

[Aloysium]

What do you mean by

As a property of a thing, is ‘reality’ not a binary? A thing is either real or it is not. It cannot be fairly real or 32.4% real. What does adding more reality to something mean? Is it adding more real substance?

I looked over the last couple of pages to find the quote you address. Outta luck.

I’m assuming it refers to Genesis, where it is described that on each successive “day” new creation was added, utilizing that which was, but then is brought into existence as new forms of being.

Simple life constitutes something different than the basic components which it utilizes to exist, grow and reproduce. By the time one reaches humankind, one finds a being so radically different and infinitely more complex than our physical substratum. Our capacities to reason, appreciate beauty, entertain the truth, self-reflect and act purposefully, to give or not to give of ourselves and hence to love, is an image of the true ultimate Ground of our existence, He who gives us being. All this is far beyond the simplicity of subatomic particles interacting - reality has been added to, in time.

I see no purpose in considering this in terms of a binary phenomenon. Seems besides the point.

Not knowing what the discussion is about and taking something out of context seems to provide one with the surest of opinion.

 

[Partinobodycula]

So your argument boils down to saying change does not exist? Then this discussion does not exist at all since there is no activity.

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you.

We are not dealing with abstract numbers, we are dealing with ontological objects that are changing. It is irrelevant whether or not there is an infinite number of changes. If we are not dealing with an object made up of distinct numbers then we are not really dealing with something made up of numbers and your argument becomes a fallacy.

Well since you asked me to correct you if you were misunderstanding me, and since this thread is about the most convincing argument for God, I’ll attempt to clarify the argument that God can be represented as an infinite set of fluctuating random numbers.

First let’s do a quick review of how our numbers possess the attributes of God. One, they’re simple. Two, they’re infinite. Three, they’re immutable. Four, they’re eternal. Five, they’re ubiquitous. Six, they’re perfect. And we could add a few more attributes that numbers possess, but these are good for starters.

Now to make this easier on me, let’s call this infinite set of fluctuating random numbers something a bit less cumbersome. Let’s call it chaos. There, that’s easy enough. God is analogous to chaos. To which everyone is now rolling their eyes in complete disbelief and indignation. They’re thinking that there’s absolutely no way that God could ever, ever be described as chaos. But before you react too hastily, let’s look at the amazing abilities of chaos.

Chaos not only can, but of necessity will, produce absolutely everything that you see around you, and more. Infinitely more. How does it do this? By containing within itself every configuration possible, including ordered ones. Yup, out of chaos must inevitably come order. And out of order comes time, and space, and consciousness, and everything required for consciousness. Everything that you see around you will inevitably arise out of chaos. Not maybe. Not possibly. But inevitably. Consciousness will inevitably arise out of chaos. You, will inevitably arise out of chaos.

IWantGod will probably claim that this is impossible, because numbers/chaos is an abstract concept and therefore incapable of creating anything. To which I would counter that God is an abstract concept as well, and thus no more capable of creating anything than chaos is. God and chaos are for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable. Now you may ascribe to God some attributes that He doesn’t of necessity possess, because you feel that He must have them, but you could then ascribe those attributes to chaos as well.

If you really want to try to reason out the nature of God, then you can’t simply dismiss the similarities between God and chaos. You have to leave your preconceptions at the proverbial door, and think. Why is the world the way it is?

For gosh sake, all that I’m asking you to do, is think. Perhaps you’re afraid of leaving the safety of your beliefs. But being afraid to go beyond what you believe, is like being afraid to go beyond the sky, to explore the stars. You have to go and look.

 

[IWantGod]

Well since you asked me to correct you if you were misunderstanding me, and since this thread is about the most convincing argument for God, I’ll attempt to clarify the argument that God can be represented as an infinite set of fluctuating random numbers.

First let’s do a quick review of how our numbers possess the attributes of God. One, they’re simple. Two, they’re infinite. Three, they’re immutable. Four, they’re eternal. Five, they’re ubiquitous. Six, they’re perfect. And we could add a few more attributes that numbers possess, but these are good for starters.

Now to make this easier on me, let’s call this infinite set of fluctuating random numbers something a bit less cumbersome. Let’s call it chaos. There, that’s easy enough. God is analogous to chaos. To which everyone is now rolling their eyes in complete disbelief and indignation. They’re thinking that there’s absolutely no way that God could ever, ever be described as chaos. But before you react too hastily, let’s look at the amazing abilities of chaos.

Chaos not only can, but of necessity will, produce absolutely everything that you see around you, and more. Infinitely more. How does it do this? By containing within itself every configuration possible, including ordered ones. Yup, out of chaos must inevitably come order. And out of order comes time, and space, and consciousness, and everything required for consciousness. Everything that you see around you will inevitably arise out of chaos. Not maybe. Not possibly. But inevitably. Consciousness will inevitably arise out of chaos. You, will inevitably arise out of chaos.

IWantGod will probably claim that this is impossible, because numbers/chaos is an abstract concept and therefore incapable of creating anything. To which I would counter that God is an abstract concept as well, and thus no more capable of creating anything than chaos is. God and chaos are for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable. Now you may ascribe to God some attributes that He doesn’t of necessity possess, because you feel that He must have them, but you could then ascribe those attributes to chaos as well.

If you really want to try to reason out the nature of God, then you can’t simply dismiss the similarities between God and chaos. You have to leave your preconceptions at the proverbial door, and think. Why is the world the way it is?

For gosh sake, all that I’m asking you to do, is think. Perhaps you’re afraid of leaving the safety of your beliefs. But being afraid to go beyond what you believe, is like being afraid to go beyond the sky, to explore the stars. You have to go and look.

What is the ontology of a number? How do you get from abstract numbers to a being that is in essence a number?

 

[IWantGod]

What do you mean by

As a property of a thing, is ‘reality’ not a binary? A thing is either real or it is not. It cannot be fairly real or 32.4% real. What does adding more reality to something mean? Is it adding more real substance?

If a nature becomes real, then reality cannot be said to be intrinsic to or identical with the nature in question. One can only say that it is subsisting in the act of reality. It has actuality, but it is not reality itself. The nature is being sustained in existence as opposed to having an independent act of existence identical with its essence.

 

[Partinobodycula]

What is the ontology of a number? How do you get from abstract numbers to a being that is in essence a number?

The short answer is, I don’t know. No more than you know how to explain creatio ex nihilo.

But then again, how do you know that you’re made up of anything more substantial than numbers?

After all, your conscious mind is all that you can ever be certain of, and what is that made of?

 

[yppop]

First let’s do a quick review of how our numbers possess the attributes of God. One, they’re simple. Two, they’re infinite. Three, they’re immutable. Four, they’re eternal. Five, they’re ubiquitous. Six, they’re perfect. And we could add a few more attributes that numbers possess, but these are good for starters.

What numbers are you referring to ?

Rational numbers are not ubiquitous and they’re not perfect; they are filled with holes on the real number line and hence in 3-dimensional space.

Real numbers are not chaotic since they are uncountable and infinitely divisible. There is no order therefore they can’t be disordered,i.e., made chaotic. At least not chaotic in the sense that you seem to use it, namely equating it to infinite outcomes.

God is not anyway associated with rational numbers but we humans may be. God may be associated with the real numbers since they easily define omnipresence and every other attribute of God.with the exception, of course, of omnipotence, and omniscience,

Now to make this easier on me, let’s call this something a bit less cumbersome. Let’s call it chaos. There, that’s easy enough. God is analogous to chaos. To which everyone is now rolling their eyes in complete disbelief and indignation. They’re thinking that there’s absolutely no way that God could ever, ever be described as chaos. But before you react too hastily, let’s look at the amazing abilities of chaos.

Chaos not only can, but of necessity will, produce absolutely everything that you see around you, and more. Infinitely more. How does it do this? By containing within itself every configuration possible, including ordered ones. Yup, out of chaos must inevitably come order. And out of order comes time, and space, and consciousness, and everything required for consciousness. Everything that you see around you will inevitably arise out of chaos. Not maybe. Not possibly. But inevitably. Consciousness will inevitably arise out of chaos. You, will inevitably arise out of chaos.

Are you at all familiar with chaos theory?
If not could you please explain your line of thinking when you equate " …infinite set of fluctuating random numbers" to “chaos” and that to “but of necessity will, produce absolutely everything that you see around you, and more”

If you are familiar with chaos theory please explain how it produces everything?

For gosh sake, all that I’m asking you to do, is think. Perhaps you’re afraid of leaving the safety of your beliefs. But being afraid to go beyond what you believe, is like being afraid to go beyond the sky, to explore the stars. You have to go and look.

Yppop

 

[IWantGod]

The short answer is, I don’t know. No more than you know how to explain creatio ex nihilo.

But then again, how do you know that you’re made up of anything more substantial than numbers?

After all, your conscious mind is all that you can ever be certain of, and what is that made of?

Ex-nihilo is explained by God having an intellect and having a nature that is identical with the act of existence, and since we subsist in God’s intellect then the potentiality of our being is actualised in God’s intellect which is identical with the act of God’s existence. So we move and have our being in God. So the universe is in a sense a mathematical construct actualised as qualities, quantity and dimension. But mathematical representations are abstract by their very nature. It is not concrete like the universe.

Even if we cannot comprehend exnihilo, I can certainly comprehend the fact that numbers in and of themselves are not concrete objects. You are taking about abstract objects and asserting that it is real by calling it chaos, but what ever you want to call it, if its essence is changing in anyway then its essence is actualised potential. You are saying that its essence is infinite and isn’t changing in terms of its parts but at the same time it is changing anyway. But all change is actualised potential and therefore its essence cannot possibly have in it the fullness of “existence” even if it is infinite in number or extent.

 

[e_c]

After all, your conscious mind is all that you can ever be certain of, and what is that made of?

I recall Gilson saying that there was plenty of excuse for being a Descartes, but that there is no excuse for being a Cartesian.

I recommend his work. Try his short book on methodical realism.

 

[Partinobodycula]

First, I hope that you appreciate what I’m about to do. I’m going to attempt to switch from one line of reasoning, to a completely different line of reasoning. And try to make each of them logically coherent. This would probably be difficult for most anyone, and even more-so for someone like me with only a ninth grade education.

Secondly, while this may not be as difficult as trying to explain the physics behind creatio ex nihilo, it’s still a daunting task. But your question deserves a response, and so I’ll do my best.

What numbers are you referring to ?

In the hopes of making this as easy on myself as possible, let’s stick to the integers.

God may be associated with the real numbers since they easily define omnipresence and every other attribute of God.with the exception, of course, of omnipotence, and omniscience,

I could actually see how an argument could be made for omnipotence and omniscience as well. Omnipotence due to the fact that a chaotic system will produce every possible state of that system, thus there’s nothing that’s possible to create, that the system can’t, or won’t create.

Omniscience, could be trickier, because omniscience could be said to imply consciousness. And it might be difficult to see how a chaotic system could be conscious. However it could be argued that if the system gave rise to you, then you’re technically a part of the system, as well as any other consciousness that the system gives rise to. And if the system gives rise to every possible state of the system, then the system could be said to contain every possible consciousness, and thus everything that’s knowable.

Plus it’s difficult to say if a system that can give rise to consciousness, can’t be conscious itself. That’s part of the “and more” that I referred to.

Are you at all familiar with chaos theory?

Familiarity is a vague term, but I’ll answer yes.

If not could you please explain your line of thinking when you equate " …infinite set of fluctuating random numbers" to “chaos” and that to “but of necessity will, produce absolutely everything that you see around you, and more”

If you are familiar with chaos theory please explain how it produces everything?

WARNING: This is going to get complicated!!!

I’m going to combine these two questions together, as my answer will somewhat involve them both, and because this is going to be extremely difficult to follow. Like philosophy, or most any area of study, terminology may be a bit less precise than it is to the layman. For example, the meaning of the word “cause” to a philosopher, isn’t as clear cut as it is to the layman. In physics, the same is true for the term chaotic. But there are two main connotations. The first is what most people think of as chaotic. It’s a system that’s dynamic and random. But the other connotation of chaotic is the one used in Chaos Theory. It refers to a system that isn’t technically random, but rather, is only unpredictable. There’s a huge difference as far as this discussion is concerned.

Unfortunately for me, in the previous posts I framed the argument in terms of the first type. A chaotic system that’s completely random. It would be much, much easier for me if I was referring to the second type. But there’s a problem in referring to the second type, because the second type of chaotic system requires rules by which to govern the behavior of the system. Actually, only one. But without that rule, the system would simply behave randomly. The fact that it’s at least somewhat predictable, means that at least one rule exists. Which leads to the inevitable question, where did the rule come from?

Now it’s still possible, and in fact inevitable to create every possible configuration of the system, even if the system is totally random. The problem, is that order, although it would inevitably arise, would have no reason to be persistent. It would be like a tree for example, popping in and out of existence for no apparent reason. Cause and effect would be an illusion brought about by sheer chance. For the most part, such a system really would be chaotic.

In the second type of system on the other hand, it’s a piece of cake to produce a persistent order. It all depends upon that one simple rule. And all that rule says, is that one part of the system must be able to affect another part of the system. Which is why things aren’t entirely random. Basically you would then establish a relationship between differing parts of the system. Technically it wouldn’t be cause and effect at this point. Because neither one could be said to precede the other. You wouldn’t know which was the cause, and which was the effect. But from this relationship, cause and effect would inevitably arise, and reveal itself in the form of order.

I’m going to pause at this point to give us both a chance to digest this. But basically there are two types of chaotic systems. One that’s truly random, and one that’s merely unpredictable. At their core, there’s only one basic difference. In the first one, one part of the system can’t affect another part of the system. And in the second one, it can.

The goal going forward, is to figure out why.

 

[WT1]

The Real Pressence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Once I felt that there was no argument that would ever persuade me God didn’t exist.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Ex-nihilo is explained by God having an intellect and having a nature that is identical with the act of existence, and since we subsist in God’s intellect then the potentiality of our being is actualised in God’s intellect which is identical with the act of God’s existence.

Forgive me for getting nitpicky, but this doesn’t really explain how God created the physical world. But that’s really not important to me, there are some things that I just can’t expect you to be able to explain. All that I really want, is for you to admit, at least to yourself, that sometimes you you might be wrong. If you can do that, then at least I know that you’re honest, and that means more to me than whether or not you’re right.

Heck, I’m not afraid to admit that a lot of what I’ve been spouting in this thread has been reasoned out pretty much as I write it. I try my best to think things through, but in the end, you know what, I’m a bit clueless. So take what I say with a grain of salt, and I’ll take what you say with a grain of salt, and maybe next time we’ll each have a little better understanding of where the other one is coming from.

But in the meantime, I still think I’m right.

As for the concrete nature of numbers, let me remind you that it does say solipsist up in the corner. Which means that I question the concrete nature of everything. You wonder how immaterial numbers can give rise to a material world, I wonder how an immaterial God can do it. You question how numbers can change and yet not change. And I ask the same thing about God. Are you sure that my position is really all that crazy?

 

[IWantGod]

Forgive me for getting nitpicky, but this doesn’t really explain how God created the physical world. But that’s really not important to me, there are some things that I just can’t expect you to be able to explain. All that I really want, is for you to admit, at least to yourself, that sometimes you you might be wrong. If you can do that, then at least I know that you’re honest, and that means more to me than whether or not you’re right.

Heck, I’m not afraid to admit that a lot of what I’ve been spouting in this thread has been reasoned out pretty much as I write it. I try my best to think things through, but in the end, you know what, I’m a bit clueless. So take what I say with a grain of salt, and I’ll take what you say with a grain of salt, and maybe next time we’ll each have a little better understanding of where the other one is coming from.

But in the meantime, I still think I’m right.

As for the concrete nature of numbers, let me remind you that it does say solipsist up in the corner. Which means that I question the concrete nature of everything. You wonder how immaterial numbers can give rise to a material world, I wonder how an immaterial God can do it. You question how numbers can change and yet not change. And I ask the same thing about God. Are you sure that my position is really all that crazy?

Well, being right all the time isn’t likely. But I must say that every argument I have written I believe to be logically consistent with observation. I just have a hard time thinking that your arguments are logically consistent with what we observe.

But hey, I’m not perfect. And I’m certainly not real if I’m in your mind.

 

[inocente]

WARNING: This is going to get complicated!!!

I’m going to combine these two questions together, as my answer will somewhat involve them both, and because this is going to be extremely difficult to follow. Like philosophy, or most any area of study, terminology may be a bit less precise than it is to the layman. For example, the meaning of the word “cause” to a philosopher, isn’t as clear cut as it is to the layman. In physics, the same is true for the term chaotic. But there are two main connotations. The first is what most people think of as chaotic. It’s a system that’s dynamic and random. But the other connotation of chaotic is the one used in Chaos Theory. It refers to a system that isn’t technically random, but rather, is only unpredictable. There’s a huge difference as far as this discussion is concerned.

Unfortunately for me, in the previous posts I framed the argument in terms of the first type. A chaotic system that’s completely random. It would be much, much easier for me if I was referring to the second type. But there’s a problem in referring to the second type, because the second type of chaotic system requires rules by which to govern the behavior of the system. Actually, only one. But without that rule, the system would simply behave randomly. The fact that it’s at least somewhat predictable, means that at least one rule exists. Which leads to the inevitable question, where did the rule come from?

Now it’s still possible, and in fact inevitable to create every possible configuration of the system, even if the system is totally random. The problem, is that order, although it would inevitably arise, would have no reason to be persistent. It would be like a tree for example, popping in and out of existence for no apparent reason. Cause and effect would be an illusion brought about by sheer chance. For the most part, such a system really would be chaotic.

In the second type of system on the other hand, it’s a piece of cake to produce a persistent order. It all depends upon that one simple rule. And all that rule says, is that one part of the system must be able to affect another part of the system. Which is why things aren’t entirely random. Basically you would then establish a relationship between differing parts of the system. Technically it wouldn’t be cause and effect at this point. Because neither one could be said to precede the other. You wouldn’t know which was the cause, and which was the effect. But from this relationship, cause and effect would inevitably arise, and reveal itself in the form of order.

I’m going to pause at this point to give us both a chance to digest this. But basically there are two types of chaotic systems. One that’s truly random, and one that’s merely unpredictable. At their core, there’s only one basic difference. In the first one, one part of the system can’t affect another part of the system. And in the second one, it can.

The goal going forward, is to figure out why.

The first type is commonly called a disordered system, or better yet a system at maximum entropy. An example is the predicted heat-death of the universe. Energy is distributed completely evenly throughout the system so there’s no possibility of life or of anything interesting happening.

The second type is a chaotic system, in other words one which is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. An example is the weather.

Notice that both types are deterministic, and I think you’ll have a hard time getting from them to anything like a convincing argument for God.

Also your rule “that one part of the system must be able to affect another part of the system” is somewhat circular, since that’s basically how a system is defined (when one part can’t affect another, they’re separate isolated systems).

I could actually see how an argument could be made for omnipotence and omniscience as well. Omnipotence due to the fact that a chaotic system will produce every possible state of that system, thus there’s nothing that’s possible to create, that the system can’t, or won’t create.

You’ll create every possible state of a coin just by flipping it repeatedly, doesn’t make you omnipotent.

First let’s do a quick review of how our numbers possess the attributes of God. One, they’re simple. Two, they’re infinite. Three, they’re immutable. Four, they’re eternal. Five, they’re ubiquitous. Six, they’re perfect. And we could add a few more attributes that numbers possess, but these are good for starters.

Seven, they’re abstract whereas God is concrete, we don’t pray to a mere idea.

 

[Partinobodycula]

And I’m certainly not real if I’m in your mind.

Just for the sake of clarification, even if you’re only in my mind, you’re still real. I’m not uncertain “that” you are, I’m simply uncertain “what” you are.

As a solipsist, I maintain that there are three things that I can know to be true:

1. I am.
2. I didn’t give rise to myself.
3. “I am” is meaningless without the context (reality) which defines what I am.

Thus there is no me, without you.

 

[Partinobodycula]

The first type is commonly called a disordered system, or better yet a system at maximum entropy. An example is the predicted heat-death of the universe. Energy is distributed completely evenly throughout the system so there’s no possibility of life or of anything interesting happening.

The second type is a chaotic system, in other words one which is extremely sensitive to initial conditions. An example is the weather.

See, now this is something that happens to me quite often, that I’m unaware of the proper terminology for things. But I just figure that not knowing the proper name for something, doesn’t mean that I can’t figure out how it works. It may make it difficult for me to explain it to you however.

In this case the system that I was describing isn’t exactly the same as the one described in Chaos Theory. Because I was beginning with a system that had no initial conditions, other than it contained within itself every possible set of conditions. It’s this type of system that I was equating to God.

Notice that both types are deterministic, and I think you’ll have a hard time getting from them to anything like a convincing argument for God.

While it’s true that the system described in Chaos Theory is deterministic, it’s not true of the system that I was attempting to describe. That system simply contains every configuration that could possibly exist. Basically its initial conditions are, that it contains every possible set of initial conditions. My goal is then to explain how consciousness emerges with its own specific set of initial conditions. And what those conditions must be, in order to affect that emergence.

So what I’m proposing is that God is analogous to the system as a whole. And me, and everything around me is analogous to a subset of that system. God can then be said to be that which gives rise to me, and everything around me.

While its true that I may not be able to get to anything like a convincing argument for God, after all, convincing is a pretty lofty threshold. But I think that I can come pretty darn close.

Also your rule “that one part of the system must be able to affect another part of the system” is somewhat circular, since that’s basically how a system is defined (when one part can’t affect another, they’re separate isolated systems).

This is an astute observation. Which is kinda, sorta how I was planning to get from system one, to my preferred system, system two. But this isn’t that post. So maybe later.

You’ll create every possible state of a coin just by flipping it repeatedly, doesn’t make you omnipotent.

Nope, it doesn’t. But being able to define what the outcome of those coin flips can be, could be considered omnipotence.

Quick edit, I’m aware that the word “define” here, might be confusing. If it is, I’ll try to clarify.

Seven, they’re abstract whereas God is concrete, we don’t pray to a mere idea.

In what manner is God concrete?

 

[IWantGod]

Just for the sake of clarification, even if you’re only in my mind, you’re still real. I’m not uncertain “that” you are, I’m simply uncertain “what” you are.

As a solipsist, I maintain that there are three things that I can know to be true:

1. I am.
2. I didn’t give rise to myself.
3. “I am” is meaningless without the context (reality) which defines what I am.

Thus there is no me, without you.

I have some kind of reality but in what sense and how am I not just you talking to you. I don’t experience myself as being in your mind so I cannot possibly agree with you. This is just an idea that you have.

Also how does it follow from 3 that there is no you without me? You experience what we call beings, and that’s how you know you exist. You choose to doubt the objectivity of those beings.