What is your favorite proof for God?

[greylorn]

According to you this extremely complex intelligence you call God came in to existence via natural events. If you think that this is a credible idea, then surely you can accept the possibility that extremely less complex entities such as our selves could have also come in to existence via natural events? So why the need to postulate the existence of your so called intelligent designer? When compared to the complexity of your God, our existence is certainly more likely. Hence the big whole in your theory. Given this fact, I don’t think that leading atheist intellectuals will be losing much sleep over your theory.

Also; it seems evident to me that atheism would be true regardless of whether your theory was right or wrong. Your God is no more a God to me than a human being is a God to an AI-Robot. You God doesn’t really solve any of the issues that really matter in life. You are certainly welcome to postulate the existence of such a being, but this being is no more credible or relevant to me than the idea that a group of alien beings from a parallel universe creating life on earth. At the end of the day they are just other contingent beings in the universe who ultimately came in to existence by chance, and probably have no more understanding about what life ultimately amounts to than we do. Your God still doesn’t resolve the issue of objective nihilism. What about objective morality meaning and purpose? Your God has no relevance in terms of my spiritual needs. Such a being might as well just not exist at all.

That’s not surprising to me. This is why you are trying so hard to substitute the Catholic God for your counterfeit version.

Moneys tight at the moment and probably will be for a long while. But if you are happy to be charitable I will gladly read it and make a critical analysis of it.

Good luck. I hope they will allow it. I don’t see why not.

God bless.

I’ve only offered bits and pieces of my ideas here, in context, and as seems appropriate. That’s not enough information for anyone to determine exactly what they are, or what their implications might be.

So, please read the book before criticizing, must less condemning ideas of which you are not aware. It will cost you no more than a cheap Mexican dinner, washed down by a can of the domestic beer commonly known as Rocky Mountain panther urine. You’ll get to choose whether to fill your belly for an hour, or nourish your mind for life. Offhand, I’ll give your mind the same odds as the Chicago Cubs winning the next Superbowl.

 

[greylorn]

Why would something physical have to cause the big bang? The singularity itself cannot by definition be physical.

I agree there is no such thing as a “physical” singularity, but nonetheless, this doesn’t change the fact that if you reverse the expansion of the universe you end up with a singularity; which marks the beginning of physical reality; space time and energy. Given that the universe is dynamic by nature of its expansion, this is good evidence in itself that the universe extends from a compact singular point, beyond which nothing physical exists.

I can work with people who have not actually done the math, but not with those who are absolutely incapable, in this lifetime, of understanding the math, or the physics— yet who write as if they understand physics. There is no point in it arguing with anyone who pretends to knowledge which he has not earned. Might as well argue with Barry Soretoro and Nancy Pelosi. Life is too short.

Your opinions are all derived from a curious mix of religious beliefs and pop science journals. You are trying to think from two opposing perspectives. You are welcome to whatever you come up with, but do not ask me, ever again, PLEASE, to reconcile your positions with mine. It cannot be done. So kindly just keep yours and expound them as you please, but to someone else.

You haven’t show any contradictions other than the fact that it doesn’t fit in with your paradigm, and thus it upsets you and, to my delight, many atheists too.

This will be our last correspondence.

 

[Liraco]

When you made your first appearance on this planet, your mind was pretty much nonexistent. You were not conscious. Now you are. Getting here from there took some time, and is continuing.

It would appear that the god your describing is essentially a vastly superior version of us. He has an origin, he started without knowledge but with time came to acquire it because of that potential.

It doesn’t answer what the “simpler something” that gave rise to him is. How it is that god could come into being (his origin) without being deliberately created? I imagine it’s not random chance but it’s not design either, so I’m curious.

I’ve not studied formal philosophy, remember, and notions like contingency and causal layering tend to make my brain go fuzzy.

I’m no philosopher, but let me give it another try.

Using basic logic you can observe secondary causes. Secondary causes would imply an ultimate source, the first cause.

Imagine a train with 1, ten or a billion cars moving. One pulls the one after it but follow the train and you’ll find an engine pulling them all. Same with a row of falling dominoes or how you’re here because of your parents and they came from your grandparents, etc, etc.

Secondary causes require an origin, a first cause, the root of everything (even god in your case unless I’m mistaken again). I think this would fit into your “simple something” but you mention leaving things out for the book so that’ll have to wait I suppose.

When I reference the laws of physics, I am doing my best to properly interpret the certain words of God.

I’m reminded of Galileo, “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” I’m glad of your efforts to find God like any honest person seeking the truth, I just hope you can soon find whether you interpret rightly or not.

I went to the beach…

Sorry I struck a nerve. Here’s what I was alluding to (in super-condensed form).
There is a story that St. Augustine was walking on the beach contemplating the mystery of the Trinity. He saw a boy in front of him who had dug a hole in the sand and was going out to the sea again and again and bringing some water to pour into the hole. St. Augustine asked him, “What are you doing?”
“I’m going to pour the entire ocean into this hole.”
“That is impossible, the whole ocean will not fit in the hole you have made” said St. Augustine.
The boy replied, “And you cannot fit the Trinity in your head.”

It seems logical that you avoid ambiguity to favor describing “them” in concrete terms, as something entirely knowable and definable. I see no problem with trying to understand God, but to a simpleton like myself it almost looks like you’re trying to stuff something massive into a tiny box. I’m sure there’s much unsaid for now though.

It’s interesting that you mention uncreated laws to describe god. So then is god bound by all these laws or are there exceptions and why?

Do these uncreated laws have purpose? I would assume they do, so then doesn’t purpose imply a reason for being? We’re not advocating random chance. Are these laws, like god, uncreated but with an origin or are they beyond one? In other words how and why are they there?

You would make a fine scientist.

Too kind though I did consider science as a career choice, but I never felt the call. I do enjoy reading what I can though.

At the very least from what little I do know I can’t understand those who feel threated by science. If we are true Catholics, then we hold that God is Truth, and that truth can’t contradict truth (obviously) so *science *on its own is not a threat. *Scientists *who exploit it for their own gain though…

---

I’d be glad to see this “ammunition” (your book) in the “war” against atheism.

As for the “cheap mexican dinner”, I’m sure I’ll need a more adequate conversion unit to guesstimate the cost as I’m actually in Mexico and those cheap dinners are likely cheaper and, though tasty, can sometimes make you wish you hadn’t gone there.

---

@Mind: I hope you reconsider your style of argumentation because things like “to my delight” don’t come off well. You do ask some honest questions but they’re mixed with attacks which are the best way to not get an answer. Once you start screaming, all the other hears is the volume.

As Catholics we’re here to learn and speak the truth, not please ourselves and delight in winning arguments

“You can win the argument but lose the soul” as venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen once said. One needs to listen more than talk. It’s the Holy Spirit that does the converting, all we can do is plant the seeds.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I can work with people who have not actually done the math, but not with those who are absolutely incapable, in this lifetime, of understanding the math, or the physics— yet who write as if they understand physics. There is no point in it arguing with anyone who pretends to knowledge which he has not earned. Might as well argue with Barry Soretoro and Nancy Pelosi. Life is too short.

Your opinions are all derived from a curious mix of religious beliefs and pop science journals. You are trying to think from two opposing perspectives. You are welcome to whatever you come up with, but do not ask me, ever again, PLEASE, to reconcile your positions with mine. It cannot be done. So kindly just keep yours and expound them as you please, but to someone else.

This will be our last correspondence.

A disrespectful dodge. In your desperate attempt to regain some credibility you have now built up this fallacy that unless I understand the maths I cannot possibility comprehend why your “philosophical world-view” is wrong, and then you accuse every other scientist that disagree with you as being wrong. Not only is this dogmatic thinking, its not science; its your philosophy. This is all you ever do, and it shows your inability to really defend yourself. I don’t need an in-depth understanding of the mathematics involved in-order to realise that the reasons you have presented for objecting to a singularity are invalid reasons when it comes to logic. My arguments are valid, and they will remain valid regardless of whether or not you will ever have the courage to face the reality of them. Your philosophical world is not an outworking of the scientific data.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

@Mind: I hope you reconsider your style of argumentation because things like “to my delight” don’t come off well. You do ask some honest questions but they’re mixed with attacks which are the best way to not get an answer. Once you start screaming, all the other hears is the volume.

As Catholics we’re here to learn and speak the truth, not please ourselves and delight in winning arguments

“You can win the argument but lose the soul” as venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen once said. One needs to listen more than talk. It’s the Holy Spirit that does the converting, all we can do is plant the seeds.

Its a shame that you cannot see the disrespectful nature of Greylorn, constantly trying to treat me as if I am stupid; but then again perhaps you haven’t see the history of our discussions. While I can agree with your statement in general, there is nothing wrong with my being delighted that atheism is false and that therefore nihilism is false. This is a cause for celebration; not kowtowing. This is the context in which I spoke of delight.

But I am sorry if I put the faith in a bad light.

 

[JohnDamian]

A disrespectful dodge. In your desperate attempt to regain some credibility you have now built up this fallacy that unless I understand the maths I cannot possibility comprehend why your “philosophical world-view” is wrong, and then you accuse every other scientist that disagree with you as being wrong.

I point out here that “understanding the math” is clearly not a prequisite to understanding philosophy; nor is it an end.

It is entirely possible to understand philosophy without mathematics; and it is entirely impossible for philosophy to be encapsulated in mathematics. This is the case because unity is not numerical in all instantiations.

Thus; a knowlege of mathematics is generally irrelevant to philosophy, anyone who has done even the most cursory reading of philosophy will know this. Greylorn seems to feel mathematics valuable; and there has been no evidence or information as to why; wheras I can oblige by demonstrating why mathematics is at best worthless; and at worst poppycock to metaphysics.

a) The same, the similar and the equal are all based on the notion of one, so that even though a similarity has for its foundation a thing in the genus of quality, nevertheless such a relation is not real unless it has a real foundation and a real proximate basis for the founding. Therefore the unity required in the foundation of the relation of similarity is a real one. but it is not numerical unity; since nothing one and the same is similar or equal to iself.
b) If every real unity is numerical unity, therefore every real diversity is numerical diversity. The consequent is truly false; for every numerical diversity insofar as it is numerical is equal; ie; ergo everything would be equally distinct.

There is no way mathematics will ever prove or support an argument for the existence of God.

 

[Jessup]

The organization of the universe, The Krebs cycle, first law of conservative energy. Naturally occurring numbers in nature, such as pi, e or phi.(golden ratio) the idea that the universe has a limit in a finite sense. but is also growing so you can never approach that limit. Basically just how organized everything is.

 

[greylorn]

I point out here that “understanding the math” is clearly not a prequisite to understanding philosophy; nor is it an end.

It is entirely possible to understand philosophy without mathematics; and it is entirely impossible for philosophy to be encapsulated in mathematics. This is the case because unity is not numerical in all instantiations.

Thus; a knowlege of mathematics is generally irrelevant to philosophy, anyone who has done even the most cursory reading of philosophy will know this. Greylorn seems to feel mathematics valuable; and there has been no evidence or information as to why; wheras I can oblige by demonstrating why mathematics is at best worthless; and at worst poppycock to metaphysics.

a) The same, the similar and the equal are all based on the notion of one, so that even though a similarity has for its foundation a thing in the genus of quality, nevertheless such a relation is not real unless it has a real foundation and a real proximate basis for the founding. Therefore the unity required in the foundation of the relation of similarity is a real one. but it is not numerical unity; since nothing one and the same is similar or equal to iself.
b) If every real unity is numerical unity, therefore every real diversity is numerical diversity. The consequent is truly false; for every numerical diversity insofar as it is numerical is equal; ie; ergo everything would be equally distinct.

There is no way mathematics will ever prove or support an argument for the existence of God.

Do not be too certain of that, for it depends upon the definition of God. The currently popular God-concept incorporates the notions of omnipotence and omniscience, and declares that God is a non-physical spirit. The concept is structured such that it cannot possibly be expressed in mathematical terms. Thus it cannot be proven in that context.

However, the validity of the concept itself can be disproven, as I’ve done on CAF several times. (So please do not request a repeat.) Likewise, the concept is easily shown to contradict Biblical passages. But, so what?

What mathematics and physics can do is describe a Creator whose existence can be validated by experiment (inferentially, of course).​

I’d like to clear up a falsehood perpetrated by MOM which you may have bought into. I do not and will never propose that math is necessary to understanding philosophy.

However, I declare that philosophers who do not understand math and physics will never understand anything useful about the universe.

By way of counter-argument to this claim, there is the brilliant set of deductions made by John Locke, from naked eye observations of the night sky, that our sun is contained within a large, interconnected group of stars (the Milky Way), that it is near the outskirts of this galaxy, and that the universe might contain many more of these structures.

Had his genius been embraced by philosophers in general, rather than being mostly ignored (except in retrospect) I would hold the field of philosophy in much greater respect. As it is, Locke’s insights were lost to the world. The effective discovery of galaxies came with the engineering of big telescopes.

That Locke receives no credit for his insights is the fault of the field of study within which he worked. Instead of acknowledging his logic, simple-minded philosophers felt it incumbent upon themselves to generate nitwitic counter-arguments.

Parallels abound elsewhere.

 

[greylorn]

It would appear that the god your describing is essentially a vastly superior version of us. He has an origin, he started without knowledge but with time came to acquire it because of that potential.

You are pretty much correct. Just eliminate “time” from your conclusion.

It doesn’t answer what the “simpler something” that gave rise to him is. How it is that god could come into being (his origin) without being deliberately created? I imagine it’s not random chance but it’s not design either, so I’m curious.

Well, see, this is why I make the big bucks, for figuring out how God could come to be without being created. Took me nearly 50 years. You’ll need to stay curious until I finish the book, else figure it out for yourself. I suspect that you are entirely capable of doing so, now that you know the answer exists.

I hope that you stick with this, because the book will leave some unanswered questions, and they will need someone other than me to resolve them.

I’m no philosopher, but let me give it another try.

Using basic logic you can observe secondary causes. Secondary causes would imply an ultimate source, the first cause.

Imagine a train with 1, ten or a billion cars moving. One pulls the one after it but follow the train and you’ll find an engine pulling them all. Same with a row of falling dominoes or how you’re here because of your parents and they came from your grandparents, etc, etc.

Secondary causes require an origin, a first cause, the root of everything (even god in your case unless I’m mistaken again). I think this would fit into your “simple something” but you mention leaving things out for the book so that’ll have to wait I suppose.

Good explanation. I apologize for not making my complaint with philosophy more clear. I know what secondary cause are. (Acceleration is the second derivative of space with respect to time. Basic Newtonian physics.) Modern day philosophers tend to use complex terms to describe simple concepts. That is what numbs my mind.

I’m reminded of Galileo, “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” I’m glad of your efforts to find God like any honest person seeking the truth, I just hope you can soon find whether you interpret rightly or not.

Good that you appreciate Galileo. I’ve been a Galileo fan since my first serious physics course. He is the source of my style of thinking— that of seeking the Creator in the laws of His universe, not in some stuff that men made up.

I’ve found. Expressing is the current work.

Sorry I struck a nerve. Here’s what I was alluding to (in super-condensed form).
There is a story that St. Augustine was walking on the beach contemplating the mystery of the Trinity. He saw a boy in front of him who had dug a hole in the sand and was going out to the sea again and again and bringing some water to pour into the hole. St. Augustine asked him, “What are you doing?”
“I’m going to pour the entire ocean into this hole.”
“That is impossible, the whole ocean will not fit in the hole you have made” said St. Augustine.
The boy replied, “And you cannot fit the Trinity in your head.”

Nerves unscathed. I’d not heard this version of the story. So thanks!

It seems logical that you avoid ambiguity to favor describing “them” in concrete terms, as something entirely knowable and definable. I see no problem with trying to understand God, but to a simpleton like myself it almost looks like you’re trying to stuff something massive into a tiny box. I’m sure there’s much unsaid for now though.

Interesting analogy. I understand your perspective. In your terms, the best way to put it is that I’ve devised new boxes. I sure hope that they don’t turn out to be high-tech garbage trucks.

 

[greylorn]

It’s interesting that you mention uncreated laws to describe god. So then is god bound by all these laws or are there exceptions and why?

You continue to draw correct conclusions, from which you derive insightful questions.

God is bound by all uncreated laws. Using these, He created the universe, and in the process, the laws by which it, but not He, is bound— except as He might need to interact with it.

(That’s not a big deal. It’s like playing football. Set up the rules and play the game accordingly. If you don’t like the rules, they can be changed. Then, play by the new rules.)

I make the big bucks by figuring out which laws are created and which are not, but I should not earn a nickel for this, because the difference is obvious.

Do these uncreated laws have purpose? I would assume they do, so then doesn’t purpose imply a reason for being? We’re not advocating random chance. Are these laws, like god, uncreated but with an origin or are they beyond one? In other words how and why are they there?

Uncreated laws have no purpose whatsoever. They are merely expressions of how something uncreated behaves. They are simply descriptors of the primeval stuff from which God emerged and the universe was created.

Created laws have purpose. Like the laws of a country, or the rules of football. Or the rules of quantum mechanics and the four forces. Include the 20 exactly-just-so-or-the-universe-would-not-work constants in this thought package.

Purpose is the consequence of a conscious mind. It has no other source.

At the very least from what little I do know I can’t understand those who feel threated by science. If we are true Catholics, then we hold that God is Truth, and that truth can’t contradict truth (obviously) so *science *on its own is not a threat. *Scientists *who exploit it for their own gain though…

The Church was given but a single mandate, by Jesus Christ, which was to promulgate his teachings. It became very successful by adhering to this mandate. Successful but unstructured movements are regularly taken over by the politically adept. Constantine took over the Church and made it a tool of the Roman state, filtering its ideas according to his needs. Thereafter, the Church’s primary purpose, just explaining the teachings of Christ, became subjugated to political ends. By the middle ages, Church and State were hand in glove.

The Catholic Church (and all others) made an unfortunate choice to adopt the fundamental beliefs of Greeks and Babylonians which had been adopted by Judaism during the Babylonian captivities (Genesis), and extend them into the understanding of nature. They did a poor job of it, and, thanks to Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, these unnecessary derivative beliefs have been bludgeoned by science, to the Church’s discredit.

These mistakes have yet to be fully corrected. I was taught in Catholic grade schools, by priests and nuns, that six-day creation was the absolute truth.

The Church’s ill-advised foray into matters of science is being corrected, by science. The Church follows along, but grudgingly, for it has yet to realize its fundamental error— that of diverging from the purpose with which Christ had charged it.

Another error which the Church made was in attempting to divine the nature, properties, and purpose of God from human philosophers, (Augustine, Aquinas). The properties of God were not its business, and are irrelevant to the teachings of Christ.

These are, of course, strictly my personal opinions.

These include the notion that the Church would be best served by abandoning the ideas which its followers have invented, and which its theologians have torqued from the words of Christ, and get back to its original job. Christ is its source. If the Church hangs its hat on Christ’s honestly-translated concepts (his ideas, not his words) it will live forever.

By letting go of the notion that it must define God, and explain God’s purpose, scientists and philosophers will be free to pursue these questions. The Church has enough to do, simply teaching behavioral standards to a planetful of self-centered fools.

Given this history, it is inevitable that those who have chosen to believe religious teachings about the nature of reality, and of God Himself, will be fearful that science will do with those beliefs what it did with six-day creation and an earth-centered universe.

A case can be made that this fear extends beyond the Catholic Church, and represents the deeper reason for Islam’s recent ferocious onslaught upon Judaeo-Christian civilization.

I’d be glad to see this “ammunition” (your book) in the “war” against atheism.

It is ammo only in the sense that a thermonuclear bomb carried by a stealth bomber is regarded by the pilot as “ammunition.”

As for the “cheap mexican dinner”, I’m sure I’ll need a more adequate conversion unit to guesstimate the cost as I’m actually in Mexico and those cheap dinners are likely cheaper and, though tasty, can sometimes make you wish you hadn’t gone there.

If the standards are similar to those of my last visits to your country, convert the book price to an elegant, well served dinner for you and your senorita, with a quintuplet of margueritas to prevent Montezuma’s revenge.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi greylorn. I haven’t talked to you in a while. You may like this.

 

[JohnDamian]

What mathematics and physics can do is describe a Creator whose existence can be validated by experiment (inferentially, of course).

Any proof resting in numerical unity can equally be dismissed by referance to a lack of numerical diversity in individuals; such a theory would be meaningless as it does not reflect the real world.

However, I declare that philosophers who do not understand math and physics will never understand anything useful about the universe.

To say that diminishes the works of the following (most of which are available in English); Francis Mayron (adequacy in definitions; perception; conclusiones concilantes), Albert the Great (Summa de Creaturis), Aquinas (on materia signata(specified matter); commentary on metaphysics), Duns Scotus (on individuation; Ordinatio, law of Parsimony), . To name just four.

I’d like to clear up a falsehood perpetrated by MOM which you may have bought into. I do not and will never propose that math is necessary to understanding philosophy.

It seems; that particularily with regards to ontology and metaphysics; you seem to feel that for it to be a practical science; mathematics is required.

Well, see, this is why I make the big bucks, for figuring out how God could come to be without being created. Took me nearly 50 years.

Took me ten seconds; obviously the (instantiated) totality of contingency cannot be contingent upon a member or a composite of itself; ergo there must be that which is contrary; viz. necessary.

They are simply descriptors of the primeval stuff from which God emerged and the universe was created.

Where does “primeval stuff” come from; if it is prior to God?

I make the big bucks by figuring out which laws are created and which are not, but I should not earn a nickel for this, because the difference is obvious.

It is not wrong to earn a living examining the world.

Thereafter, the Church’s primary purpose, just explaining the teachings of Christ, became subjugated to political ends. By the middle ages, Church and State were hand in glove.

It is clear that from the Start the Church was against (if tolerant of) civil interventions; 1Cor 6:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

, for it depends upon the definition of God. The concept is structured such that it cannot possibly be expressed in mathematical terms. Thus it cannot be proven in that context.

This is correct. A worthy concept of God that is relevant to peoples lives cannot be proven in a scientific sense.

However, the validity of the concept itself can be disproved, as I’ve done on CAF several times. (So please do not request a repeat.)

We don’t need to ask for a repeat because you have never disproved the concept. All you have done is expressed a prejudice towards the idea and claimed that your prejudice is an expression of science. I say its an expression of your misunderstanding of science.

What mathematics and physics can do is describe a Creator whose existence can be validated by experiment (inferentially, of course).

Your incredibly complex entity which arose from natural causes and then supposedly created us. Good luck with that.

I’d like to clear up a falsehood perpetrated by MOM which you may have bought into. I do not and will never propose that math is necessary to understanding philosophy.

That’s what you said, but I doubt that you imagine that what you are saying is purely philosophical and is not actually taught by science. Your attempt to reduce the nature of reality to anything which can be empirically measured, and is quantifiable, has not been validated by you or anyone else for that matter. This idea that the only kind of interaction or cause which can exist are those which can be empirically measured is not proven by science. Your idea that the laws of energy are absolute and universal beyond the context of physics has not be proven by science. These are philosophical ideas based on what you think science is telling you. I argue that once you understand the limitations of empirical research, you cannot honestly hold to the philosophical positions that you are presenting and call it science. You can hold to the philosophical position if you want, but Aquinas has proven it to be flawed.

However, I declare that philosophers who do not understand maths and physics will never understand anything useful about the universe.

I can know useful things about existence without in-depth maths, and scientific truth can be communicated to the public with out reference to maths. Your attempt to confine all true knowledge to mathematics and the empirical sciences is quite simply a fallacious idea which is based on the superficial notion that because we have scientifically progressed in are understanding of physical reality that therefore philosophy has no application. You have provided no real evidence other then that you fail to understand that there are different perspectives of reality from which different methods of acquiring true knowledge make their approach. Metaphysics is one approach, and none of these approaches have an exclusive claim on reality.

By way of counter-argument to this claim, there is the brilliant set of **deductions ** made by John Locke, from naked eye observations of the night sky, that our sun is contained within a large, interconnected group of stars (the Milky Way), that it is near the outskirts of this galaxy, and that the universe might contain many more of these structures.

Had his genius been embraced by philosophers in general, rather than being mostly ignored (except in retrospect) I would hold the field of philosophy in much greater respect. As it is, Locke’s insights were lost to the world. The effective discovery of galaxies came with the engineering of big telescopes.

From what you have stated, it seems clear to me that Locke was doing philosophy and was not producing anything which could be deemed, at that time, as empirically verifiable, since like you say, the galaxies were not verified until the telescopes were made. The counter attacks were perhaps examples of philosophy being poorly applied, but this is not an example that philosophy has no application to the real world, otherwise you would have to say that Locke was wrong for making those philosophical deductions. However, philosophy is meant to make inferences to absolutes rather than scientific particulars. Science trumps philosophy in its own field of investigation in to the particularities of physical being; but science is equally invalid when it comes to metaphysical absolutes. Science can certainly inform metaphysics, but it cannot gain for us the kind of knowledge that metaphysics can gain for us. Metaphysics studies being in a manner that does not interfere with Scientific questions, accept in cases were scientists want to do away with logic altogether; and when we do away with logic, this destroys both science and philosophy.

That Locke receives no credit for his insights is the fault of the field of study within which he worked. Instead of acknowledging his logic, simple-minded philosophers felt it incumbent upon themselves to generate nitwitic counter-arguments.

Well, if Locke ideas were not yet provable “scientifically”, then obviously they will be subject to philosophical scrutiny and counter arguments. Do you get upset when counter hypothesis are made in science? Of course not. This is a poor reason to reject philosophy.

Parallels abound elsewhere.

Straw-men abound elsewhere.

 

[greylorn]

Hi greylorn. I haven’t talked to you in a while. You may like this.

Quite a while. I opened the link, thank you I’m glad to know that a few others have figured out the same things, but, unfortunately their argument is written in philosophy-speak, which to me is a genuinely foreign language. I’d be looking at a day’s work to get through it.

If I get a chance to study it before publication I’ll include the link as reference material. My own arguments are written in plain English and while they are not rigorous, many reviewers have found them convincing.

Did you get through the logic yourself, and if so, what are your opinions of its value? And is it convincing for you? Thanks!

 

[greylorn]

Any proof resting in numerical unity can equally be dismissed by referance to a lack of numerical diversity in individuals; such a theory would be meaningless as it does not reflect the real world.

Would you kindly examine the paper referenced above by A Watkins in post 799? You will make better sense of it than I, and I would appreciate your honest evaluation. This request is because you understand the language in which it is written, while I would have to struggle with it. Thanks!

Be forewarned that it proposes to prove a notion which I’ve introduced here before, that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. However, it does so with what appears to be philosophical rigor.

It seems; that particularily with regards to ontology and metaphysics; you seem to feel that for it to be a practical science; mathematics is required.

Pretty much true. As currently practiced, I regard metaphysics as a subset of philosophy, very far from scientific credibility.

My approach to figuring out the beginnings is derived from physics, and to differentiate my ideas, I regard them as antephysics.

Where does “primeval stuff” come from; if it is prior to God?

I believe that I addressed this in prior conversations with Liraco. I don’t recall the post #, but that was just a few days ago, I believe.

It is not wrong to earn a living examining the world.

Agreed. However, it is wrong (well, stupid anyway) to expect to make a living at it unless one has a tenured university position, which would have been impossible for me. So I keep a day job, fix my own stuff and cut my own firewood.

 

[JohnDamian]

Would you kindly examine the paper referenced above by A Watkins in post 799? You will make better sense of it than I, and I would appreciate your honest evaluation. This request is because you understand the language in which it is written, while I would have to struggle with it. Thanks!

The argument A Watkins gave was flawed;

q does not justify or explain 16 & 17, and ultimately 18, in any meaningful sense.

Nor does he show that (as in his introduction is claimed) there is reason for “worship, adoration, love, respect, and obedience.”

There is no reason from that Argument to assume personality; goodness etc.; the argument also makes use of a hard version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason; which is somewhat repugnant to objective enquiry.

Moreover; the layout of the argument is ugly; argumentation which utilises algebreic referants contstrains itself and makes itself harder to qualify each notative statement; ie; one cannot qualify X or Y except in referential terms; which further detracts from the flow of an argument; granted one can numerically or algebreically qualify; but then these qualities need qualification and so on etc.; a repungnancy follows; both to the eyes and to the mind.

Be forewarned that it proposes to prove a notion which I’ve introduced here before, that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. However, it does so with what appears to be philosophical rigor.

It does not really propose that God is neither omnipotent or omniscient; merely that there is no reason to believe that he is omnipotent or omniscient because we can only believe rationally that the potency of an individual is as high as the potency that individual has enacted; as God has not enacted an infinite potency; we cannot know he has infinite power.

Speaking in analogy; If the strongest thing I have ever lifted was say, ten stone; then you would have no reason to believe that I could lift more than ten stone. Unless; you were to observe my person and note that I had a physique that was capable of greater; as we cannot observe the physique per se of God; we cannot know that he is capable of greater – therein; it is only reasonable to assume that he is “at least” capable of producing what he produced (universe); as the universe is not infinite; we have no reason to believe his power must be infinite; or for that matter any greater than that which he has previously used.

 

[Liraco]

Its a shame that you cannot see the disrespectful nature of Greylorn, constantly trying to treat me as if I am stupid; but then again perhaps you haven’t see the history of our discussions. While I can agree with your statement in general, there is nothing wrong with my being delighted that atheism is false and that therefore nihilism is false. This is a cause for celebration; not kowtowing. This is the context in which I spoke of delight.

But I am sorry if I put the faith in a bad light.

I do see it, which is why perhaps it’d be a good time to apply “put the other cheek” in suffering patiently and not fighting back attacks. Respond in love and truth and ignore the attacks. I haven’t seen how the discussion has progressed (52 pages ) so this was just how I perceived it.

The thing about Greylorn is that he’s against atheism too. I’m not sure what to call it exactly, but some form of theism at the very least.

---

Uncreated laws have no purpose whatsoever. They are merely expressions of how something uncreated behaves. They are simply descriptors of the primeval stuff from which God emerged and the universe was created.

Purpose is the consequence of a conscious mind. It has no other source.

I see purpose in everything which would include these “uncreated” laws because my tiny brain can’t understand something existing since the beginning and being without purpose/reason. I imagine it fits into your “simplest something” idea though and that’s where it would make sense. I haven’t done all the work you have and this is certainly beyond my pay-grade but I’d wager that understanding everything fully is beyond anyone’s.

You mention God creating laws which are the ones we’re bound to, but in my concept of God, even the “uncreated laws” had their source in Him. As has been said before though, that book seems to be the key for proper further discussion.

These mistakes have yet to be fully corrected. I was taught in Catholic grade schools, by priests and nuns, that six-day creation was the absolute truth

Indeed, there are a lot of errors that need correcting but I’m not leaving Peter because of Judas (or Jesus for that matter). Just like priests who erroneously teach contraception is ok, it’s a shame you were taught that literal 24-hour 7-day creation was the absolute truth when the Church teaches no such thing.

Numbers do have a lot of meaning, especially throughout the Bible. For example it says God rested on the 7th day, Saturday, the same day which Jesus would “rest” the whole day.

While it could be possible, it wouldn’t follow for God to lie and give the universe the appearance of age and to show events that never really happened. Even if possible, I’m sure you’d agree it wouldn’t make sense to go this route.

Christ is its source. If the Church hangs its hat on Christ’s honestly-translated concepts (his ideas, not his words) it will live forever.

Well we have his ideas AND words in Sacred Tradition and the Bible, though you say that it’s merely the work of men so I’d ask where, then, do we get His true ideas?

By letting go of the notion that it must define God, and explain God’s purpose, scientists and philosophers will be free to pursue these questions.

While understanding things about God is certainly important, I don’t think the Church will ever define God. Individuals may have, but She hasn’t. Truly defining Him would again be like trying to put Him in a box.

Speaking of which, I’ll be looking forward to your new boxes. I had certainly never heard of such a proposition before which is intriguing.

I have this funny mental image of you as smart-Homer putting flyers on windshields but instead of mathematically disproving God to Flanders you’re basically doing the opposite. (Not sure if you catch the Simpsons reference, they used to be funny.)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The thing about Greylorn is that he’s against atheism too. I’m not sure what to call it exactly, but some form of theism at the very least.

Would you say that your Mom and Father are Gods?

 

[greylorn]

I see purpose in everything which would include these “uncreated” laws because my tiny brain can’t understand something existing since the beginning and being without purpose/reason. I imagine it fits into your “simplest something” idea though and that’s where it would make sense. I haven’t done all the work you have and this is certainly beyond my pay-grade…

You are getting the idea. The primeval stuff is too simple to have been created.

Solving these problems is well within your pay grade, if you accept the same pay as mine— zero. Thousands of professors get six figure salaries for answering antephysical questions stupidly. A good, inquisitive mind is what solves problems. Join the inquiry, but keep your day job.

… in my concept of God, even the “uncreated laws” had their source in Him. As has been said before though, that book seems to be the key for proper further discussion.

The uncreated laws led to His coming into being. Let’s not propose a logical tight-loop. You’ll see soon enough.

…it’s a shame you were taught that literal 24-hour 7-day creation was the absolute truth when the Church teaches no such thing.

Numbers do have a lot of meaning, especially throughout the Bible. For example it says God rested on the 7th day, Saturday, the same day which Jesus would “rest” the whole day.

While it could be possible, it wouldn’t follow for God to lie and give the universe the appearance of age and to show events that never really happened. Even if possible, I’m sure you’d agree it wouldn’t make sense to go this route.

When I was taught 6-day creation, it was with the full approval of the Church.

You might want to investigate the history of the Genesis story. You’ll see that there are actually two separate stories by two stylistically different writers. Both were Hebrews living in Babylon during the captivity, one in the north and the other in the south, just a few centuries B.C. and well after Abraham, who borrowed their tales from the Babylonians who had gotten them from some Greeks.

Well we have his ideas AND words in Sacred Tradition and the Bible, though you say that it’s merely the work of men so I’d ask where, then, do we get His true ideas?

There is a nice consistency to the first three books of the N.T., with only a few exceptions. Those writers may have access to individuals who saw and listened to Jesus. They wrote when the tradition was fresh. As a trinity, they offer more wisdom about human nature and behavior than the combined claptrap of all philosophy and psychology books ever written.

John diverges from these teachings and is long removed from the original verbal traditions, and Paul IMO was just a Roman trying to corrupt Christianity from within. Despite being a serious fault finder, I like Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Older translations are the best (e.g. Moffatt, whose tensing of verbs is closer to original Hebrew) because modern translators are already trying to warp Christianity into their opinion that Christ was teaching “social justice.”

Despite my unusual ideas about the nature and purposes of God, I’ve had no luck finding better standards of behavior than those which come to us through these books. I’d tweak a bit here and there, of course, and quibble with this and that, but am willing to be shot for actually proposing a serious change.

While understanding things about God is certainly important, I don’t think the Church will ever define God. Individuals may have, but She hasn’t. Truly defining Him would again be like trying to put Him in a box.

The Church has already defined God. The properties omnipotence and omniscience are definitions.

There can be a lot of value in putting things in a box. Imagine, for example, styrofoam packing-peanuts.

Any God definition needs a monster box— but not an infinitely large box.

The science of physics has come to its prominence because of the limits it sets. Thanks to physics, we know a lot about how things cannot work. This has the wonderful effect of keeping the riff-raff and crackpots out of physics and engineering lecture rooms, consigning them to social and women’s studies departments where they belong.

The nature of God is so broadly defined that any nit can make up pretty much whatever he, she, or it wants to about God’s purpose for man— that is why we have so many different religions, many at the throats of others.

Because of the limits set by physics on its own fundamental beliefs, it represents the second best system of universally agreed-upon truth the world has ever seen. Moreover, unlike religions, it is accepted worldwide.

Speaking of which, I’ll be looking forward to your new boxes. I had certainly never heard of such a proposition before which is intriguing.

I believe that the book will give you plenty to think about.

I have this funny mental image of you as smart-Homer putting flyers on windshields but instead of mathematically disproving God to Flanders you’re basically doing the opposite. (Not sure if you catch the Simpsons reference, they used to be funny.)

Many years ago I collected enough discarded soda bottles to buy a ticket to the movie house on all-cartoon day. Haven’t been able to watch a cartoon since, but have a sense of what the Simpsons are. Why would anyone “smart” put blurbs on windshields? But disproving Flanders to God seems a good idea.

For a more accurate image, try an ornery descendant of Quasimodo living on borrowed time and aftermarket parts who lives alongside a drug smuggling road, answers his door with a firearm in hand, and can count his friends and pick his nose with the same fingers.

 

[greylorn]

The argument A Watkins gave was flawed;

q does not justify or explain 16 & 17, and ultimately 18, in any meaningful sense.

Nor does he show that (as in his introduction is claimed) there is reason for “worship, adoration, love, respect, and obedience.”

There is no reason from that Argument to assume personality; goodness etc.; the argument also makes use of a hard version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason; which is somewhat repugnant to objective enquiry.

Moreover; the layout of the argument is ugly; argumentation which utilises algebreic referants contstrains itself and makes itself harder to qualify each notative statement; ie; one cannot qualify X or Y except in referential terms; which further detracts from the flow of an argument; granted one can numerically or algebreically qualify; but then these qualities need qualification and so on etc.; a repungnancy follows; both to the eyes and to the mind.

It does not really propose that God is neither omnipotent or omniscient; merely that there is no reason to believe that he is omnipotent or omniscient because we can only believe rationally that the potency of an individual is as high as the potency that individual has enacted; as God has not enacted an infinite potency; we cannot know he has infinite power.

Speaking in analogy; If the strongest thing I have ever lifted was say, ten stone; then you would have no reason to believe that I could lift more than ten stone. Unless; you were to observe my person and note that I had a physique that was capable of greater; as we cannot observe the physique per se of God; we cannot know that he is capable of greater – therein; it is only reasonable to assume that he is “at least” capable of producing what he produced (universe); as the universe is not infinite; we have no reason to believe his power must be infinite; or for that matter any greater than that which he has previously used.

Upon perusing your analysis I went back to the paper, and knowing a little more, made sense of a bit more. I focused upon your specific areas of inquiry, re-read a few times, and concur with your analysis.

And I now also know what the Principle of Sufficient Reason is. Agreed that the “strong” version is definitely an option-strangler. The weak version is exactly what it says, and is as valuable to a rigorous argument as “maybe” would be to a Euclidian axiom.

A.Watkins only said that I might be interested, which is kind of an implicit endorsement of the argument, but not necessarily. I hope that he will comment.

You made a big mistake in commenting on this, because now whenever someone tries to throw a lump of formal philosophy my way, I’m going to foul it off in your direction with considerable trust that you will catch it.

Given the overall sense of your comments, I shall assume that you are a Catholic who has given serious and conscientious thought to your beliefs. If that’s not the case, please don’t correct me because I won’t believe you anyhow.

You would be a fine philosophy teacher. Instead of putting a link to the paper in my book, now out of the question, may I use your final paragraph’s arguments and analogy, with attribution?

Thank you for dealing with this!