Who created God?

[coolduude]

"There are only 2 ways to exist

Contingent - receiving existence

or

Necessary - being existence itself

A contingent being cannot be the ultimate cause of the existence of something else since it has only received existence, The only explanation for the contingent beings is a necessary being. The necessary being is given the name God

The Law of Causality states that : “Anything which begins to exist must have been brought into existence by something distinct from itself.”

If we consider all created things(called creatures for example) something caused the existence of every single one of them. It could be a plant, a giraffe human being etc.

so what caused the giraffe…its parents…and what caused them…its parents, this is an infinite cycle which cannot work. Something has to have started off the whole process for it to exist. for every receiver there has to be a giver. So for the 1st receiver there has to be a first giver who never received existence because he or God is existence itself."

Paul Kelly

Makes perfect sense.

 

[flyingfish]

No, I wouldn’t. I would say that God is not made out of anything.

Spiritual ‘substances’ (don’t let the colloquial 21st century usage of ‘substance’ mislead you, as a philosophical term it does not mean or imply material stuff) are not made out of anything. That’s what it means to be a spiritual substance. To assume that something must be made out of stuff to be or to function is simply to beg the question in favor of materialism.

I don’t know, it seems like you’re saying God is nothing?

If God were made out of some material, He would be limited by the limits of that material.

But isn’t God limited anyway, for example by his nature? Wouldn’t Catholics already say that God can’t do evil and so on?

There is also an argument to be made from the imbalance of possible thoughts as compared to possible brain states, i.e., that since the number of possible thoughts outruns the number of possible brain states, that at least some thoughts must be immaterial.

But I’m not sure now is the time to get into these arguments.

-Rob

I don’t know, the brain has 100 billion neurons and each neuron can make over 1000 connections with other neurons. Those numbers are astronomical, and the combination of different states would far exceed the number of thoughts any human being could have in a single lifetime.

 

[coolduude]

I don’t know, it seems like you’re saying God is nothing?

As far as I know, God is love.

 

[RobNY]

I don’t know, it seems like you’re saying God is nothing?

Most of our knowledge of God is apophatic, i.e., we can say what He is not. As I said before, to insist that God be explained in material terms is for the materialist to beg the question.

But isn’t God limited anyway, for example by his nature? Wouldn’t Catholics already say that God can’t do evil and so on?

As in the Thomistic scheme, to introduce matter into God would be to introduce potentiality, which is to say, coming to be and passing away. But God’s nature is perfect and unchanging. Matter cannot be a constituent in God.

I don’t know, the brain has 100 billion neurons and each neuron can make over 1000 connections with other neurons. Those numbers are astronomical, and the combination of different states would far exceed the number of thoughts any human being could have in a single lifetime.

As you note, the number of possible brain states is a large but finite number. Let’s call that number R. As long as there are R + 1 possible thoughts, physicalism is shown to be false. But I do think there is at least one class of things which have at least R + 1 members. Namely, the numbers.

-Rob

 

[flyingfish]

As you note, the number of possible brain states is a large but finite number. Let’s call that number R. As long as there are R + 1 possible thoughts, physicalism is shown to be false. But I do think there is at least one class of things which have at least R + 1 members. Namely, the numbers.

-Rob

That’s an interesting argument. Say, hypothetically there are 10^14 connections in the brain (10^11 neurons * 10^3 connections/neuron). Say each connection can send 10 different combinations of neurotransmitters (just a guess). That is, 10^(10^14) or 10^100000000000000 possible configurations of the kinds of messages being sent through a connection. (There could be other factors as well, such as the length of time the message is sent for, the amount of the neurotransmitter etc.)

By comparison, there are 10^22 stars in the known universe.

I don’t see by the way why you think there should be an infinite number of possible thoughts, I don’t think we’re capable of it. There probably is a limited amount of these.

 

[flyingfish]

As far as I know, God is love.

What is love made of? What properties does it have?

 

[RobNY]

That’s an interesting argument. Say, hypothetically there are 10^14 connections in the brain (10^11 neurons * 10^3 connections/neuron). Say each connection can send 10 different combinations of neurotransmitters (just a guess). That is, 10^(10^14) or 10^100000000000000 possible configurations of the kinds of messages being sent through a connection. (There could be other factors as well, such as the length of time the message is sent for, the amount of the neurotransmitter etc.)

By comparison, there are 10^22 stars in the known universe.

I don’t see by the way why you think there should be an infinite number of possible thoughts, I don’t think we’re capable of it. There probably is a limited amount of these.

 

[flyingfish]

But let me press you on the numbers. I certainly can think of numbers. Say 1, or 2 or 3 or 4. Indeed, it seems that if I can think of a number n, I can think of a number n+1. Would you agree?

-Rob

An interesting thought. Well, the assumption for your argument to work would be that what the brain states represent at any given time is static. Say hypothetically brain is always changing, always making new connections and destroying past connections (true, given our ability to learn). As you were to count from 1 to n with n being greater than the number of possible brain states, the brain could be adapting to what you’re doing, and changing what certain brain states mean as you go along via different connections, pathways and so on.

I don’t think for example my brain has a state for some arbitrarily large number, but such a state could be created/learned if I were to count, maybe at the expense of giving something up (though in practice there is just so much variability that I don’t see a human being using up all the possible states in a lifetime).

This is strictly hypothetical too, I don’t know extensively how the brain works. But I personally experience the limitations of memory. Things I knew very well a year ago are a complete fog now. So those states seem to have been deleted, perhaps to make room for new stuff, perhaps simply becuase they were unused.

 

[flyingfish]

But let me press you on the numbers. I certainly can think of numbers. Say 1, or 2 or 3 or 4. Indeed, it seems that if I can think of a number n, I can think of a number n+1. Would you agree?

-Rob

I have to say, your question had me thinking for a while

I can think of 2 ways around it now:

1. Questionable. Maybe even if there is a finite number of states, as well as new states because the physical world is not continuous, could it be that the same physical state could represent 2 different thoughts depending on the overall state of the brain when it was modified.

I’m not sure about this. Something feels wrong about it, so I take this solution back. The same brain state should not be able to ever represent more than one thing.

1. When you count to whatever number you’re counting to what you’re actually doing is saying words, i.e. permutations of letters/sounds. As you get to ever larger numbers you’d need more and more unique words.

It is possible to have an infinite number of words even with a finite combination of sounds by making the words arbitrarily long.

Your brain would have a finite number of sounds stored in the language center, say, and as you were counting you’d hit these finite number of centers in increasingly longer sequences to count higher and higher. So by introducing time, you can well count to infinity even if you have the same number of states.

The same reasoning can apply to all thoughts in general, even if the number of states in the brain is finite, it could be specific thoughts can be generated by hitting these states in varying (and arbitrarily long) sequences. So this way, because there is no logical limit on the length of the sequence of states, you can get an infinite number of thoughts from a finite number of brain states

 

[RobNY]

I have to say, your question had me thinking for a while

I can think of 2 ways around it now:

1. Questionable. Maybe even if there is a finite number of states, as well as new states because the physical world is not continuous, could it be that the same physical state could represent 2 different thoughts depending on the overall state of the brain when it was modified.

I’m not sure about this. Something feels wrong about it, so I take this solution back. The same brain state should not be able to ever represent more than one thing.

Your instinct is good. To grant this “solution” would be to destroy any physicalist theory of mind. After all, the physicalist holds the thesis that:

(A) A brain state is sufficient for a thought.

And it is quite clear that if any given brain state can serve indifferently for multiple thoughts, that there is no sense in which that brain state can be said to be ‘sufficient’ for any of those thoughts. In other words, to say that a brain state can serve indifferently for multiple thoughts is to affirm ~A: which is simply to deny the physicalist thesis.

1. When you count to whatever number you’re counting to what you’re actually doing is saying words, i.e. permutations of letters/sounds. As you get to ever larger numbers you’d need more and more unique words.

It is possible to have an infinite number of words even with a finite combination of sounds by making the words arbitrarily long.

Your brain would have a finite number of sounds stored in the language center, say, and as you were counting you’d hit these finite number of centers in increasingly longer sequences to count higher and higher. So by introducing time, you can well count to infinity even if you have the same number of states.

There is a distinction to be made between numerals, which are symbols that represent numbers, and the numbers themselves.

A numeral is a string of marks and noises, i.e., quite literally the ‘2’ and ‘3,’ etc. which are written. The number two is not literally that which we represent it with.

My question is first and primarily about having a concept of the number, not the numeral. Presumably marks and noises can be written and uttered without any corresponding mental event. I want to back up the question to the mind which conceives the number.

Often we conceive of a number by means of a numeral, but we need not. There seem to be any number (no pun intended!) of ways of conceiving of a number. We can represent it to ourselves by means of a numeral (i.e., ‘2’), by a word (“two”) or even without any numeral whatsoever by picking out its properties (“the lowest prime number,” or, “the only even prime number”). Strictly speaking, what matters is that we conceive the number, and this is a mental event. Writing a string of marks or uttering a sequence of noises is not a mental event, and so it misses the question.

The same reasoning can apply to all thoughts in general, even if the number of states in the brain is finite, it could be specific thoughts can be generated by hitting these states in varying (and arbitrarily long) sequences. So this way, because there is no logical limit on the length of the sequence of states, you can get an infinite number of thoughts from a finite number of brain states

As my critique above indicates, I think you’ve subtly shifted your answer to a different question.

This is a very difficult problem to wriggle out of, and I do appreciate your frank thoughts.

-Rob

 

[flyingfish]

As my critique above indicates, I think you’ve subtly shifted your answer to a different question.

This is a very difficult problem to wriggle out of, and I do appreciate your frank thoughts.

-Rob

In what way do you think I answered a different question? I’m saying that a thought can be expressed by an arbitrarily long sequence of brain states. Say the brain has only 3 states: A, B, C.

But thoughts could be expressed by combinations of these states in time. Ignore what I said about the way we represent numbers, think about conceiving a number:

A - 1
B - 2
C - 3
AA - 4
AB - 5
AC - 6
BA - 7
BB - 8
BC - 9
CA - 10
CB - 11
CC - 12
AAA - 13

…

AAABBCAAAACCCCAAABBBBCCCCAAAAACCCCC = 342323232

And this could be applied to any thought. For example there be two additional states in the brain BEGIN and END that would distinguish a thought.

BEGIN-A-END would be concept of 1 and so on

I’m not saying this is how the brain works, but I’m saying this is how you could represent an infinite number of thoughts/conceptions of numbers with a finite number of states.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know our thoughts, our imagination, and our intelligence are the result of (material) electrochemical brain processes. There is evidence that they are related

If a guitar is damaged the guitarist cannot play music… You are confusing the instrument with the person. Does the brain have a right to life? Is it aware of itself? How can a lump of tissue be responsible what it does?

I certainly don’t know that there isn’t a ghost in our heads that’s really controlling everything, but it seems like an extraneous and unnecessary proposition. There is no evidence of it.

I don’t know that there isn’t a magical power in the dust under our feet that has produced consciousness, free will and the power of thought but it seems like an unnecessary and absurd proposition. There is no evidence of it…

Why do you assume everything is material?

Because the natural world is the only thing that I’ve ever experienced. There is no evidence that there’s anything else.

Do you think your mind is “natural”? Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch it? What about truth and freedom and love? Can you measure them and weigh them? What about your self? Or don’t you exist? Is there just a mindless body that is operating mechanically according to physical laws?

 

[flyingfish]

If a guitar is damaged the guitarist cannot play music… You are confusing the instrument with the person. Does the brain have a right to life? Is it aware of itself? How can a lump of tissue be responsible what it does?

I understand your argument, but it doesn’t convince me. It is proposing something for which there is no evidence to account for the source of our minds, while there is plenty of evidence that the brain is sufficient to explain the mind. This is generally the position of neuroscientists from what I have read/listened to.

At some point this may become testable, such as once we have the technological sophistication to construct a human brain, make it a body, and teach it the way we would a child over a number of years. If such a device were built, and even after raising it it displayed no self awareness I would believe in the soul.

For now I can’t believe in a supernatural reality that interacts with our reality because I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s there. I also think there are deep logical issues about how a soul, made of spirit, would interface with our brains, made of matter. It seems impossible to me.

Do you think your mind is “natural”? Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch it? What about truth and freedom and love? Can you measure them and weigh them? What about your self? Or don’t you exist? Is there just a mindless body that is operating mechanically according to physical laws?

I think minds are a part of nature, yes. The evidence overwhelmingly implies that matter is able to organize itself into complex systems that generate minds.

By the way, in my opinion this is not at all inconsistent with a belief in God. I think God would have to be made of some kind of stuff as well, and its mind would also have to have some method behind it.

 

[itinerant1]

I think minds are a part of nature, yes. The evidence overwhelmingly implies that matter is able to organize itself into complex systems that generate minds.

I have seen no such evidence, whatsoever. Perhaps you would like to enlighten everybody on this matter.

 

[itinerant1]

I understand your argument, but it doesn’t convince me. It is proposing something for which there is no evidence to account for the source of our minds, while there is plenty of evidence that the brain is sufficient to explain the mind. This is generally the position of neuroscientists from what I have read/listened to.

Really? The only problem with your assertion is that neuro-scientists still cannot explain human consciousness. All they can do is describe physiological processes.

At some point this may become testable, such as once we have the technological sophistication to construct a human brain, make it a body, and teach it the way we would a child over a number of years. If such a device were built, and even after raising it it displayed no self awareness I would believe in the soul.

Fantasies about what future technology may or may not be able to do prove nothing.

For now I can’t believe in a supernatural reality that interacts with our reality because I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s there. I also think there are deep logical issues about how a soul, made of spirit, would interface with our brains, made of matter. It seems impossible to me.

Soul and brain do not interface. Computer programs and hardware may interface, but not soul and brain.

By the way, in my opinion this is not at all inconsistent with a belief in God. I think God would have to be made of some kind of stuff as well, and its mind would also have to have some method behind it.

Such a view is more characteristic of the pantheistic fallacy about God.

 

[tonyrey]

If a guitar is damaged the guitarist cannot play music… You are confusing the instrument with the person. Does the brain have a right to life? Is it aware of itself? How can a lump of tissue be responsible what it does?

If that were true it would be headline news! I’m not only not convinced by statements unsupported by evidence, I disregard them…

At some point this may become testable, such as once we have the technological sophistication to construct a human brain, make it a body, and teach it the way we would a child over a number of years. **If **such a device were built, and even after raising it it displayed no self awareness I would believe in the soul.

“may become”, “once we have” and “if such a device were” are just speculations which prove nothing…

For now I can’t believe in a supernatural reality that interacts with our reality because I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s there.

“seen” is the significant word. Why do you think only visible objects are real?

I also think there are deep logical issues about how a soul, made of spirit, would interface with our brains, made of matter.

How do you control your brain?

“It seems impossible to me.”

It seems impossible only because your mind is closed to the possibility. “None are so blind as those who will not see…”

Do you think your mind is “natural”? Can you see, hear, taste, smell or touch it? What about truth and freedom and love? Can you measure them and weigh them? What about your self? Or don’t you exist? Is there just a mindless body that is operating mechanically according to physical laws?

I think minds are a part of nature, yes.

What exactly do you think a mind is?

The evidence overwhelmingly implies that matter is able to organize itself into complex systems that generate minds.

Where is all this evidence? How exactly does matter organize itself? What mechanism does it use?

By the way, in my opinion this is not at all inconsistent with a belief in God. I think God would have to be made of some kind of stuff as well, and its mind would also have to have some method behind it.

“Stuff” implies something material… Do you think the truth is composed of “stuff”?

 

[RobNY]

In what way do you think I answered a different question? I’m saying that a thought can be expressed by an arbitrarily long sequence of brain states. Say the brain has only 3 states: A, B, C.

flyingfish,

I misinterpreted your answer. Please forgive me.

But thoughts could be expressed by combinations of these states in time. Ignore what I said about the way we represent numbers, think about conceiving a number:

A - 1
B - 2
C - 3
AA - 4
AB - 5
AC - 6
BA - 7
BB - 8
BC - 9
CA - 10
CB - 11
CC - 12
AAA - 13

…

AAABBCAAAACCCCAAABBBBCCCCAAAAACCCCC = 342323232

And this could be applied to any thought. For example there be two additional states in the brain BEGIN and END that would distinguish a thought.

BEGIN-A-END would be concept of 1 and so on

I’m not saying this is how the brain works, but I’m saying this is how you could represent an infinite number of thoughts/conceptions of numbers with a finite number of states.

flyingfish,

I think you understand that this is a very hard sell. Anything strung out over time like this is a process. This leaves us with a few problems.

First, it seems that having a thought, i.e., grasping a process, is not itself a process. Now it may take a process to get into a brain state/thought, but the brain state/thought itself is not a process. This is the problem which makes it absolutely impossible that this could be an adequate answer.

Note that your solution ends up being eliminativist about thoughts. If having a thought is a process, then at no time during the process is it true that one ‘has the thought.’ It is difficult to see how one could grasp a thought or concept and reason about it, but at the same time never have that very thought.

Indeed, at every moment there are ‘slices’ of thoughts, but no ‘thought’ itself. But this is silly, because each slice would seem to have ‘thought’ qualities such that we ought not to rank each ‘slice’ as a ‘thought-slice’ but as indeed a full thought on its own. Thoughts won’t admit of becoming slices and processes, but will be or not be whole and entire.

Second, by stringing out the process in time, it makes it such that some things cannot be thought as well. In other words, any thought which requires a long enough process will never be thought before whatever organism which thinks it has thought it, i.e. it will perish before it can think it. But contrary to this, we know that relatively complex things can be thought of (i.e., large numbers) by picking out simple properties of theirs.

It’s a valiant try, flyingfish, but I’m sad to say that it just won’t work. But very clever, again, and a joy discussing with you.

-Rob

 

[flyingfish]

Second, by stringing out the process in time, it makes it such that some things cannot be thought as well. In other words, any thought which requires a long enough process will never be thought before whatever organism which thinks it has thought it, i.e. it will perish before it can think it. But contrary to this, we know that relatively complex things can be thought of (i.e., large numbers) by picking out simple properties of theirs.

It’s a valiant try, flyingfish, but I’m sad to say that it just won’t work. But very clever, again, and a joy discussing with you.

-Rob

I thought for a while about numbers, and I think this is exactly how we think. Given a large enough number, you might well die before you finish thinking about it.

How do you conceptualize numbers? Do you say the number aloud? That is a sequence in time.

Do you imagine the number made up of its digits? That is also a sequence in time (you might imagine scrolling through the number to consider each digit). If you just think “number” you’re not really thinking specifically of the number you’re just thinking of a vague unit. I personally can’t think of a sequence of non-repeating digits longer than about 15. Anything bigger than that I’d conceive as a string of units.

Do you image a grid of dots representing the number? Also something you’d have to build up. Try thinking about 1000 that way. You’ll be scrolling through it and imagining it being made up of smaller units (like 1x1 or 10x10 depending on your limit.) Try thinking of a million that way.

Or take any thought, it does end up being a process in time composed of smaller units. The more I think about it, it doesn’t seem to me that there are that many unique thought units.

Take some examples of thoughts, say me thinking about how I’m going to respond to you. It’s made up of slices. Thinking doesn’t even make sense outside of time. The thought slices could be:

1.a) A set of concepts for objects in the world (trees, books, computers, persons etc.)
1.b) A set of more abstract objects (concept of circle, concept of a sequence etc.)
2. A set of possible actions (talk to, pick up, create, etc.)
3. Descriptions (sad, happy, confused, red, blue, sharp etc.)

And in our thinking, we string these together in various combinations. These also correspond to the nouns, verbs, and adjectives of language which makes sense because we think using language.

Try thinking without language, say thinking in pictures. It’s much more difficult, and I bet you’ll be trying to use pictures to make up a language.

 

[flyingfish]

Soul and brain do not interface. Computer programs and hardware may interface, but not soul and brain.

So if your self awareness and control of yourself occur in your soul, but are carried out via your brain sending messages to your body parts how does the soul make the brain send electrochemical signals? What exactly would the soul do to make neurotransmitters enter the synapse between nerve cells.

It would require some kind of a physical interaction, because that’s the only kind the matter of our brain would respond to. Yet the soul is completely non-physical. A logical contradiction IMO.

If that were true it would be headline news! I’m not only not convinced by statements unsupported by evidence, I disregard them…

Well, here is one report of a study wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision that has the brain make decisions before you are consciously aware of them. If you’re really interested in neuroscience there’s plenty of material available online.

You’d be hardpressed to find a professional neuroscientist who would claim that the supernatural is required to explain the mind. I enjoy reading about neuroscience and have read quite a few articles in journals/listened to lectures and I’ve never encountered the point of view that there must be something supernatural to make our minds.

How do you control your brain?

I think I am my brain and the processes in it.

“Stuff” implies something material… Do you think the truth is composed of “stuff”?

Yes, “truth” is an idea in our brains, which is generated by the processes in our brains.Without them, the concept would not exist.If all conscious entities who think about truth die, the concept would cease to exist.

 

[HelenaMT]

So if your self awareness and control of yourself occur in your soul, but are carried out via your brain sending messages to your body parts how does the soul make the brain send electrochemical signals? What exactly would the soul do to make neurotransmitters enter the synapse between nerve cells.

It would require some kind of a physical interaction, because that’s the only kind the matter of our brain would respond to. Yet the soul is completely non-physical. A logical contradiction IMO.

Well, here is one report of a study wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision that has the brain make decisions before you are consciously aware of them.

While I agree that if the soul is real, it in some way is interacting with our brains and is therefore also “physical” in some way, that article about the brain predicting a decision before we “think” we make it is a bit misleading.

First, it only used the decision to press a button with either the left or right hand as the decision, about which the author of the study admits “Real-life decisions – am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that – aren’t decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners.” The article also reports that the predictions were “not completely accurate.”

Then there’s this:

“We can’t rule out that there’s a free will that kicks in at this late point,” said Haynes, who intends to study this phenomenon next. “But I don’t think it’s plausible.”

That implausibility doesn’t disturb Haynes, [who says]
“It’s not like you’re a machine. Your brain activity is the physiological substance in which your personality and wishes and desires operate,”

First, if we have no free will (which this guy seems to believe), how are we NOT like machines? And second, saying brain activity is “the physiological substance in which your personality and wishes and desires operate” is no less dualist-sounding than " brain activity is the physiological substance in which your *soul *operates."