General

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

MacFall — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:32:21 GMT

I couldn't understand a word of this. Maybe I should have eaten something before I had all that liquor.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:34:01 GMT

For what it's worth: Towards a Plausible Agnosticism

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:58:55 GMT

Knight, that link isn't working for me for some reason. Could you provide the quotation?

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:56:48 GMT

Ah hah! So James, God designed the laws of physics and set in motion the universe, but the universe has operated according only to the laws of physics ever since? And you're claiming that one can prove, using only the laws of physics, that the laws of physics were designed intentionally, and that the universe was set in motion for a purpose?

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:54:34 GMT

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5011/69065.aspx#69065

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:53:14 GMT

*breathes in and out ten times*

Show me where the statement "U." is made in the argument, or which of the premises is built on assuming it.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

James Redford — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:51:11 GMT

Donny with an A:
James, the knowledge supposedly possessed by God cannot be faithfully represented in terms of bits of information without switching from the language of action to the language of physical processes. The same is true of God's supposed power. They're simply different kinds of things.

I didn't follow your response to my question about the Red Sea. The Christian God is held to be an agent who could ostensibly decide to part the Red Sea if He willed it. I'm not understanding what you mean by a "society" enacting God's will. The Christian God is supposed to be able to -- in a non-law-bound manner -- cause the Red Sea to part without adhering to the laws of physics. No?

Knight, I think you're changing the subject, aren't you? The argument that you accused of begging the question does not invoke Kant at any point. Were you talking about a different argument when you said that I had begged the question? If so, could you show me what it was?

See my above post at position Dec 3 2008 1:23 PM for my answer to your first paragraph above. Saying that they're "different kinds of things" is the logical fallacy of bare assertion, as well as nonsensical in itself, since you haven't shown how anything else incongruent with those words could be meant by them.

And "No" is correct. God does not violate actual physical law. To suggest that He does is to say that God's omniscience and omipotence are limited. God knew in the beginning what He wanted to achieve, and so He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:49:02 GMT

Donny with an A:
Oh. My. God (pun intended). The statement "U." is never made at any point in the argument.

Yeah, it is.

Do you truly not grasp what begging the question means?

Are you seriously questioning the basic definition of begging the question, i.e. creating a secondary (sometimes unstated) premise upon which the primary premise relies and for which no evidence is shown, but merely assumed?

Do you not understand that for them to even say that god created the universe in the conditional requires that something exists apart from the universe, and that has yet to be shown?

How many more times must I repeat it for you until you finally get it? Oh wait--you're one of those silly dual-realmers. So it's futile for me to try, since you believe in some magical realm.

I'm done with you.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:43:22 GMT

Oh. My. God (pun intended). The statement "U." is never made at any point in the argument. You're simply wrong! And not only are you wrong, but you're being condescendingly wrong! I don't think I've ever been this frustrated by a philosophical discussion! Pick a numbered assumption which you disagree with from the formal argument (or the new one that substitutes for A4 -- A5: There exists an individual p such that (Mp & Bpa ). ), or pick a step in my logic which you believe to not be truth preserving. If you can't, then you are BOUND BY THE RULES OF LOGIC to accept the conclusion.

If you continue to insist that I have begged the question WITHOUT DISPUTING THE PLAUSIBILITY OF ANY OF MY ASSUMPTIONS, then you will demonstrate nothing more than that you don't understand how logic works, don't understand what begging the question is, and aren't fit to continue this conversation. If I can't convince you of this very simple point, it will be unreasonable of me to try to convince you of a more complex point which actually does allow for some differing interpretation, and which cannot easily be formalized to settle a dispute.

Let me also point out this: The only way to get "U." out of the formal argument I presented would be to assume "Cp." But since the correctness of individual p's beliefs are precisely what is at issue, making such an assumption would beg the question. WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T INCLUDE IT AS AN ASSUMPTION! So not only do I not beg the question, but I have specifically designed my argument to avoid begging the question.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:09:18 GMT

Donny with an A:
Okay, so to translate that statement into the form of the formal argument, I'll have to add an atomic statement:

Mx: Individual x is me.

I'll also have to slightly reword the original statement in a way that I don't think changes the meaning substantially, but which fits it into the atomic statements I used to craft the formal argument:

"I, individual p, believe in system of beliefs a. If I hold a set of beliefs which provides a true account of the nature the universe, then God created the universe."

The statement therefore translates as:

( Mp & Bpa) & ( If Cp, then U)

And yet U is a secondary premise upon which the primary premise relies and for which no proof has been offered. Begging. The. Question.

I've explained this before. Enough. End.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:58:57 GMT

Okay, so to translate that statement into the form of the formal argument, I'll have to add an atomic statement:

Mx: Individual x is me.

I'll also have to slightly reword the original statement in a way that I don't think changes the meaning substantially, but which fits it into the atomic statements I used to craft the formal argument:

"I, individual p, believe in system of beliefs a. If I hold a set of beliefs which provides a true account of the nature the universe, then God created the universe."

The statement therefore translates as:

( Mp & Bpa) & ( If Cp, then U)

As we saw in step (3), the statement "If Cp, then U" follows from our four plausible assumptions. In the hypothetical example I cited, I take "Mp & Bpa" to be an uncontroversial assumption. So now the argument is fully contextualized, no? It still doesn't beg the question, as far as I can see.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:34:28 GMT

Donny with an A:
Knight, I think you're changing the subject, aren't you?

No.

Donny with an A:
Were you talking about a different argument when you said that I had begged the question? If so, could you show me what it was?

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5011/68304.aspx#68304

"Knight, they could say, "I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe," without begging the question."

As I said: it still begs the question of existence apart from existence.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Donny with an A — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:28:32 GMT

James, the knowledge supposedly possessed by God cannot be faithfully represented in terms of bits of information without switching from the language of action to the language of physical processes. The same is true of God's supposed power. They're simply different kinds of things.

I didn't follow your response to my question about the Red Sea. The Christian God is held to be an agent who could ostensibly decide to part the Red Sea if He willed it. I'm not understanding what you mean by a "society" enacting God's will. The Christian God is supposed to be able to -- in a non-law-bound manner -- cause the Red Sea to part without adhering to the laws of physics. No?

Knight, I think you're changing the subject, aren't you? The argument that you accused of begging the question does not invoke Kant at any point. Were you talking about a different argument when you said that I had begged the question? If so, could you show me what it was?

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:36:37 GMT

Donny with an A:
Formal logic doesn't need to be read in context.

It does in this case in order to help him see the problem.

Your argument begs the question. I explained it. I don't care if you wish to be intellectually dishonest and continue believing in some dual-realmist nonsense. I have no time for such tripe.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

James Redford — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:23:49 GMT

Donny with an A:
You're misusing words, though. "Information" in physics is not the same thing as the knowledge the Christian God is supposed to possess. Similarly, "energy" and "power" in physics are not the kind of intentional, affective influence meant by "power" in the Christian account. I'll grant you that the Spinozistic God is omnipresent in the sort of way that the Christian God is supposed to be, but that seems like it's as far as the analogy can go without warping meanings.

To try to illustrate, the Bible depicts God intentionally parting the Red Sea. Does the "God" you are discussing have the capacity to intentionally perform such an act?

Actually, ultimately there is only one definition of the unit of information. Information's logical unit is the bit. Regarding power and energy: the point here is that energy is the ability to effect change, and power is the rate at which that change can be effected. These concepts are perfectly consistent with traditional Christian theology.

And yes, God can perform that act. As I already said, we exist within the Omega Point. Anything that can be imagined can be performed by God. Whether or not God would do so is another matter. (Or rather, whether or not the particular society within the level of implementation under question would do so is another matter, since there will be infinitely many societies within the Omega Point.)