Has anyone else noticed the blatant political flavor of many sciencey mags these days?

LCD

This concept of God sit right in the top of hierarchy of all possible value hierarchies. Minimizing God idea is nothing else than a psychological protection(“sunscreen”) against biggest defeater of their worldview. Is not a joke to have challenged your worldview , it’s very stressful and this stress can bring organic/psychological problems. That’s why atheists use the method of “minimizing” the God concept : “it’s unimportant like Spagetti Monster, Santa, Zeus, Thor, fairy tale, stamp collection” ? , etc . to convince themselves that the lion is just a mouse, no danger, everything is fine. It’s like drinking to make your problem disappear .

That is great. I never thought about it that way - it definitely makes sense. The person has to exalt his own ego to be bigger and more important than the author of life - that's a big deal. Silver Asiatic

In some spiritual traditions, the self aspect of the Qua is referred to as "Ego." IOW, "ego" is the experience of self in the context of the whole self/other experience. The idea of being contingent can be understood this way, IMO, better and more comprehensively than along an axis of time. The self/other Qua experience is an experience, and experiences do not cause themselves. Something in the now is causing a self/other experience. So, again referring to more spiritual perspectives, there is something behind or under Qua (which contains the Ego) that is not the Ego, which is the experience of self apart from other. What is causing it is not itself an experience; it is not a self; it is not experiencing anything or else "it" would also be "an experience." IMO, the best we can do in terms of identifying the cause of Qua is to find a universal, self-evidently true causal commodity that can be understood in terms of being a necessary aspect of any and every Qua. I refer back to "enjoyment." The primordial, universal urge to enjoy, to seek maximum sustainable enjoyment, either direct or abstract. Although we have no access to that cause other than inasmuch as we can experience it, like the Law of Identity it is immediately recognizable as the fundamental intention driving every Qua experiential set. Every free will choice is one of preference in service of some enjoyment, either direct or abstract, in terms of increasing current enjoyment, decreasing unenjoyment, or managing current and future enjoyment. It's the same root, causal intent that is expressed billions (if not more) individual ways. Some might argue that "finding truth" is more fundamental, but the fact is, "truth" is only sought in terms of enjoyment, as means of better acquiring or managing enjoyment, because people think that "truth" will ultimately provide some fundamental enjoyment. Truth is abandoned, avoided, obfuscated and denied if the threat to enjoyment is too great. Also, some might say that my finding of "expressing/seeking enjoyment" as the root cause of Qua is the product of truth-seeking. It's not. I'm arranging truth in service of enjoyment, but I argue that is what everyone here is ultimately doing: arranging arguments, logic, facts and truth to serve their enjoyment structure. I think it is useful to think of another element to "Qua," on the side of "self," is fee will, but I don't think free will is an extra-Qua commodity; free will intention is only a capacity available within Qua, and what free will represents is the capacity of the "self" side of the Qua to explore enjoyment options. As someone else here argued, free will cannot be applied or even said to exist without reasons, nor can it be said to exist outside of a self/other context. In this model, the root reason of all free will is "to enjoy," and free will capacity is determined by the breadth and depth of options available in the Qua to express that fundamental reason in terms of inner and external, direct and abstract choices. William J Murray

Indeed, God concept it's the biggest meta idea that exist and that can be conceived by humans . This concept of God sit right in the top of hierarchy of all possible value hierarchies. Minimizing God idea is nothing else than a psychological protection("sunscreen") against biggest defeater of their worldview. Is not a joke to have challenged your worldview , it's very stressful and this stress can bring organic/psychological problems. That's why atheists use the method of "minimizing" the God concept : "it's unimportant like Spagetti Monster, Santa, Zeus, Thor, fairy tale, stamp collection" :lol: , etc . to convince themselves that the lion is just a mouse, no danger, everything is fine. It's like drinking to make your problem disappear . Lieutenant Commander Data

SA @860... they suppress the truth of God because they want to do what they want to do when they want to do it... but it's the way of death and destruction, instead of being given eternal life. They are deceived by the evil one. Just like Adam and Eve, the idea of being "like God" is too much temptation for us to bear...so we eat the fruit. We love thinking we are in control and get to be arbiters of truth and morality. Particularly... after reading about Jesus... who wouldn't want to be a friend of God? Who wouldn't want to spend time with the creator of the universe (and mankind) who knows what we need and what is best for us and died to save us? Why wouldn't you want to be loved to that degree? zweston

Andrew

Why would you not try to seek Him if it’s possible He’s out (or in) there somewhere?

As above - why get so angry when people want to introduce you to the fun they're having stamp collecting? Or maybe there's something more important to the whole thing that people want to try to avoid? Silver Asiatic

It's more like how believing in free market economy and trying to eliminate free markets are both political positions. Also makes us wonder why so many atheists get angry and hostile about stamp collecting. Silver Asiatic

Lieutenant Commander Data “Believing in God” and “Not believing in God” are both religions ,first works with the fuel of humbleness later works with the fuel of arrogance."

:lol: Then Seversky hastily jumped to confirm me:

Seversky As someone once said, that’s like saying collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both hobbies,

That's not all . Chuckdarwin wanted to confirm me too:

Chuckdarwin Seversky You just crack me up sometimes…

:lol: They just can't resist to this urge . Lieutenant Commander Data

Seversky You just crack me up sometimes... chuckdarwin

SA You are a class act... chuckdarwin

"As someone once said, that’s like saying collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both hobbies" Sev, Bad analogy. Believing in God or not is not entertainment. It's a position from which a lot of different ideas proceed. Stamps, not so much. Andrew asauber

As someone once said, that's like saying collecting stamps and not collecting stamps are both hobbies, Seversky

“Believing in God” and “Not believing in God” are both religions" LCD, You are correct, sir. Andrew asauber

Asauber I think the psychology of “why do people deny God” is interesting

"Believing in God" and "Not believing in God" are both religions ,first works with the fuel of humbleness later works with the fuel of arrogance. Lieutenant Commander Data

I think the psychology of "why do people deny God" is interesting. Why would you not try to seek Him if it's possible He's out (or in) there somewhere? Added: there's a reason Atheists are a small minority. Andrew asauber

CD Thanks for your sincere reply.

You seem to put a premium on formalisms and “gotcha” talking points, like this is a game.

I apologize that I have given that impression. I don't think of it as a game or anything trivial like that. I respect that you're building understanding and some ideas may not be consistent. I've referred to you as a deist many times before, so I won't do that. The reason I press people to declare what worldview they're defending (and expect them to be consistent with it) is that I will try to adapt my responses to the ideas that a person is comfortable with. If I argue with another theist, I can use ideas that we already both accept. Same with a deist - that person will already accept First Cause reasoning. An evolutionary materialist has certain ideas that they hold, so I try to work with whatever common knowledge we have. Silver Asiatic

SA, yes, though the Math points to a logical challenge once we have a CTTh-W in hand, like our world. KF kairosfocus

CD, the relevant psychology is, psychology of ideologies and worldviews, it is not confined to religion as though it were a suspect entity. To which the answer is, there are many reasons for belief and for worldviews, ideologies, policy agendas etc. But Agrippa's trilemma is a common core issue: for each A that is accepted, there is a source or reason B, thence C, D . . . So, as infinite regress is impossible and circularity that begs questions is futile, we are left at F, the faith point constituting first plausibles accepted as the base for all else. This includes experiences and self evident truths but also must include plausibles that are accepted as they help make sense of cope etc. In this sense, we all live by faith, hopefully reasonable faith. the question is which and why. hence metaphysics considered as critical analysis of worldviews and reality, with logic of being a major facet. And, this brings us to ultimates, necessary being world root and more. thence too the humbling result that all major worldviews have difficulties, in some cases -- e.g. evolutionary materialistic scientism -- fatal. Consequently the fundamental method of philosophy is comparative difficulties, and this then bleeds over into the psychology. As for reality of God, once we see that on logic of being we do need a finitely remote necessary being world root, the floor is open for serious candida5es, constrained by need to account for a world with rational, responsible, significantly free morally governed creatures, us. Post Euthyphro and post Hume, that sets a bill of requisites, to bridge the implied is-ought gap in the root the only possible place for such: inherently good and utterly wise. necessary being already implies eternal and root implies capable of being source of worlds. After centuries of discussion, there is just one serious candidate, the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, one worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service that accords with our evident nature. If you doubt, just put up an alternative and address factual adequacy __ coherence ____ and balanced explanatory power ____ (neither ad hoc nor simplistic). Where, a serious candidate necessary being . . . unlike say a flying spaghetti monster [composite, material etc] . . . is either impossible of being [square circle] or actual. Those who would dismiss or deny God have yet to put forth a cogent reason why God is impossible of being. KF kairosfocus

SA, let me refine, W'_n moves to W'_c, where A then arises from the shift of configuration or contents, and A emerges as a result. KF kairosfocus

SA My post @828 has to do with the psychological basis for people's religious behavior. To me the psychology of religion is much more interesting than the philosophy of religion or theology. The question "Why do people believe in a God(s)?" is infinitely more interesting than "Is there a God?" because I think we can actually answer the former. You and I have differing views of "deism." You seem to put a premium on formalisms and "gotcha" talking points, like this is a game. That is the general tenor of this blog towards participants that don't subscribe to Christianity. Suffice it to say that I think I've pretty consistently said that my sympathies lie with deism, not that I identify as a deist per se. That distinction seems to have been lost on you. Either way, though, I will be the first to admit that there are likely glaring inconsistencies in my belief system. But that simply means I've still got things to learn.... chuckdarwin

KF

by logic of structure and quantity plus core physicality, had a beginning at finite remove

We can bring in results from several arguments to support that proposal - the Kalam argument regarding whatever begins to exist. Contingent, potential being requiring actual being. I also find the argument on degrees of contingency and therefore perfection to work alongside. Silver Asiatic

SA, in a nutshell, start with the idea that a PW is a sufficiently complete description, a book of propositions that describes how this world or another world is or was or will be or could be or could have been, implying feasibility. From this, use the LOI and corollaries to observe that any A is itself i/l/o defining characteristics, duly noting that if two claimed candidates A and B are indiscernible, we can simply hold A and B synonyms for the same entity. So, contemplate world W, distinct from near neighbour W' by having A, try our big red medicine ball on a table. W = {A|(W" = ~A)}. The difference brings in the cause of A. Which then is a sufficient reason for some contingent A. By contrast, a necessary, possible being is framework to any possible world, we gave 2 as an example already, so we understand the reason for N is that it is part of how a world can be, no world is possible of being without its complement of necessary entities, which of course includes core numbers, N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc. Notice, hyperreals, which allows us to see how a causal-temporal-thermodynamic world CTTh-W like ours, with successive finite stages [years for short] cannot have traversed a transfinite actual past as stepwise traversal of the transfinite in finite steps is an infeasible supertask. Our CTTh-W, by logic of structure and quantity plus core physicality, had a beginning at finite remove. That says nothing about another class of world, W0, the root of reality from which CTTh-W worlds would come, a root reality that is necessary being and eternal. Note, were there ever utter non being, the real nothing, call it the zero world, not even enough to have quantities, such having no causal capabilities, there could be no CTTh-W such as ours. Where circular retrocausation is disguised appeal to 0, as the not yet calls itself into being, nope. As at least one CTTh-W is, W0 always was as its root and existing support. The onward issue is, what is W0. KF kairosfocus

KF

but we have no good reason to infer that mind is physical, indeed reduction to computation on substrates destroys rational freedom

It ends up deterministic and thus rationality is lost. Silver Asiatic

SA, the possible worlds frame allows for other cosmi alongside ours, in weak form. You seem to be using universe to denote all physical cosmi or quasi physical cosmi, a subset of reality which incorporates all actual worlds and worlds included in thought as possible worlds, once there is a sufficient entity to contemplate them. part of this is that there have been huge attempts to put a multiverse on the table, so we need to speak in awareness of that. There is a maximal form of possible worlds that makes it tantamount to reality and infers there can be but one reality as a whole; Plantinga specifically uses it in some of his work. I would infer that he would incorporate us as a sub-universe and others in a multiverse as similar sub universes. Thought worlds would be incorporated in a sufficiently powerful mind as contemplations but we have no good reason to infer that mind is physical, indeed reduction to computation on substrates destroys rational freedom. KF kairosfocus

If so, then whatever physical thing is eternal like that, has to have some sort of eternal energy source that maintains it in existence

You are completely missing the point. These entities must have unlimited knowledge and power. And there must be an infinite number of them. Why would they need an external source of energy. They control matter and energy. I’m pointing to the absolute absurdity of an infinite time. No one wants to deal with the implications of that assumption which leads to nonsense. But they like making it anyway. And by the way this same discussion has happened an infinite number of times before with the same characters and also an infinite number of other times with other characters. Why? Because it’s physically possible so must have happened before. All this nonsense is subscribed to for one reason only - to eliminate the obvious which they don’t like. The incredible irony is that to get rid of a god, they have to introduce an infinite number of them. jerry

KF

wif-PSR which is a notoriously powerful principle in tamed form; as addressed to being, i.e. ontology [= logic of being]

I approached this from the notion of truth as aligned to "what is" and therefore "being". LOI gives us identity and a necessarily-existing "all else", terminating in absolute being. However, I would like to see your view on how the weak inquiry form PSR uses possible worlds. Do you have a less compressed version you can point or create? Silver Asiatic

VL, it is not "pure logic," it is logic linked to first principles starting with A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics, then including wif-PSR which is a notoriously powerful principle in tamed form; as addressed to being, i.e. ontology [= logic of being]. And it is possible worlds speak, a powerful context that brings in an extension of core logic, modal logic on possible [diamond] and necessary [square] operators to go with the familiar existential [rev-E] and universal [inverted A] operators. Along the way we get the universal core of mathematics too as an integral part of the result. Ontology is of course a big slice of core metaphysics, i.e. First Philosophy. What we have is very compressed but it is about big questions. KF kairosfocus

KF

As for God being monist, we can immediately consider the diversity of worlds in the mind of God, who is Mind himself.

True. The reason various monisms are a problem is because they destroy rational thought. No distinctions can be made. But the LOI terminates in God, not because it's an arbitrary end to an infinite regress, but God is the source of the rational process itself. So God cannot be considered a "monism" in that sense since God created the concepts of monism and dualism and therefore makes actual the potentialities of what is real. God as absolute being is the author of what we mean by "identity" - and therefore the giver of laws: logical and natural and moral and otherwise. Tracing back causes, we look for the cause of rationality itself - that cannot go back in an infinite regress of causes because we exhaust all possibilities of what could cause all temporal, contingent reality and the rational process. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

Anything that involves an infinity of time implies that all that is physically possible already happened. This includes an infinite number of entities with unlimited power. An absurdity, that precludes that an infinity of time exists.

True. Since some physical entities go out of existence, it is possible that all physical entities could go out of existence. So, with an infinity of time, if it is possible that all things ceased to exist - then they already would not exist (since all possibilities must occur in an infinity of time) and if all went out of existence, nothing could exist now or ever. The counterpoint might be "some physical entities can never go out of existence". If so, then whatever physical thing is eternal like that, has to have some sort of eternal energy source that maintains it in existence and it must have eternal cause that is not subject to entropy. An eternal energy and eternal immaterial cause is what we call God. Silver Asiatic

VL

How do you know that there is not some type of physical nature similar to ours outside of our universe? How do you know that our universe is the only instance of physical nature?

I'm using this definition of the term universe:

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Notice, "all forms of matter and energy" as well as all space and time. This is another way of saying "all physical reality". With that in mind, I am 100% certain that there is no other instances of physical reality anywhere - since I have accounted for ALL of it within this definition. In the example I gave previously: "Here are all the red balls that exist AND there are also some other red balls not here." That cannot work. I am 100% certain that is wrong. In the same way: "Here is the universe (all matter, energy - physical reality) AND there is some physical nature over there somewhere else not here." Again, this leaves me 100% certain that there is no other physical reality outside of our universe. The boundary of the universe includes it all. If there is physical reality existing beyond what we currently observe, it is included in the definition. This points to the necessity of real, existing, non-physical reality - or an immaterial, transcendent entity. Now we have that relationship and a composition of the universe and that outside of its boundary (which cannot be physical). Regarding our the formulation of our understanding of "True". We are oriented to the truth and search for the truth (LOI proves this). If everything was true, we not only would not know what the truth is, but we would not search for it. We know truth, because "error exists". Truth is an existing value and we can prove it with that statement "Error exists". It's necessarily true with no exceptions (like LOI). We are oriented to the truth because it is impossible for anyone to rationally say "I will always tell a lie". We can, however, say "I will always tell the truth" and be consistent. This is because we are oriented to the truth and we build our knowledge on affirmations. True is related to "what is real" or "what is". So, we are oriented to understanding what is real - or existence - or to being. We are seeking Being. We are never satisfied fully with partial truth - we always want the full truth. So, we are oriented to the fullness of truth. This aligns with fullness of "what is" - or "complete being" (a partial truth would align only partially with reality). Thus, we are oriented to "complete being" - which is "absolute being" or we could say Supreme Being. Silver Asiatic

To me, there is a provocative beauty in ambiguity and uncertainty, knowing that there are things that you can’t know, problems that will likely never get solved, what happens when we die

What if it was designed that way? To have the best of all possible worlds, must there be doubt? If there wasn't doubt, then would we all become automatons and life would be meaningless? Aside: Existence is the greatest mystery of all. Aside2: Anything that involves an infinity of time implies that all that is physically possible already happened. This includes an infinite number of entities with unlimited power. An absurdity, that precludes that an infinity of time exists. Aside3: No one will deal with the obvious! Final Aside: No one can offer an alternative that makes sense. jerry

SA, you write again, "For example, when we identify that which is “all physical nature” (the universe) we necessarily have that which is non-physical." How do you know that there is not some type of physical nature similar to ours outside of our universe? How do you know that our universe is the only instance of physical nature? Viola Lee

VL

I appreciate very much your engagement in the conversation. We paid attention to each other, responded to comments and questions the other had made, and worked to establish the things we agreed on.

Thank you, Viola Lee - I feel the same. You are an excellent conversationalist and you provided some very worthwhile thoughts to consider. I appreciate your courtesy and the respect you gave to my comments even in areas where there was disagreement. Silver Asiatic

CD Just returning to your comments ...

I think this is the great paradox that religionists seek to avoid.

Again, for the record - you are a religionist. You belong to the Deist religion. Therefore, you believe the universe has a first cause which is God, and in fact, the Deist God actually created the universe through divine power. So - are you saying that you're "seeking to avoid" your own beliefs? If not, could you explain why you think the universe had a divine first cause? Silver Asiatic

Seversky

As I understand it, the “necessary being root of reality” is simply a different label for the uncaused first cause that is posited as the only way to close off an infinite causal regress.

These are not merely "labels" but descriptives. For example, when we identify that which is "all physical nature" (the universe) we necessarily have that which is non-physical. When we combine the two, we necessarily have a termination of the infinite regress. That's necessary being (along one path). The same is true of whatever is held together as a composition of parts. "All physical" and "All non-physical" are a composition with a relationship. By necessity, this is held together by that which is a unified entity - transcendent to what which is merely physical or immaterial alone. It necessarily explains the relationship. The same is true of potentiality. The universe has potentiality and that which is contingent in immaterial essences has potentiality also. But no potentiality can exist without the possibility that it is actualized. So, the necessary being is entirely acualized as the reason for the existence of potentiality. There can be no infinite regress beyond all physical and all immaterial. It would require some third category. The only category is the absolute cause of both entities. Since what is possessed in the effect must exist in the cause, then there is a first cause of all the effects - itself not a cause. It's the same with what is derived of being. All things that exist derive their existence from something else since they are contingent and do not explain their own existence. So, you cannot have derivative being without a source for it - and that is absolute being.

The standard objection to that proposition is that, if the existence of this Universe demands a primary cause, then why does this primary cause not also demand a causal explanation of itself?

Because there is nothing that could cause it. This is obvious by the statement "All physical reality was caused by a physical object.". We can see why that's illogical. "All red balls were created by a red ball". That doesn't work. If all physical reality has a cause, then the cause cannot be a physical being. If all contingent entities, held together as compositions of potential and actual have a cause, then by necessity is it through a non-contingent, fully actualized being. There's no third option. You can't have a regress of non-existent causes (like a physical cause that creates all physical things - that's illogical).

If its existence was not caused then it must always have existed and be infinite in extent, in other words, it is the infinity it was intended to preclude.

No, its obviously a different kind of infinity. Absolute being which is fully actual, is that which is non-contingent. Infinity of a physical universe over time is subject to all of the problems that physics would show (entropy and finite sources of matter and energy as well as "nothingness at the boundaries which is impossible). An infinite regress of first causes proposes that there can be more than one absolutely infinite being. But that's obviously false. There an be no cause to absolute being, because that cause would have to possess something that absolute being did not possess - and that's illogical. There cannot be two absolutely infinite beings. So, there can be no regress of causes. An absolute being is the fullness of actualized existence - and that's where all existence takes its source. If there were more than one absolute being, then none of them would be absolute - each would have part of the total, each would be dependent on each other, each would limit each other. This just violates what is meant by the first cause.

If it is not infinite then it must have been called into existence at some point, in other words, it had a cause which in turn had a cause and we are back to an infinite causal regress.

. Yes, that's right. An infinite, fully actualized, non-contingent, absolute being is not merely a placeholder to end a regress. It's the necessary source of contingent beings. It is self-existing and self-caused because there is nothing that could cause it. A fully actualized being, which actualizes all potentials, cannot be created by anything since it possesses no potentials - it is fully real, fully complete as a being. All other existence and being is dependent upon it. So the cause of all material and contingent immaterial reality was caused by something need more than just the statement "there was some other cause". What sort of being could cause that and where could that being derive existence (since all existence is exhausted in what is considered the first cause). Silver Asiatic

CD As a deist, you have some answers -given that the basics in deist thought align exactly with the philosophy of uncaused first cause - as well as the deist God as creator of the universe. So, in arguing against those things you're trying to defeat your own proclaimed deist-worldview. You seem to do that quite frequently. If you have a position, then you should put it forward and defend it. Attacking all notions of God makes it appear that your own claims of deism are insincere. You apparently arrived at the idea that God exists. Let's hear what convinced you of that. Silver Asiatic

Good post, CD, and I agree. Viola Lee

Seversky @ 825 I think this is the great paradox that religionists seek to avoid. The typical response is that you cannot impose on God the same causal rules that apply to humans. But that simply begs the question. I think the question you raise is as much a psychological issue as a philosophical (ontological) one. I don't think we humans are very good at living with ambiguity and uncertainty, so we concoct pseudo-explanations for irresolvable problems, e.g., who created God, who created the world, how can paradoxical notions like the trinity exist, the problem of evil, and so on. It gives philosophers and theologians something to do. In this regard, however, I don't think anyone has solved the problem and Aristotle's unmoved mover hasn't seemed to have moved an inch in 2300 years. To me, there is a provocative beauty in ambiguity and uncertainty, knowing that there are things that you can't know, problems that will likely never get solved, what happens when we die, etc. But, I just don't think most people are comfortable in that world... chuckdarwin

to Sev at 825, and to SA: Yes to Sev. This attempt to use pure logic, starting from propositions which embed unfounded assumptions without any evidence, is bound to lead to the difficulty that you describe so well. In the case of my conversation with SA, it led to the inevitable special pleading, as documented below: SA wrote at 814,

As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we’ve traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality – that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). ... We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed, but we trace causality (and the cause of the rational process itself) to that “monism”, and thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions ... The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being.

This is my big takeaway from the conversation: it confirms, to me, my statement from way back at 661: SA had written “They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully” and I replied,

And those steps are full of assumptions that do not follow from the experimental evidence.

Those assumptions are necessary to land on the primary desired conclusion that there is an absolute being, and they are necessary to avoid the infinite regress we run into if we think pure logic can tell us anything about ultimate reality. And this is before we tried to go on to establish further characteristics of this supreme being, but I’m sure the same problems arise there, also. to SA: I appreciate very much your engagement in the conversation. We paid attention to each other, responded to comments and questions the other had made, and worked to establish the things we agreed on. These are things which contribute to a productive discussion. Among other things, I now understand why you considered the LOI so important from the beginning. Frankly, I was a bit baffled that anyone could doubt it, and I didn’t understand why, when I tried to extend the discussion to the role of logic in general, you kept coming back to the importance of the LOI for you. Now I understand why it plays such a central part in your argument, the key line being “We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed”. So thanks for the conversation. Viola Lee

Sev, no, as the formation on a negative just obfuscates. The issue is, we have already had in hand the first triad of logic pivoting on distinct identity: A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics. So, we can turn to a next question, informed by possible worlds speak: if A is, or is not or may be or is impossible to be, why is that the case, in hope of a reasonable answer. This is logic of being, and PW speak allows us to see that such a weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason [wif-PSR] is not only unobjectionable but allows us to powerfully answer to what is etc. Some things, such as a square circle or the like, are impossible of being as required core characteristics are incoherent, so we know LOI has existential significance. Similarly, we can consider A as a bright red ball on a table in world W, then ponder W' in which there is no ball on the table, but is a close neighbour otherwise. The difference, W - W' allows us to identify causes of the ball and its presence on the table, i.e. we have defined cause, which then is seen to imply possible being that may be in at least one PW but not in a neighbouring one, revealing cause. But then, we see another case of possible being, necessary being. Note, for W to be different from W' we see W = {A|(W' = ~A)}, and already a distinct possible world necessarily involves duality, 2 is part of the fabric of any possible world. Indeed as | is empty so is 0, A is a unit so 1, and ~A is complex so we see contrasting forms of the unit, simple and complex or composite unity; beyond on von Neumann lie N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc and a huge core of trans-world valid mathematics, answering Wigner's wonder.. Now, there is no possible world without 2, it neither began nor can end, 2 is a necessary albeit abstract entity, a necessary being. Such are a-causal, but are prior to causality. As we can readily review our world is causal-thermodynamic-temporal, succeeding by years etc, CTTh. We can see that a transfinite suggested past cannot be traversed stepwise, and so we come to the root issue: 0, circularity, necessary being terminus. The first two fail the something from nothing, utter non being test so there is a necessary being world root. This must be adequate to sustain all worlds that are or may be. Including ours and our own existence. Such is pregnant with onward considerations, it is not empty as would be "acausal." KF kairosfocus

As I understand it, the "necessary being root of reality" is simply a different label for the uncaused first cause that is posited as the only way to close off an infinite causal regress. The standard objection to that proposition is that, if the existence of this Universe demands a primary cause, then why does this primary cause not also demand a causal explanation of itself? If its existence was not caused then it must always have existed and be infinite in extent, in other words, it is the infinity it was intended to preclude. If it is not infinite then it must have been called into existence at some point, in other words, it had a cause which in turn had a cause and we are back to an infinite causal regress. Neither of these alternatives are satisfactory, unless you are trying to establish your preferred deity as the uncaused first cause but there seems to be no way around the dilemma by our current understanding. Seversky

WJM, you are feeling your way back to the necessary being root of reality. We are contingent and experience any number of things that are antecedent to us and that are independent of but interact with us. But tracing to the root, we find a soul that is prior to and source of all worlds beyond himself as World Zero, the root. KF kairosfocus

WJM, a soul experiences, as a self moved entity [see Plato's equating of the self moved with life in The Laws Bk X], a rational soul, is governed by the first principles and duties of reason, and so may come to adequately warrant what is perceived, reflected on or experiences so it rises above instinct and error prone subjectivity to rational, responsible, freely thought through and acknowledged - objective - knowledge. KF kairosfocus

So, I'm talking about what must be a pre-experiential cause. That doesn't necessarily mean that the pre-experiential cause cannot itself be experienced, but it would be causing what I experience that cause as. I can't get "behind" the experience it is causing because I am the experience (Qua) it is causing. "It' is not not an experience, "it" is causing experience. "It" is not "me," because "I," in any meaningful sense of the term, am an experience, a combination of "observer" and "observed." "It" is not "the observer" because "observer" is an experience. Well here's another thought .... can the cause of Qua even be thought of as separable from the Qua, or as preceding qua? Hmm. William J Murray

F/N: SEP, in re qualia https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state, some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.

Then, there is Wiki:

In philosophy of mind, qualia (/?kw??li?/ or /?kwe?li?/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective qu?lis (Latin pronunciation: [?k?a?l?s]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance, such as "what it is like to taste a specific apple?—?this particular apple now". Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to propositional attitudes,[1] where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing. Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us".[2] Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term, and various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. Consequently, the nature and existence of various definitions of qualia remain controversial. While some philosophers of mind like Daniel Dennett argue that qualia do not exist and are incompatible with neuroscience and naturalism,[3][4] some neuroscientists and neurologists like Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio, Vilayanur Ramachandran, Giulio Tononi, Christof Koch and Rodolfo Llinás state that qualia exist and that the desire to eliminate them is based on an erroneous interpretation on the part of some philosophers regarding what constitutes science.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][excessive citations]

Food for thought. KF kairosfocus

All experiences and all potential experiences in a Qua are, as a valid tautology, internal of that Qua. Even if there was a world external of Qua, every experience caused by that external world would have to be already in the Qua's internal potential. To say we experience an external world is nonsense because all experience is entirely within Qua. All experience is internal. The external cannot be experienced" even if it can cause experience. Oh, there it is! The cause of an experience is not the experience that is being caused. Wow. This is a conceptual error on the same order of mistaking a model of behavior for the cause of the behavior, like "gravity." We think the experience is causing the experience. Something is causing Qua, both the experience of self and other, on every level, because all of that is an experience. Experiences do not cause themselves. Well, this is quite the rabbit hole. What the heck is causing Qua, meaning the full experience of "self" and "other," which is a non-separable whole? William J Murray

SA said:

This is where defining “Qua” is essential.

Which I did in 797 before I brought the "I" in to the equation. WJM said:

Qua is the capacity of any being as an “I” to have any experience whatsoever, in any way. We call certain sub-categories of Qua mind, soul, awareness, unconscious, subconscious, physical senses, etc, but they are capacities of the subject, the “I,” to experience in different ways. Qua represents the full capacity of the “I” to experience.

Note that in that post there are two unanswered questions at the end:

1. If I shut down your Qua permanently, is it rational to say “you” still exist? (And remember, Qua includes any form of thought, which are experiences.) 2. Would you agree that Qua is necessarily subjective in nature? (Note, I’m not talking about what the experiences are of, I’m talking about the experiential capacity itself. I grant that we can have subjective experiences of something that exists objectively, and we can recognize that the thing we are experiencing is objective in nature, but the experience itself is not objective.)

It was here that I realized that the "I" cannot be separated from what I defined as the "Qua." If you separate an I from all experience, there is no I left and there is no experience. It is a tautology - a valid one, as far as I can tell. It looks to me to be trivially true. Self requires experience; experience requires self. One cannot exist without the other. Self=experience, so self/experience is Qua. Qua would be the correct way to identify an individual as an entity with identifiable boundaries; the boundary at a given time would be the full range of all experience having any internal effect whatsoever, providing a boundary and internal "state of Qua." Within that Qua lies all potential experience for that Qua. If it's not in Qua to be able to be in a particular state of experience, that experience can never occur in that Qua, regardless of any possible external stimuli or conditions. Even if the potential for that experience exists within Qua, the current state of that Qua must be capable of making that potential active whether any cause is internal or external. IOW, unless the internal conditions allow for an experience to be drawn from the potential, no cause can effect that experience. The question is, once again: is it rational to say something external of Qua can cause an occurrence of experience in that Qua? More in the next comment. William J Murray

SA & VL, before LOI is examined as the root principle of right reason, we must observe that it is a principle of being and communication. We live in a somehow unified domain with diverse particulars that are stable, even with change, starting with experiencing ourselves and others. This is part of why I keep noting, Law or Principle of DISTINCT Identity, a recognition of A being itself i/l/o its core characteristics. Morning and Evening star were experienced as objects that could have been distinct, until it was realised, they were the same object, a planet in different phases of its astronomical motion. There was a common identity, where time of observation was in a sense secondary so morning and evening star were consistent with both being Venus as it was called from ancient days. Thales sitting on the wharf, speculating financially and philosophically was spotting a key issue, one and many. I of course use possible worlds speak as it allows greater flexibility and power in our reasoning, also reminding us that this universe does not necessarily exhaust reality, especially if one entertains physicalist notions. As for God being monist, we can immediately consider the diversity of worlds in the mind of God, who is Mind himself. Our world is significant as it is instantiated physically, not because it exhausts possibilities and diversity. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray @803, Yes, I basically agree. What we experience might also not be material or tangible. Again, this debate is between materialists (the brain is a computer out of which emerges consciousness and higher cognitive activities) and dualists (the brain is a receiving station of a non-material conscious spirit). Did you watch my link to Dr. Egnor's presentation on local brain functions and the discoveries around "free will and "free won't"? You might enjoy it! -Q Querius

re 814, to SA. “You write, “When we say that “A is a red ball”, that’s not accurate. We’re saying, by identity: “A is This red ball”. From that, we know that Not-A is the direct negative of that. By its nature, it negates the affirmation. So, Not-A is “everything that is not That ball”. There can be millions of red balls, but Not-A negates the identification of the one.” I agree. I meant “this red ball” but I wasn’t explicit. You write, “If I say “here is all physical reality” – that’s an identity. Not-A cannot say “AND there is some physical reality over here also”. That contradicts LOI.” But this contradicts what you just said, I think. Here is “all physical reality in this universe.”. That is this red ball. That doesn’t mean that there might not be other places where there is physical reality, just as there can be other red balls. So I’ve added a clarifying clause to what you wrote, “It is therefore clear, when “this is all physical reality (the universe)” then Not-A is necessarily an existing entity that is “everything existing which is not physical reality in this universe”. Note well: I am not talking about any theories about multiverses or anything having to do with evidence (we seem to have skipped right over that part of the search for truth.) I am saying that your logical argument based on the LOI is assuming without justification or evidence that the physical reality that exists in our universe is the only physical reality there is, and we don’t know that. I also want to reiterate that in consider our universe to contain both mental and physical aspects, so this whole argument, for me, is certainly not about materialism. My interest is in ascertaining what we can know, or not know, and I don’t think the LOI by itself gets you the conclusions you want it to. ===== Different topic: monism. You write

As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we’ve traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality – that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). Thus, we have the creation of our dualist view which makes human rationality possible.

Saying that “The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being” is a special pleading. The Tao of Taoism makes the same claims. It is a metaphysical belief that likewise makes rationality possible. Claiming that there is one exception to the LOI, God, is a religious belief that is far, far beyond going “in steps” from the LOI to that assertion. And last, and again, you write, “thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions (the way a materialist monism would be, for example).” I am not discussing materialism. ===== And responding to 815, which I just saw: yes, multiple religions, including Eastern ones which are quite different than Western monotheism, ultimately end in a God (a monistic one) who then creates the world. But I’ll conclude, and there may not be much more to say, that a) this is not a conclusion that follows from the LOI, and b) this is not a conclusion for which we have actually evidence. Viola Lee

VL mentioned Christian theology but these ideas are not limited to Christian thought:

Xenophon describes Zeus as “of all the gods the one who orders and sustains the whole universe.” (Memorab., IV, 3, 13.) Varro says: Jupiter the almighty, the father of kings and of all things and of the gods and goddesses, the one sole God.*' (Ap. Aug. de civit. Dei, VII, 9.) Horace, in speaking of Jupiter, says: “He alone rules the sluggish earth and stormy sea, cities and the regions of the dead, gods and mortals alike with his impartial sway.” (Carm., Ill, 4, 45.) “The very worshippers of the gods, when they swear, or utter prayers and thanksgivings, do not mention Jupiter or many gods, but simply God.** (Lactantius, div. instit., II, i.) According to Plato, God is the supreme good and the supreme. Spirit, the source of all goodness and beauty. (Soph., p. 248, 265; de leg., X, 892, 898.) According to Aristotle, God is the principal or source of all life, one both in nature and in number. (Metaphys., XII, 8, 10.) (Cf. the quotation from Xenophon, page 34.)

Silver Asiatic

VL

No, not-A doesn’t mean the negative of A. If we consider the red ball as A, not-A doesn’t mean that not-A is not red nor that not-A is not a ball. Not-A is not even a “thing” in the same sense that A is. Not-A is just everything that is not the ball. That is all.

Not-A is necessarily an existent entity that is "not what we have identified as A". When we say that "A is a red ball", that's not accurate. We're saying, by identity: "A is This red ball". From that, we know that Not-A is the direct negative of that. By its nature, it negates the affirmation. So, Not-A is "everything that is not That ball". There can be millions of red balls, but Not-A negates the identification of the one. If I knew "these are all of the red balls in the universe right here" - that is A=A. What that means, necessarily is that Not-A has "Zero red balls in it". That's a direct negation. That's necessarily how Not-A creates the definition. If a person says "Not-A tells us nothing about red balls" then would have a scenario where it is said "here are all the red balls" A=A. Then at the same time "there are some red balls over there also". Clearly, that's a violation of LOI. You cannot have "all the red balls" in one place and at the same time "some of them in another place". If they are all in one place, then Not-A is the negation of red balls. It means, there are zero red balls anywhere else. If I say "here is all physical reality" - that's an identity. Not-A cannot say "AND there is some physical reality over here also". That contradicts LOI. It is therefore clear, when "this is all physical reality (the universe)" then Not-A is necessarily an existing entity that is "everything existing which is not physical reality". As I explained at length to Seversky in post 804, Not-A cannot be a non-existent entity. Otherwise you would have: Not-A is non-existent (or nothing). So, "nothing is Not-A" That's another way of saying "everything is A" - and that destroys the LOI. So, when it is established that "this is the universe" - then Not-A is the existent entity that is "everything which is not the physical universe". When we have an entity that is "not included in the physical universe", that entity is necessarily "non-physical". We call that an immaterial entity. Because the universe is A=A, then Not-A is "everything that is not the physical universe (and it cannot be nothing)" - so Not-A is the existing, non-physical (immaterial) entity that necessarily exists.

In Christianity, an eternal God at some point creates the world. How is this also not “monism”?

As I explained, the LOI terminates in a being that is beyond the combination of all physical and all immaterial. We could call this a monism, yes. But there is a very big exception to any other monist system in that we've traced physical and non-physical nature to pure actuality - that being only who is capable of creating and binding the composite of potential forms (physical and non-physical). Thus, we have the creation of our dualist view which makes human rationality possible. But the LOI is applicable on the human scale. For a being that transcends both physical and immaterial temporal essences - a being that is pure act which enables all potentialities to exist, that's the "ground of all being". That sort of "monism" does not destroy rationality, but rather is the basis for rationality since it is the origin of identity itself. We cannot fully ascribe A=A to that kind of being because it cannot be circumscribed, but we trace causality (and the cause of the rational process itself) to that "monism", and thus it is not an irrational monism that cannot create distinctions (the way a materialist monism would be, for example). The LOI ultimately terminates in absolute being. Silver Asiatic

SA, I continue to think that you are ascribing more meaning to the LOI that it really has as an element of logic in order to try to bring in assumptions: rather than provide evidence you are thinking that logic will somehow provide that which evidence cannot. You write, “When we say “the universe” we’re talking about the physical universe. So, Not-A is that which enables the boundary – so the entity which is non-physical or immaterial. “ No, not-A doesn’t mean the negative of A. If we consider the red ball as A, not-A doesn’t mean that not-A is not red nor that not-A is not a ball. Not-A is not even a “thing” in the same sense that A is. Not-A is just everything that is not the ball. That is all. We live in a bounded universe A with certain characteristics. For those of us who believe that mind, whatever that is, is part of the universe, we can say that our universe contains both physical and mental phenomena. Not-A just means everything that is not a part of our universe, of which we have no direct experience. Not-A could also contain both physical and mental phenomena, and it could contain phenomena utterly beyond our comprehension. Just because A is physical doesn’t mean not-A is not physical, any more than not-“the red ball” is not red nor a ball. It is making a false and unjustified dichotomy to say that since our universe is physical what is outside our universe must be something different. Therefore, it continues to be an imposition of un-evidenced concepts such as immaterial, supernatural, etc. I think you are “smuggling in” metaphysical concepts that are not at all consequences of the LOI ==== A separate point. In another post you write, “That reality is “being” since if it was non-being it would not exist.” If you are just using “being” to mean “existing”, that is one thing. However, it is easy to slide over to “being” meaning a sentient identity, which is a large metaphysical difference. ==== As to monism, since it looks like we are going way past logic and evidence, I’ll say this. In Eastern philosophy the undifferentiated One produces the world, which is characterized by duality and “restless multiplicity”.In Christianity, an eternal God at some point creates the world. How is this also not “monism”? A single, undifferentiated all-everything being, existing outside of time–a monistic being, from whom things, and thus duality, arises? Viola Lee

WJM

Whether the idea that something external of Qua (the set of experiencer and experience) can be rationally said to cause any experience in that Qua.

This is where defining "Qua" is essential. If we said it was strictly "conscious awareness" then there are exceptions (regarding experiences that occur unaware). If we said, however "self" - that might work but it comes too close to a tautology (Self is required for self to experience something). I look at more esoteric ideas that come from spiritual teachings on contemplation and meditation, where the self is transcended. Now we could say that is the "oneness" that you are referring to and I could accept that to a degree. It's only that to arrive at that state of transcendence (beyond self-consciousness), we are reaching something beyond what I think you're calling Qua. You might be able to figure out another way to define this that would include both transcendence of self (including direct communication to soul by-passing self-consciousness) and that all experience is generated from within. I would think some Buddhist and Hindu teachings would offer something like this that provide some answers along the lines you're thinking of, but I still see several problems with both of those when sorting out our individual experiences and the concept of everything merging into a oneness monism. Silver Asiatic

re 800, to WJM. You write, "The specific characteristics of “A” don’t tell you anything about the nature of “not-A,” because all it takes for something to be not-A is changing one tiny characteristic. A exact duplicate of the red ball on the table can be on the kitchen counter, but it is still not the red ball on the table." True, but not-A also includes things totally unrelated to the red ball, such as a rock on planet circling a star in a distant galaxy. As I want to emphasize is that knowing something about the characteristics of A tells us nothing else about not-A. Not-A is not a distinct thing with an identity such as A has: not-A is just a the collection of all the things that are not A (notice the absence of a hyphen here.) Viola Lee

VL

Let us assume that there is “something” other than the universe. Then the union of the universe A and all that is “not the universe” not-A creates a larger comprehensive set: a bigger universal set, perhaps called Universe(2), or U2.

The reason that does not work and there is no infinite regress is that A=A has to refer to something identifiable. When we say "the universe" we're talking about the physical universe. So, Not-A is that which enables the boundary - so the entity which is non-physical or immaterial. That necessarily exists as a defining feature of what is physical (I provided the definition). Otherwise, the term "physical" is meaningless. Now, you propose that the combination of the two (the entire physical and entire non-physical) provides a new Not-A "outside" of that. But there's no possibility left since we have exhausted all possibilities already with the physical A and immaterial Not-A. We'd have to have some kind of third thing "not physical and not immaterial". What we rightly could say at this point, for the third thing - is that we have the combination of two contingent realities. Physical requires a non-physical entity to exist. That which is outside that particular boundary can only be non-contingent - not dependent on one or the other. It cannot be a composition of physical/non-physical, but a single unity beyond both of those aspects. So, we have the non-contingent, indivisible unity - we have a real entity that cannot be potentially one or the other. Here's where A=A terminates. That ends the infinite regress. That's what exhausts all possibilities. In this third being which is non-contingent and is "outside" the physical/non-physical boundary we no longer have something that can be circumscribed by LOI because it is the only being that can explain the analysis that follows. Once we have a non-contingent, non-temporal, "outside" physical and non-physical, fully actualized being, we have an explanation for the duality that LOI provides. Silver Asiatic

SA said @806:

I’m not fully following your distinctions, but I think you’re also looking to eliminate a third-party in the formula. There’s the experience, experiencer – and then “the cause of the experience” which in my view, can be the experiencer in some cases, but also be something (or someone) not either the experience itself or the experiencer.

That's what I'm working on. Whether the idea that something external of Qua (the set of experiencer and experience) can be rationally said to cause any experience in that Qua. More normally stated as: can something external cause an internal experience? William J Murray

re 804, to SA regarding his comments to Sev. I understand that Sev’s thoughts about the possibility that the universe is all there is is a topic of much interest to you, as evidenced by your post. However, I see you have also responded to my post at 799, which makes different points than Sev, but I’ve already written this, so I’ll post it first. But, in response to Sev’s point and your response: In logic it is customary to consider the set of all possible things as the Universal set U, so that the union of A and not-A is U. (I can’t type the union symbol.) In Venn diagram terms, if you draw U as a rectangle, as is customary and A as a circle in the rectangle, then not-A is everything in the rectangle that is not in the circle. (See here for a little explanation of some basic ideas.) So Sev is proposing that perhaps the universe is U itself, so there is nothing outside of it. SA says no, if we consider the universe A, then not-A says there is something beyond the universe: something bigger than contains the universe as well as “something else.” I happen to agree with SA about there being more than the universe, but I don’t think SA’s argument involving the LOI establishes that. Here’s why. Let us assume that there is “something” other than the universe. Then the union of the universe A and all that is “not the universe” not-A creates a larger comprehensive set: a bigger universal set, perhaps called Universe(2), or U2. However, if we consider U2 an an A and apply the same reasoning that there must be a not-A of things that are in U2, so now have a U3. This process obviously can be repeated, so we now have an infinite set of larger and larger rectangles representing an infinite set of nested Universes. The dreaded infinite regress again rears its ugly head! So I don’t think you can use the LOI argument to “prove” there is something outside the universe without bringing in the same infinite regress problems that shows up elsewhere. You ether accept the infinite regress problem or you accept (as an assumption) that there truly is something that is the Universal set, so to speak, that has nothing outside of itself. Viola Lee

KF

We apply these to logic of being and make use of possible worlds thought.

Exactly. It's the logic of being. I have avoided possible worlds formulations so far and I've taken a different approach. First, with A=A we have an absolute truth. Secondly, we affirm that the truth aligns with "what is real" or reality. We can validate A=A. So, accessing the truth brings us to a logic of being. We understand existing entities by identification and separation. I took it a little farther by aligning the truth about things with "value" - or "the good". We are oriented to truth (LOI) and seek it (continually in our rational thought, even if we tell a lie there's an underlying need for truth) - we do this because "the truth is good (has value, is right, is justified) and what is false or illusion is "less good" (or bad). With that: Truth -> Being -> Goodness, we have a foundation. Silver Asiatic

WJM

At a more fundamental level, we have two root concepts: observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, regardless of how you categorize aspects of either side of that fundamental dualism of self and other.

I'm not fully following your distinctions, but I think you're also looking to eliminate a third-party in the formula. There's the experience, experiencer - and then "the cause of the experience" which in my view, can be the experiencer in some cases, but also be something (or someone) not either the experience itself or the experiencer. Silver Asiatic

VL

A simple example that has been used before: suppose you have a red ball on a big table. (I will forego adding a picture). The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe. The only thing you can say about not-A is that it is not the ball. Other than that, you know nothing specific about not-A.

Here you're comparing a red ball with the entire universe. We can observe what A is - that's how we determined identity. "This red ball". That doesn't mean that Not-A has no identity. No - in fact, we know that Not-A is a real entity. Plus we can compare it with A to validate LOI. "Yes, the entire universe is not the same as the red ball" - so A=A is validated. I think we can know something more about Not-A than merely "the entire universe is not just a red ball". We might say "the entire universe is bigger than a red ball." We could say it has more potential for being (since it is a foundation that brings being into emergence), it has more energy and capability. Actually, I think there's a lot we could say about that comparison. What is the difference between a red ball and the entire universe (not including that ball)? A=A means we made a real distinction between the two and to do that, we know something about both entities - enough to separate them. It's the same with what I already said - we have "physical nature". That's A=A. Thus, we have Not-A. You opposed this. An example might be, let's say I'm an artist and I created 10 paintings in my life. I put all those paintings in one room. Now I can say "All of my paintings are in that room". That's LOI. I identified something. Thus, A=A. We know for certain, all my paintings are there - no more exist, and none can possibly exist since I know that I only painted those 10. Thus, what precise thing (important thing) can we say about Not-A. We can say, with 100% certainty - as an absolute truth: "Not-A does not contain a single one of SA's paintings. Not-A has absolutely Zero of those paintings. So, Not-A is a "non-SA-painting entity" - it's a reality that contains none of my paintings. Now we apply the same to "the physical world", "the universe" or to "nature". By definition: The physical world is where "all physical reality is". That's the room with the paintings. So, all physical world in that A=A. That's LOI - with identity. We know for certain therefore, that Not-A - with absolute certainty "contains none of the physical world". What we call that is "not physical". Substitute "material" - some thing. We have "all of what we call material here" A=A. Thus, Not-A has nothing of what we define as material. You are thinking that this is "the opposite" of one or the other, but no - it's just the necessary alternative. It's the negation. "All of the universe is temporal reality, bound by time. What we call non-temporal is "transcendent" by defintion". If A is "all temporal reality" - then Not-A is the transcendent reality that must exist. That reality is "being" since if it was non-being it would not exist and we would have no A=A and be reduced to a monist system which is irrational Silver Asiatic

Seversky

We are able to make sense of the Universe by recognizing what appear to be the distinct entities of which it is comprised. We have evolved a set of linguistic tools which we can use both to model what we observe and to predict what we have not yet observed. Logic is one of those tools and the LOI is a statement of what we have observed. These linguistic modeling tools are only of use if they can both describe what we have observed and predict what we have not yet observed.

We go beyond this with the LOI. It is not merely an arbitrary rule that aligns with observation. It is an inherent characteristic of our rational human nature. It makes observations comprehensible. As discussed earlier, A=A is an absolute truth that admits no exceptions within our frame of rationality. We are oriented to the truth of things because all of our thoughts proceed from the LOI. It is impossible to have rational thought without it.

Not necessarily. If the Universe is understood to comprise everything that exists, whether or not we are able to observe it, then there is literally nothing beyond it. Any theoretical boundary is between existence and non-existence.

I will disagree and assert that the separation given by the LOI is necessary and it applies to existence. You propose here that "non-existence" would take the form of "Not-A" in the LOI. When we say "This universe" - a separation and boundary is created. We then have A=A. So, that means A is not "Not-A". That's our rational construct. However, you propose that "Not-A" is "non-existence" (or nothing). This works out like so: Not-A is non-existence or nothing. So, "Nothing is Not-A". If nothing is Not-A, then "A is everything". If A is everything, then A=A fails since we will no longer have an identity. The LOI requires an existing Non-A. That's how our rational thought works. We must have an existing comparison between A=A and "all else" -- the "all else" cannot be nothing since that would mean that A=A is every possible thing so no distinction could be made. Back to our box of blue marbles. They're all blue marbles, so we cannot request a selection of "the blue marble". There's no distinction. Perhaps another analogy (they're difficult because we always make distinctions), you're swimming underwater and want to demonstrate what water is. Or you show a "cupful of water" - but what is in the cup is the same as everything around you. That violates the LOI since you haven't identified the thing. This is the problem with monism. The reason we speak of "the physical universe" (A=A) is that we have that which is Not-A. So, defining "physical" from a dictionary: everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance— Thomas De Quincey That definition would be pointless if Not-A = Non-existence. If there was no Not-A, then "nothing is not physical" and there's no sense in saying that physical is that which can be measured by weight, motion and resistance. So, we have to have an existing Not-A, and that is the "non-physical" in this case. Beyond this, to say that the A=A for existence (inside the boundary of identity) has "non-existence" as outside, has a separation between what exists and nothing. But "nothing" can have: No properties and No capabilities or potential In this case, however, the universe would be “surrounded by non-existence” – but this is impossible since the capability to surround something, is a property. But non-existence cannot have a property. The universe is defined by its boundary, as any existing entity must be - but if the boundary is non-existence, then nothing prevents the universe from being absolutely infinite in every dimension. There are insoluble problems with a material entity that is absolutely infinite in time, space and material composition. But that's what we'd have with a universe where Not-A is nothing (unbounded). Like rainwater filling a small hole in the ground which is a puddle – if A is the puddle, the edge of the hole is the boundary, and the “non-A” actually defines the shape of the puddle. So, there’s a relationship between the Inside and Outside that is necessary. If the Non-A is nothingness, there can be no relationship. In this sense, non-existence is a ‘universal acid’ to being. First, it destroys our rational thought because we would have an entity that cannot be identified as such. We could not refer to the universe and make that distinction. Then, if the universe was suspended or surrounded by non-being, then we would say that non-existence is a possible state (not that it ‘exists’ but that there could be absolute nothingness). We establish "Not-A" is nothingness. So, nothingness is a possible state. We keep in mind, that nothingness has no characteristics by which we could say it is 'potential' - it has no potentiality. But if we said "it's just nothingness outside the universe", then nothingness is possible. But if nothingness is possible, then its possible that our universe could also become reduced to nothingness through change over time. But in an infinite duration of the universe, if it was possible to become nothingness - then the universe would have been nothing already and could never exist (since nothing comes from nothing). We already know that the universe could not begin from nothing (you affirmed that in a previous post last week. But if “non-existence” was the identifying “outside” of the universe – then the universe could not have had a cause outside of itself. It would have to be self-caused (which is irrational) or eternal. If, however, the universe itself was eternal and uncaused – everything that was possible to happen to the universe would have already had to happen by now. As such, “non-existence” for the universe would be a necessary possibility (since “non-existence” surrounds a changing, decaying universe) then the universe would have already been reduced to nothing by now. A common understanding of the universe is not that "it is everything" but that it is "all physical reality" and thus requires an explanation for its existence. The way the universe can develop and change is with regards to its potentiality. A cause must precede its effect. So, the origin of the universe require causes that come before the universe existed. That cause must have the power to move potentiality to actuality - so, there must be the potential to make the change. If nothingness preceeded the universe, there would be no possiblity for the universe to arise. Regarding potentiality, this does align with quantum theory which proposes wave functions as potentialities which, when actualized, become particles. But potentiality cannot actualize itself. The universe is itself a potentiality which has been gradually and partially actualized – but that requires something actual to exist to actualize the potential of the universe to exist and change. That means a real entity, outside the bounds of the universe must necessarily exist as an actualizer of the universe’s potentiality.

Again, not necessarily. We can only observe anything if it has some effect on observable physical reality.

The effect that the immaterial has left on the physical is that it is what enables us to identify the physical. We know the material as A=A and therefore the non-material is the necessary “Not-A”. The non-material leaves the effect of the shape and outline of the boundary for A – or the physical. That’s how we can refer to things like “the physical” or “nature” – because we distinguish it from the “non-physical” and “supernatural”. So, the non-material is an existing entity that we call "Not-A" in this case.

You can posit some immaterial entity living in some sort of “transcendental realm” but unless it leaves some sort of observable physical imprint on the fabric of our reality, we have no way of observing it or even knowing it exists at all.

We know for certain it exists because we use the term “physical” in our LOI, separating it from the non-physical as a necessary component. If “everything is physical” then we couldn’t identify it in the A=A formulation. We would have “A is everything” and thus no way to define A. We would lose our rational thought in this case. Even the non-philosophical work of physical science points to the existence of immaterial entities (WJM for example believes that science indicates that nothing but immaterial essences exist) and that work is done through observation.

In this case, the boundary is not between nature and supernature but between what is known and what is not known or does not exist to be known.

It is rather, what is known as absolutely necessary through the process of rational identity. A monist system will necessarily destroy rational thought because it will not permit real distinctions. “Everything is one” means that there can be no “Non-A” – and if Not-A does not exist, then A=A is the same as A=Not-A. or better yet, we cannot compare A with anything. Silver Asiatic

Q @798, Okay, I see why I wasn't able to understand you in the beginning. I wasn't even thinking in terms of a brain, so that's why the analogy mystified me. The conversation with SA has actually propelled me to think more about the nature of self and experience and trying to untangle it from categorical labels like mind, soul, physical senses, consciousness, etc. At a more fundamental level, we have two root concepts: observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, regardless of how you categorize aspects of either side of that fundamental dualism of self and other. My questions to SA were about examining whether or not it is even rational to think of the experiencer and his/her experience as two different things. I don't see how they can be. If you shut off the experiencer, there is no experience occurring. If you shut off the experiences, there is no experiencer. What if instead of thinking about it dualistic terms, we thought of the experiencer and the experience he/she is having as the same thing? That's where I was heading with the term "Qua," the normal definition of which is "in the capacity of; as being," which is somewhat suitable here without bringing in all the mind/soul/consciousness/unconscious baggage. I don't see how the experiencer and experience can be separable things. One cannot exist without the other. The only thing that exists for any Qua-A (to distinguish it from other Qua, or people, let's say) is Qua-A. There's no escaping it, even in principle. The question is, can something not-Qua-A cause a Qua-A experience of any sort? This gets back to what is causing experiences to occur, and whether or not it is rational to say that some extra-Qua-A commodity can cause something to occur in the Qua-A. I'm still working on that. William J Murray

Viola Lee The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe.

This is a BS. Nobody says that the ball is a tree or a mouse or a submarine. A - notA discussion appears only in particular cases when notA could be confounded with A. Sandy

VL attn WJM, it is not just the triad of principles, LOI, LNC & LEM that are at stake. We apply these to logic of being and make use of possible worlds thought. That allows us to reckon with evidence from our world and allows us to contemplate other possibilities. We can then see a weak, inquiry form Principle of Sufficient Reason, that allows us to ask, why is A the case, or not the case or even why can A never be the case. Bring to bear the causal-thermodynamic succession of years etc, and we can look to the matter of the past of origins. We may see that a transfinite span of past stages is not feasible and that we need a finitely remote root of reality. A world with morally governed rational creatures then leads to further considerations on what can adequately found such a world. KF kairosfocus

VL @799, Excellent logic there about the limitations of logic in extrapolating characteristics of not-A from A. The specific characteristics of "A" don't tell you anything about the nature of "not-A," because all it takes for something to be not-A is changing one tiny characteristic. A exact duplicate of the red ball on the table can be on the kitchen counter, but it is still not the red ball on the table. William J Murray

to SA, re 791 You write, “Eventually, we can apply it [the LOI] to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature. ... In that case, we have nature and supernature. In simple terms, this gives us “transcendental reality” or something beyond the universe which exists. ... So, we have a transcendent being. That’s the Not-A in the LOI of the universe.” No. All the LOI says is that there is the universe A and everything that is not the universe not-A. That tells you absolutely nothing about any properties that “everything that is not the universe” might have. Using words like “supernature”, “transcendent”, and especially “being” have connotations that bring in assumptions you are making that are not warranted merely by invoking the LOI. A simple example that has been used before: suppose you have a red ball on a big table. (I will forego adding a picture). The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe. The only thing you can say about not-A is that it is not the ball. Other than that, you know nothing specific about not-A. At the start of this discussion I said I thought there were leaps of faith not justified by the evidence in the arguments for a sentient transcendental being. Your argument here is an example, as your conclusions are not even warranted by the logic of the LOI. So, I’ll repeat: in general, no matter how much you know about A, you don’t know anything specific about not-A. In particular, you don’t know that not-A has properties that are the opposite of A. So, as above: “All the LOI says is that there is the universe and everything that is not the universe. That tells you absolutely nothing about any properties that “everything that is not the universe” might have. Viola Lee

William J Murray @796, You had written in 776:

SA, It appears to me that you did not answer my question. Let me make it more simple and explicit: If I shut down every form of consciousness you have – the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point?

Conscious brain activity involves communications between the neurons in your brain usually by means of chemical neurotransmitters, sometimes electrons, and sometimes a combination. This activity allows you to, for example, calculate the answer to questions like 1+1. Computers send electrons through tiny circuits, loading up registers, and performing operations that also can result in calculating the answer to questions like 1+1. So, to answer your repeated question to Silver Asiatic, in which you made it more simple and explicit, I’d suggest that “shutting down every form of consciousness . . . FOREVER” could be accomplished by shutting down all synapses. This would terminate all sensory, experiential input from your sense organs: vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Similarly, FOREVER shutting off the supply of electrons through a computer or shutting down the specific programs running on a computer terminates all communication between you and the computer. So, the computer no longer has any experiences (which generate heat as a byproduct). Notice that I’m not addressing whether computers are conscious. But you, the operator of the computer, who tells the computer what to do (such as adding 1+1) still have intention and will and experiences but they just no longer involve this computer. It could be expressed through another computer instead. As you might be able to understand now, there’s a question of whether your brain as a type of biological computer either generates consciousness or transmits consciousness. If your brain generates consciousness, then consciousness is a physical phenomena that should be accessible to neuroscientists. However, as posted here on several occasions, Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon who has never found any evidence of localized higher abstract thought within the brain. For example https://youtu.be/BqHrpBPdtSI Dr. Egnor relates several amazing types of operations on the brain and its results--what's been found possible and not possible through brain surgery. This is strong evidence for an external or dualist nature of consciousness, personality, and intellect. I hope this answers the question you repeatedly posed to Silver Asiatic. -Q Querius

SA: I appreciate the conversation. It's required me to think out my own perspective more clearly. You've brought in a couple of challenges to my perspective that "all experience occurs in mind/consciousness," notably what the soul directly experiences and experiences in our unconsciousness (not non-conscious) state, perhaps better stated as sub-conscious experiences. In every challenge, you present that "you" have experiences in a variety of ways and not all of them are experiences that occur in your active, conscious awareness. You also express that you can have direct soul experiences. You argue that some of these are external of mind (that's where the discussion began, I think.) It occurs to me that the problem here is one of semantics, categorization, and definition. Instead of mind or consciousness or physical senses, subconscious, unconscious, sub-conscious, soul, etc, I'm going to use the word "Qua." Qua is the capacity of any being as an "I" to have any experience whatsoever, in any way. We call certain sub-categories of Qua mind, soul, awareness, unconscious, subonscious, physical senses, etc, but they are capacities of the subject, the "I," to experience in different ways. Qua represents the full capacity of the "I" to experience. Given the above: 1. If I shut down your Qua permanently, is it rational to say "you" still exist? (And remember, Qua includes any form of thought, which are experiences.) 2. Would you agree that Qua is necessarily subjective in nature? (Note, I'm not talking about what the experiences are of, I'm talking about the experiential capacity itself. I grant that we can have subjective experiences of something that exists objectively, and we can recognize that the thing we are experiencing is objective in nature, but the experience itself is not objective.) William J Murray

Q @793 said: Sorry, I really don't understand what you're asking me. I shut down my computer every day and I still have experiences because there's a whole world I experience other than my computer. As far as a computer having an experience, we haven't established that computers have experiences. If you shut down all the processes and occurrences that are going on within all that comprises the computer forever, then there are no occurrences going on there. I don't see how any of this is applicable to the discussion. I'm sure you have sort of point you're attempting to make via analogy. Maybe just state it? William J Murray

PS, note the specific focus of this, universality of math drawn out through possible worlds analysis and distinct identity https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/62/59 kairosfocus

VL, the next steps have been put on the table repeatedly, so that needs to be acknowledged instead of repeatedly asking as though it is not there. I roll the tape, first noting SA drawing out from LOI:

[789] the most important point here is that A=A is irrefutable. There are no exceptions. It’s an absolute truth. But is A=A a part of every affirmation that we make and therefore of ever rational thought we have or express? I believe the answer is yes. Not only is A=A always correct in itself, but every rational construct or idea or proposal we have more make, requires that A=A be at the foundation. We cannot make a proposal where LOI is violated. With that in mind, we just have to look at your proposals and observe that the LOI is operative. If it is operative in every situation, then we have good grounds to believe that we have this dualism. We always have A and not-A, and therefore this is an indication about how reality is structured. First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this. Yes, but eventually we have Arizona and New Mexico. If they are not unique then they are the same thing. If they are unique, then there’s some reason – something that sets them apart. Even if the line is vague or people disagree on the line, eventually we have “this is New Mexico and this is Arizona”. Then we have the one and everything else that is not-that. A and not-A. We could say “this is both New Mexico and Arizona” (maybe they share some territory). But again, if we say that, we cannot say “this is both of them and this is not both of them”. That’s a violation of LOI. So we have the “not both of them” existing. It’s the place that is not either. Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico, Eventually we have to define the thing. Even if we say “I can’t tell the difference”. We will be pointing to “something”. We would say “that place over there has foothills leading to the mountain”. We identified “that place” as separate from all other places. So, A is not equal to not-A. Eventually, we have something that is not the foothills or the mountain or something that is not both together – that’s the “outside the boundary” or not-A.

So now go back to KF:

[783] LOI has as immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM, also once we look at world W = {A|~A} we see 0, 1, another complex 1 so 2. That invites the von Neumann construction of Peano style succession from {} –> 0 to w, first transfinite ordinal. Further construction immediately yields N,Z,Q,R,R*,C,C* etc and a reason why a core of math is transworld universal, i.e. necessary entities [= beings] framework to any possible world. I have noted on this several times. Add, the weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, for any particular A that is, or is a state of affairs, or can be, or is not or cannot ever be, we may freely ask why or why not and confidently expect a reasonable answer. This wifPSR bridges to logic of being, exploiting possible worlds speak. Thus possible vs impossible [of] being, and of possibles contingent vs necessary. Already, that opens up properties of beings and causality. Cause/effect is little more than a corollary to wifPSR. Thus we have some pretty big powerful results in hand that then extend into Mathematics, science, affairs, history etc.

Where, too, I call back up a C1 Rhetoric 101 that shows how conceptual thought and linguistic communication cannot proceed without distinct identity:

1 Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

That means, instantly, that any attempt to argue against LOI and its close corollaries, e.g. by appeal to quantum theory, instantly self-refutes, see UD weak argument corrective 38. That clears up a lot of confusion. So, much is next -- as outlined -- and some of it is absolutely central not only to our thought and communication but also it bridges to accurate description and understanding of reality. Once we are willing to acknowledge, we may then proceed to substantial reflection. KF kairosfocus

William J Murray,

Q @ 780: I don’t know what or if computers “experience,” so I don’t understand the analogy.

Ok, I'll make the question easier with a rough abstraction. When in operation, computers experience (i.e. react to) electrons traveling through logical NAND and NOR gates in a microprocessor on a PC board that also includes memory chips loaded up with instructions from executable code, and support chips typically in conjunction with a hard disk drive. Whether this qualifies as consciousness is unlikely but debatable depending on anyone's definition of consciousness. So . . . If I shut down every process on my computer – explorer.exe, taskmgr.exe, spoolsv.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, smss.exe, winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, services.exe, etc., FOREVER, does my computer have any more (electron) experiences after that point? Do I, the operator who had been controlling the computer, have any more experiences after that point? -Q Querius

Silver Asiatic/791 I have a few comments to offer.

With the LOI we are able recognize identity. We can apply that to objects. Eventually, we can apply it to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature.

We are able to make sense of the Universe by recognizing what appear to be the distinct entities of which it is comprised. We have evolved a set of linguistic tools which we can use both to model what we observe and to predict what we have not yet observed. Logic is one of those tools and the LOI is a statement of what we have observed. These linguistic modeling tools are only of use if they can both describe what we have observed and predict what we have not yet observed.

To say “this is the universe” creates a separation with what is “not the universe”

Not necessarily. If the Universe is understood to comprise everything that exists, whether or not we are able to observe it, then there is literally nothing beyond it. Any theoretical boundary is between existence and non-existence.

To say “this is all of physical nature” creates that which is “not physical nature”. So, to identify these things is to require the existence of something “outside the boundary”. In that case, we have nature and supernature.

Again, not necessarily. We can only observe anything if it has some effect on observable physical reality. You can posit some immaterial entity living in some sort of "transcendental realm" but unless it leaves some sort of observable physical imprint on the fabric of our reality, we have no way of observing it or even knowing it exists at all. In this case, the boundary is not between nature and supernature but between what is known and what is not known or does not exist to be known.

In our search for truth, we recognize that truth aligns with what exists.

I would agree. Under the correspondence theory of truth, the truth value of any claim about reality is the extent to which it corresponds to what it purports to explain/describe.

A transcendental reality is of greater existence-value than that of the universe.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "existence-value"

That which is circumscribed by matter and energy is subject to decay, loss and dissipation. It has finite powers and does not explain itself, so it must be caused. It is a contingent entity, dependent upon much else for its sustained existence, and depending on “what is outside of it” to define it’s boundary. That which causes the universe, is greater than the universe.

If I read this correctly, it reduces to the age-old and unresolved dilemma of an uncaused first cause or infinite existence. The problem is that positing an uncaused first cause does not escape the problem of infinity because the uncaused first cause, if it exists and has no cause, must have infinite existence. Seversky

VL

What is the next step?

With the LOI we are able recognize identity. We can apply that to objects. Eventually, we can apply it to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature. To say "this is the universe" creates a separation with what is "not the universe". To say "this is all of physical nature" creates that which is "not physical nature". So, to identify these things is to require the existence of something "outside the boundary". In that case, we have nature and supernature. In simple terms, this gives us "transcendental reality" or something beyond the universe which exists. In our search for truth, we recognize that truth aligns with what exists. A transcendental reality is of greater existence-value than that of the universe. There are reasons for this: That which is circumscribed by matter and energy is subject to decay, loss and dissipation. It has finite powers and does not explain itself, so it must be caused. It is a contingent entity, dependent upon much else for its sustained existence, and depending on "what is outside of it" to define it's boundary. That which causes the universe, is greater than the universe. So, we have a transcendent being. That's the Not-A in the LOI of the universe. Since the Not-A is a necessary truth as part of the LOI (A=A we identify the universe, Not-A is necessarily true) and what is true aligns with "what is" or with "being" - then we have the existence of a being that is not the universe. That's transcendent being existing. Silver Asiatic

Hi Sa: You start by writing, “What we’ve done so far is just .... [I omit a bunch of stuff] ... make a proposal where LOI is violated.] I’ll repeat that I agree with all that. Im not sure why you keep repeating that. It may be that you think my examples were meant to question the LOI. They were not. The LOI is central to our rational thinking. My examples were meant to point out that when we go to apply the LOI in our attempt to find propositions that align with reality, there are complexities that we have to keep in mind. I also agree with you that things moving through time doesn’t cause a problem for the LOI, because at any moment everything is what it is, and not another thing, even if in the next moment it is a slightly different thing. After discussing my examples, you quoted my as writing, “Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself.” You agreed, saying, “That’s true and I agree.” Then you write, “Although we can also say that our thinking is part of the world, and it actually shapes the world. When we implement our ideas, then the world changes as a result.” I’m not sure what you mean here. Merely thinking something doesn’t change the world. We change the world when we act upon our thoughts, but that is different. Can you explain more what you mean, Then you wrote, “ So, we have an interaction with the world that is real. We trust our senses to give us an accurate picture of things.” I agree with that. I am not an idealist like WJM. I assume the external world is real, I believe our senses give us fairly accurate information about the world within the limits of their abilities, and that we can discover truths about the world by observing it, creating ideas about it, and testing those ideas in numerous ways to make us more certain about their validity. I don’t think this is an issue between us. In fact, when I wrote, “How do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like?”, you said those were great questions. Great questions, thanks. In your final paragraph, you bring up some issues that go beyond what we’ve said so far. You write, after saying again that the LOI is absolute, “Then we have deductions where, if the premises are certain, we have a high degree of certainty.” [my emphasis] This is where alignment with reality can get difficult. Generally, logical propositions make conditional statements in the form if p, then q, and then tie various chains of reasoning together using logic. But the logic itself can’t tell us whether the beginning premise p is true: that takes observing the world, as I’ve mentioned above. So building an understanding of what is true has to go beyond logic itself and find verifiable premises with which to reason. And then you write, “The final thing, and I think this touches on your view – can we ever truly say that a certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence? What would be required for us to say that? Can we think of areas in science, for example, where the belief is “we can never know it”? First, I think this jumps ahead of where we are at. But I’ll reply anyway. I don’t think I ever said a “certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence?” (QM brings up issues in this regard, I suppose, but I don’t think we’re talking about that.) I have talked about their being things I don’t think we can know, which is different, but I think jumping ahead to metaphysic is premature. I’ll also point out that I’m not talking about science per se, but about how people in general build their understanding about the world: how do we come to think certain things are true? Then you write, “We reached an agreement on a non-scientific truth, which is something we both agree is certain and which is always true. So, we wouldn’t say that observed science is the only means of having true statements. I see this as pointing to the reliability of our knowledge and that we have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence.” I have never held that science is the only means of having true statements. I hope that is very clear. Also, I don’t think we have discussed at all the idea that, “We have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence”, and I don’t see how that follows from the things we have agreed about. Also, if we were to discuss that, although it might be premature, we would need to start by discuss what kinds of things count as a reason or an explanation. So to me the next step is discussing how do we use our rational abilities, including logic, to create understandings that align with reality? I think that our understandings are an overlay, or a model if you will, of reality, built on our observations of the world (and ourself) and then testing for confirmation in various ways. Perhaps it's time to get more specific about this, with examples? Or perhaps is time to go back to the beginning of our discussion: You quoted me, in response to Q, that “that the evidence ... points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition. And you replied, “They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully.” That’s what we’re trying to do: follow each step carefully. We’ve established the primacy of the LOI and logic in general, agreed that in order to get truth (which we want to align with reality) we have to observe reality and try to find true propositions, and that chains of logical reasons start with premises which must be true for the chain to be true. What is the next step? Viola Lee

VL What we've done so far is just look at the root of our rational thinking, which is A=A. Then the most important point here is that A=A is irrefutable. There are no exceptions. It's an absolute truth. But is A=A a part of every affirmation that we make and therefore of ever rational thought we have or express? I believe the answer is yes. Not only is A=A always correct in itself, but every rational construct or idea or proposal we have more make, requires that A=A be at the foundation. We cannot make a proposal where LOI is violated. With that in mind, we just have to look at your proposals and observe that the LOI is operative. If it is operative in every situation, then we have good grounds to believe that we have this dualism. We always have A and not-A, and therefore this is an indication about how reality is structured.

First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this.

Yes, but eventually we have Arizona and New Mexico. If they are not unique then they are the same thing. If they are unique, then there's some reason - something that sets them apart. Even if the line is vague or people disagree on the line, eventually we have "this is New Mexico and this is Arizona". Then we have the one and everything else that is not-that. A and not-A. We could say "this is both New Mexico and Arizona" (maybe they share some territory). But again, if we say that, we cannot say "this is both of them and this is not both of them". That's a violation of LOI. So we have the "not both of them" existing. It's the place that is not either.

Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico,

Eventually we have to define the thing. Even if we say "I can't tell the difference". We will be pointing to "something". We would say "that place over there has foothills leading to the mountain". We identified "that place" as separate from all other places. So, A is not equal to not-A. Eventually, we have something that is not the foothills or the mountain or something that is not both together - that's the "outside the boundary" or not-A. The only way this could be violated is if we said "everything is the foothills and the mountain".

Third, some things are very unquantifiable, and the way they exist “in reality” is unclear.

We know those things exist because you identified them here. "There are things that exist which are hard to quantify". But eventually, we have a not-A. Otherwise, those things cannot exist.

Is it true that either I love X or I don’t love them? Is there a clear dividing line between the two?

We don't need a clear dividing line. If you said "I love X and I don't love X", we know what you mean. You love X under certain aspects and don't love X under others. So, that's not a violation of LOI. However, if you said under the same aspects I love and do not love X, that's a problem. I love ice cream and I don't love ice cream. That does not violate A=A because we know it is: "I love the flavor of ice cream but I do not love ice cream for its carbs and fat". However, if we said: "I love strawberries because they are flavorful and healthy AND I do not love strawberries because they are flavorful and healthy." Then that violates LOI. We said the existing thing (our love for strawberries) is the same as the non-existing thing (our non-love).

Fourth, and more esoteric is this. Consider the sun. At all moments it is sending out photons so that a vast spherical mass of photons are always there. If we were a different kind of creature who perceived the world differently, we might see the sun’s identity as including all the photons, not as the sun sending out all those photons. That is, again, there are reasons why the dividing line the defines identity might not be clear.

Eventually, there will be a sun and photons. We will know that because it is separated as A=A and that means there will be an inner-boundary (A) separated from the outer. So, there is something that is "not sun and photons". One may define it one way, another another - but in all cases, we have this dualism in reality. It's two-fold. Something is inside the boundary and something outside. The question of "is this the right definition of sun and photons"? is a different thing and that's where it can be fuzzy or even incorrect.

And last, think of the world from a quantum perspective. Are there “things” there that have a distinct identity? Of course we can only think of A and not-A because that is innate and fundamental to us, but given (in my opinion) that our experience and thinking is attuned to the macro-world of our sensory experience, can our thinking really grasp that at the quantum level there might be a “smeared out” world in which distinct identity doesn’t exist?

We could say that prior to observation the wave function gives probabilities that are not a distinct A, but they’re really potential particles and anything that is observed will be in a measured position, so that we can say we never have a particle that is both A and not-A at the same time. Another possible objection could be that we never truly have “an A” because whatever we think of is moving through time and the A of this second is different from the A one second later. But we’re talking about the entity A. “I see a deer running on the hillside”. The deer moves position, it’s also 10 seconds older than when I first saw it. But we call it the same deer (and hillside). In my philosophical view (realism) that is because there is an underlying substance and form for the deer that persists while some external characteristics of the deer change. So A remains the same A. That is definitely true of things that don’t change in time like numbers of concepts. The big problem would be that if we could ever refute the LOI, we would destroy rational thought also because the LOI is required in our propositions, thoughts and affirmations about reality.

Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself.

That’s true and I agree. Although we can also say that our thinking is part of the world, and it actually shapes the world. When we implement our ideas, then the world changes as a result. So, we have an interaction with the world that is real. We trust our senses to give us an accurate picture of things.

Given these complexities, how do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like?

Great questions, thanks. I invite you to offer your initial thoughts on this, in light of LOI and what we discussed (validation to reality). I’d begin with the idea that with A=A we have a rare truth that is certain, objective and absolute. We can validate that by matching what we see in reality, and it is not falsified (where A=A and Not-A at the same time). Then we have deductions where, if the premises are certain, we have a high degree of certainty. The other cases are where we have to use inferences to the best explanation. We don’t have absolute certainty, but we see something that is consistent and we expect the future will show the same result. The final thing, and I think this touches on your view – can we ever truly say that a certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence? What would be required for us to say that? Can we think of areas in science, for example, where the belief is “we can never know it”? We reached an agreement on a non-scientific truth, which is something we both agree is certain and which is always true. So, we wouldn’t say that observed science is the only means of having true statements. I see this as pointing to the reliability of our knowledge and that we have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence. Silver Asiatic

WJM

The question is, is it rational to say that “I have an experience” when I am in no way aware of it, or ever will be, and it will never have any effect on my conscious experience?

The fact that we can remember it later means that we were not conscious of it when it happened. In fact, we weren't aware. We might wonder even from childhood: "Why was I so frightened?" and only until adulthood realize - it must have been when I was in that place and things were happening around me. Sometimes people in psychotherapy realize experiences that they were never conscious of when they happened. Now, however, you've asked about "experiences we will never be conscious of" - how could they affect us? As the previous example, those experiences can shape us in ways we don't know - even though we were not consciously aware of them at the time. But did we "experience" those things that we never were consciously aware of? I think we still experienced them, even at the time. Maybe like a prize-fighter or football player who is accustomed to many painful hits on the body. It can happen so often, that the guy is not even consciously aware of them. He's just getting pummelled - can't count the hits. Then even to the end of his life, he never remembers exactly what happened. I'm not talking about brain-damage, let's say he's perfectly clear in his mind. But he had so many stings and hurts, that even while they were occuring he couldn't notice them. It was as if they never happened. He didn't consciously experience them. However, all through his life he has these physical effects. So, he may never remember what happened but he experienced something in reality and he has the traces of those effects in his body. So, the experiences made an impact on him, even though he never felt it at the time and cannot remember what happened. That may not be the perfect analogy but it's my way of thinking that there is an external reality that we can encounter in a non-conscious way -- just through our bodily senses. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Take one of those little robotic vacuum cleaners; it reacts to its environment.

Yes, but to be consistent, the robot is equipped with sensors that take in signals from the environment. In fact, we call them "sensors" based on our own "senses". So, I believe that I sense the external environment like the robot does. The robot processes the data it takes in through sensors, so it does not need consciousness to act. I do have consciousness, but it is informed by data received from the real, external world. Silver Asiatic

KF writes, "I have noted on this several times." That's the understatement of the day! :-) Viola Lee

SA: As far as the paramecium question, I don't know. Just because a paramecium or anything else reacts to the environment doesn't indicate it is having an experience. Take one of those little robotic vacuum cleaners; it reacts to its environment. Does that mean it is having an experience? No. For all i know, paramecium are robotic nanotechnology. In order for them to be having any first-person experiences, as per my prior comment about the difference between "an occurrence" and "an experience," they would obviously require some form of at least rudimentary consciousness. Otherwise, they're just a form of biological technology. William J Murray

SA said:

In my view, there is a difference between experience and consciousness. We can experience things that we are unconscious of, and only realize it later.

I think this is the key to this discussion. The question is, is it rational to say that "I have an experience" when I am in no way aware of it, or ever will be, and it will never have any effect on my conscious experience? I think you're conflating two different things, "an occurrence" and "an experience." You say we can be unaware of something that happens (occurs) until later - and I agree. However, we don't experience that occurrence at the time it occurs; rather, we experience it later as memory in our aware consciousness. This is made clear by the hypothetical example I offered where I shut down all forms of your consciousness forever. Let's say I do that but your body is still kept operating via artificial means, and I put out a lit cigarette on the palm of the hand of that body. The occurrence of that event will never be experienced as a painful burn by any form of your now-erased consciousness, ever. "You" never experience it, even though the event occurred to "your" hand that still has a completely functioning sensory apparatus. So, we can see here clearly the distinction between an occurrence and an experience, and that the only way to have an actual experience is in one's consciousness, even if the experience of the occurrence happens later via memory. Q @ 780: I don't know what or if computers "experience," so I don't understand the analogy. William J Murray

VL, LOI has as immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM, also once we look at world W = {A|~A} we see 0, 1, another complex 1 so 2. That invites the von Neumann construction of Peano style succession from {} --> 0 to w, first transfinite ordinal. Further construction immediately yields N,Z,Q,R,R*,C,C* etc and a reason why a core of math is transworld universal, i.e. necessary entities [= beings] framework to any possible world. I have noted on this several times. Add, the weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, for any particular A that is, or is a state of affairs, or can be, or is not or cannot ever be, we may freely ask why or why not and confidently expect a reasonable answer. This wifPSR bridges to logic of being, exploiting possible worlds speak. Thus possible vs impossible [of] being, and of possibles contingent vs necessary. Already, that opens up properties of beings and causality. Cause/effect is little more than a corollary to wifPSR. Thus we have some pretty big powerful results in hand that then extend into Mathematics, science, affairs, history etc. KF kairosfocus

re 774, to SA. First we agree that all people are searching for the truth to some extent about at least some things, we agree about the use of logic in our search, and that our next topic should be the search for truth., I think this search is where our conversation should go next. We also agree that the LOI (and I would add all the logic that follows) is “inbuilt [innate] in us because of our rational nature” We also agree that ‘we validate the truth through an alignment with reality” and that “other things, beyond logic, are necessary for our best understanding.” Then you write, “One thing we can conclude (if you agree) is that we have a two-fold nature of reality at this point.” Here I think we need some more discussion. Separating things into A and not-A is fundamental to thinking. Because we think with words we can’t help but think in terms of A and not-A. However the ways separating things into A and not-A is, or might be, fundamental to reality is not so clear. Here are some complexities in thinking about “identity divisions”. First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this. Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico, Third, some things are very unquantifiable, and the way they exist “in reality” is unclear. Is it true that either I love X or I don’t love them? Is there a clear dividing line between the two? Or is it more likely that I love some things about them, but not others, or in fact that I sort of love them, but not in the same way or with the intensity as I love others. Fourth, and more esoteric is this. Consider the sun. At all moments it is sending out photons so that a vast spherical mass of photons are always there. If we were a different kind of creature who perceived the world differently, we might see the sun’s identity as including all the photons, not as the sun sending out all those photons. That is, again, there are reasons why the dividing line the defines identity might not be clear. And last, think of the world from a quantum perspective. Are there “things” there that have a distinct identity? Of course we can only think of A and not-A because that is innate and fundamental to us, but given (in my opinion) that our experience and thinking is attuned to the macro-world of our sensory experience, can our thinking really grasp that at the quantum level there might be a “smeared out” world in which distinct identity doesn’t exist? My main point here is that I’m making a distinction between how we think about reality and how reality is. Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself. Given these complexities, how do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like? I think this is the next question. I welcome your comments on the distinctions I have made and the points I have raised. [Note: I am also interested in your comment about monism, but that takes us into metaphysics and is premature, I think. But I will save your comments for some other time.] Viola Lee

Totally off topic, but does anyone know if something has happened to ET? He was always very present on this site but I haven’t seen a comment from him in quite some time. Scamp

William J Murray, If I shut down every process on my computer – explorer.exe, taskmgr.exe, spoolsv.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, smss.exe, winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, services.exe, etc., FOREVER, does my computer have any more experiences after that point? Do I have any more experiences after that point? -Q Querius

WJM

What are the “outer world” boundaries that allow us to identify math when we are thinking about it and not misidentify it as love?

The outer world boundaries are that we call something "math". So, we draw a boundary around it. This action causes there to exist an outer world called "non math". We would then categorize love as being outside of the boundary of math. Otherwise, we would not be able to identify math, and we could not have LOI A=A.

When we identify something (other than ourselves) as A, what is doing the identifying?

It's part of our rational nature. You're arguing that we are nothing but mind, but it doesn't follow that just because we undertake rational analysis that we do not have a physical body. In my view, we have a physical body, a mind and a soul which brings all together in what we would call "a person". So, when we identify A=A, that's one aspect of a person. It's not our digestive system, for example.

Is A identifying itself? Are our physical bodies identifying A? Or is the identification of something that occurs the consciousness of the observer?

We are not always identifying A=A since that does require a rational consciousness and we do not perpetually live in that state of mind. We can be unconscious or semi-conscious or in a meditative state where we are not thinking. Silver Asiatic

WJM

If I shut down every form of consciousness you have – the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point?

In my view of consciousness, it is a self-awareness where we process experiences taken in by the senses. So, we can have sense-experiences without consciousness. The example I gave was animals. But even more basically, something like a single-celled paramecium. We can observe the paramecium experiencing light or heat and responding to such. So, I can infer that the paramecium has experiences. Does the paramecium have self-aware consciousness? If it does, then yes - it requires consciousness to experience things. But I don't see evidence that tells me that paramecium have self-aware consciousness. Some evidence that would tell me that they (or any animals and plants did) would be to observe enough individuality in the species. That a simple amoeba, for example, viewed itself as independent of instincts and determined qualities of their species and could act for goals higher than nutrition and survival. So yes, I think sensory experiences can happen in a being that does not have self-aware consciousness. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

In fact, the LOI provides a dualistic world and therefore does not reduce human life to one thing. Whatever we identify we will have the “non-A” so an outer world providing the boundary.

What are the "outer world" boundaries that allow us to identify math when we are thinking about it and not misidentify it as love? When we identify something (other than ourselves) as A, what is doing the identifying? Is A identifying itself? Are our physical bodies identifying A? Or is the identification of something that occurs the consciousness of the observer? William J Murray

SA, It appears to me that you did not answer my question. Let me make it more simple and explicit: If I shut down every form of consciousness you have - the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point? William J Murray

WJM

If so, please tell me how what we are identifying as “you” persists if I shut off all forms of your conscious experience forever.

In my view, there is a difference between experience and consciousness. We can experience things that we are unconscious of, and only realize it later. We think back and realize that something hurt, or that we were happy or that we saw something that we didn't notice. In reflection, we realized we were "not consciously aware" when we experienced the thing. That happens through sensory input - which is the classical way of describing how we receive data. We take the sense data in, and may be conscious of it, or may not be until later (and therefore, may not be conscious at all). I'd give a somewhat weird idea, in the sense that we don't really know, but a thought experiment ... Do animals experience things? Do they have the conscious awareness of being "a you" or "a person consciously experiencing"? I think animals do experience sensations but not in a way that is consciously aware of a self. So, I don't think consciousness and experience are the same thing. I think this points to the idea that we take in data from our senses from the world around us and by our body (which I believe is a real, physical body), and then process in our consciousness, and ultimately interiorized in our soul (which is the form of the person).

the LOI is reductionist in that it requires you reduce anything you are talking about in terms of that which give it its proper identity that distinguishes A from not-A.

You could look at it that way, but it's not a reduction to a monist substratum like saying "all is mind" or "all is matter". In fact, the LOI provides a dualistic world and therefore does not reduce human life to one thing. Whatever we identify we will have the "non-A" so an outer world providing the boundary. That's not really what would be considered reductionist, although you're right that we have truth vs error at the beginning and Being vs Non-being. I'm adding that we have this: Truth (A=A) Being (Truth is validated by "what is") The Good (Truth is aligned with value or goodness). Silver Asiatic

VL Thank you for thoughtful and excellent responses. Again, I appreciate your careful reading and for providing a hard analysis on each step. If we're fully agreed to this point, then there are some ideas that I brought out subtly and we'll need agreement on those. You've helped me clarify my terminology also, and that's been appreciated. If you notice if I skip over any of your corrections, it's only that I'll try to adjust what I'm saying. But what I mean by that is "you're right". Then I'll come back with a different formulation.

I’ll agree that all people are searching for the truth to some extent about at least some things. Again, given that we agree about the use of logic in our search, I think this search is where our conversation should go next.

This is great. Yes. So, we search for the truth, at least in the smallest matters of our daily thoughts and decisions - even if we're lying, we're making truth statements to justify it or explain to ourselves. In every case, we're using LOI - so in that sense, we're oriented to truth. It's inbuilt in us because of our rational nature. At our core is a movement towards truth. Then we said that we validate the truth through an alignment with reality. Yes, as you point out, we are not always successful in sorting out the full truth of things. Other things, beyond logic, are necessary for our best understanding. But at least with LOI, that's a foundation that stands on its own. When we align truth with reality, we're taking the statement and trying to see if "it matches what is real". Finally, we would generally say (there could be rare exceptions) that we value the truth as a good thing. It's the goal of our search. We will think that a lie or a deception is a bad thing. We may choose an illusion for various reasons, but even though we don't like it, the truth will always have a higher value because it aligns with what is real. So the truth will match "what is" or being. One thing we can conclude (if you agree) is that we have a two-fold nature of reality at this point. We have truth (A=A) and non truth (the denial of that). As we said, there's a boundary of identity. What the boundary contains is the identity. But in every case, we cannot have an identity unless we have a "non-identity". Maybe in a geometric sense, we have the area within the boundary and we necessarily must have that which is not within. We could call it inside and outside. This gives us a two-fold reality. What this does is refutes certain (not all) kinds of Monism, such as that of Parmenides or Melissus. This would be strict monism where "All is one". But it is also a problem for other kinds of monism because once we have an entity existent. Once we have "a being" - or in other words, once we establish A=A, then we have the boundary and we have the "non-A" as part of the worldview. If "everything is One" (in the strict sense) then we couldn't make the distinctions. We also couldn't have rationality, truly, because reasoning (our search for the truth) requires us to compare "what is real" (the good-truth) with what is "not real" (not true or false or error or illusion). So, our reasoning makes this comparison in a two-fold reality. Thus, we can conclude at least that some forms of monism cannot be true. If "all is one" then we couldn't make distinctions. If everything was "matter" for example (and I know you do not believe that), then we couldn't know what matter is since there is no "non-matter" to compare it to. All proposals would be true - and we couldn't even have A=A since there would be no way to put a boundary around "everything" (since there would have to be a non-everything outside of matter). So, we have in this sense, the inside and outside. Silver Asiatic

SA @766, WJM said:

IOW, if I entirely shut off your consciousness, can you still have an experience?

SA relied:

I would define consciousness as having clear, mental awareness. </b “Was he aware of what he was doing?” This indicates that we can experience things that we are not conscious or aware of at the time (reflecting back we can realize it).

SA, I'm going to put this in terms of your discussion with VL about the Law of Identity. In your response to me, you said:

As I said before, my concern is a reductionist approach that would equate all of human life with “mind” or the idea that “there is no reality unless you’re looking at it”.

Two things here:: the LOI is reductionist in that it requires you reduce anything you are talking about in terms of that which give it its proper identity that distinguishes A from not-A. Second, you're avoiding a logical argument because you don't like the potential consequences. Is that an acceptable application of what you call your "duty to truth?" What is it that gives you your distinct self-identity? Being unconscious, or semi-conscious, hyper-conscious or in an altered state of consciousness are all states of consciousness. The distinction we must apply here in order to properly identify what we are talking about is A (consciousness) vs not-A (non-consciousness.) Kinds of A (unconscious, semi-conscious, etc.) are all within, or aspects, of A. Only "non-consciousness" is clearly not-A. There is either the experience of some state of consciousness, or there is no consciousness present at all. But, you claim that "experience" and "consciousness" are not equivalent terms. Let's examine that claim logically. Let's say I shut "you" out of ever experiencing anything forever, removing "you" from ever experiencing anything, including any state of self-aware consciousness whatsoever, because your claim is that experience and consciousness are not equivalent.. Do "you" still exist? If so, please tell me how what we are identifying as "you" persists if I shut off all forms of your conscious experience forever. If not "conscious experience," either in mind, in soul, or as some kind of combination, what exactly are you identifying as "you?" Can you tell me what it means to be conscious, absent any and all experience forever? William J Murray

SA, I’d like to remind us where we started this discussion, to set the stage for continuing on At 657, to WJM, you wrote, “The starting point for realist philosophy is A=A” I am a realist, not an idealist, and I can agree with that. At 659, you quoted me from a post above:

that the evidence (which, in respect especially to QM, is open to multiple, possibly untestable interpretations) points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition.

And you replied,

They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully. In fact, the very logic you use to argue anything is the foundation for understanding. It’s not religious faith but rather inference to the most reasonable explanation.

At 660, I wrote,, “Of course A = A. How can that be something anyone disagrees about? That is a foundational concept in symbolic logic” But at 661, I quoted you as saying “They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully” And I wrote, “And those steps are full of assumptions that do not follow from the experimental evidence.” So that is where we are now. I want to “follow each step carefully”. What step comes after establishing the things we have agreed about that I mentioned in post 771 directly above? Viola Lee

Re 769, to SA It seems we agree that A=A is a core, innate part of all rational thinking, foundational to all logic. We also agree, I think, that the LOI depends on things having a specific identity, with boundaries of some sort, which set each thing apart from other things. It would be good if we could consider this established. Do you agree with the above two sentences. You responding to my three comments. Thanks. That kind of responsiveness helps makes conversations productive. I wrote, “1. There is more to showing the truth of something than logic. To show that “the door is locked” is true, you have to go and look at the door. Pure logic can’t answer the question.” You agreed with this. You wrote, “Agreed. We validate the truth of the statement by aligning it to reality. The truth is that correspondence to reality. If the door is actually locked, then it is true to say “the door is locked”.” Yes, we validate the truth by “aligning it to reality”. We agree on that, although we might disagree on how to go about that in some case. In fact, at 3 below when I wrote, “3. So searching for the truth, caring about searching for the truth, and even ascertaining what qualifies as the truth for different kinds of things, is a much broader topic than the innate existence of logic as part of our thinking.” You replied, “This is not where we’ve gone in the conversation so far.” Yes, and I think it is the next place for the conversation to go. I’m not sure there is any more we can say about the LOI, especially if we agree with my first two sentences of this post. You write, “But in any case, we cannot say “the door is locked and the door is not locked”. That’s why the LOI is the essential, objective, necessary first truth.” I agree, but I can’t imagine anyone ever actually saying “the door is locked and the door is not locked” in any serious discussion. I’ll agree that all people are searching for the truth to some extent about at least some things. Again, given that we agree about the use of logic in our search, I think this search is where our conversation should go next. Viola Lee

Scamp @765,

-the continued and repeated use of the same (flawed) logic even after the flaws have been demonstrated.

Yes, thank you for that. And not only with logic, but also with the repetition of the fragmentary statistics, which are more harmful in the sense of "garbage-in-garbage-out" despite the application of reasonable logic on the flawed data. For example, I've been very reluctantly forced to assume that widely disseminated medical and dietary information coming from U.S. government sources has been corrupted for political and economic interests. Not all, but a significant amount. My personal skepticism began after experiencing a medical emergency in which necessitated my losing weight to save my life. I don't want to go into any additional personal detail, but after following the U.S. government medical and dietary guidelines, which had essentially no impact, I did my own research. I waded through a vast swamp of dietary quackery, reluctantly educated myself and, in partnership with my doctor, launched on a "you bet your life" regimen that resulted in my losing and keeping off more than 80 pounds of excess weight (I lost the last 40 pounds in seven months). My astonished doctor admits that I'm now healthy and within "normal" range in all blood tests and weight. Amazingly, my relatives are still skeptical, despite their inability to argue with the results. Imagine that! It's a sort of ideological blindness or cognitive dissonance. So, if my experience is true for U.S. government dietary and pharmaceutical recommendations, where does that leave us to conclude regarding political information and assurances? And where does that leave scientific research funded either directly by U.S. government agencies or by institutions receiving support from U.S. government agencies? Perhaps you can appreciate where I'm coming from. Oh, and I tried sharing what I discovered with several other medical professionals with whom I'd previously interacted and got zero response from them. Interesting, isn't it? -Q Querius

VL Here's another approach:

When you are solving an algebra equation and want to add 5 to both sides of the equation, you write 5 = 5: that the law of identity in action.

So we can add two to both sides of the equation. So, on one said we have 7 On the other side we have (5+2) So, we have 7=(5+2) That's A=A Because there's a question: Why do you agree that A=A? For example, if I gave an example of LOI as: (AAA) = (AAA) You would agree that is correct, for a reason. On one side, you have 3 As and the same on the other. If I gave: (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) = (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) You would probably have to count the A's to see if there are the same number. What this means is you have to analyze the two sides. But even with one symbol "A" - you could say, that's a symbol with two vertical slanted lines and one horizontal. But they have to be a match. We go farther and this is still LOI at work. Just as where we said 7 = (5+2) since we added two to both sides, we did some analysis. This time it's a conditional: IF A = B Then A = B So, A can be anything we identify it as. LOI is just saying that a thing is its own identity. It is just preventing us from saying A is A and A is not A. That's what LOI prevents.

1. There is more to showing the truth of something than logic. To show that “the door is locked” is true, you have to go and look at the door. Pure logic can’t answer the question.

Agreed. We validate the truth of the statement by aligning it to reality. The truth is that correspondence to reality. If the door is actually locked, then it is true to say "the door is locked". But In any case, we cannot say "the door is locked and the door is not locked". That's why the LOI is the essential, objective, necessary first truth. We are oriented to the truth because that first necessary statement must be true.

All people (who we agree have to use the LOI and other basic logical tools in their thinking) vary in how much they care about searching for the truth. Some care a lot, some don’t care at all, some deliberately lie in order to meet any goals. Also, none of us care about searching for the truth about everything: there is too much to know.

Ok, yes and no. In terms of searching out truths that are beyond our ordinary knowledge, then yes - some care more, some care less. But I am saying, care or not - we all are searching for the truth of things. "I don't care about the truth". That's the liar's paradox. To make the affirmation, you're stating a truth. To make any expression at all, you're searching for the truth. "Why did I deliberately lie?" - we will have a truth-statement for that. We are oriented to the truth because we make positive affirmations and then give reasons for everything. We cannot make an affirmation to continually lie. "I don't know why I did it". That's not only an attempt for a truth statement, but it means I'm lacking knowledge, or I'm lying, or I was misinformed. These are all attempts at truth. Yes, a person can lie. But you answered this previously:

Any hypothetical person who declared they were choosing to not be logical in terms of A=A et al would just be being purposively provocative and trollish.

What this means is that the person is doing something that discredits their value. They're lying or being disruptive. We consider these "defects of character" - or we could just call it "bad behavior". It's not something to be praised. Thus, as I said: We correlate the truth with good, and lies, falsehoods or deceptions with what is bad.

3. So searching for the truth, caring about searching for the truth, and even ascertaining what qualifies as the truth for different kinds of things, is a much broader topic than the innate existence of logic as part of our thinking.

This is not where we've gone in the conversation so far. All I've said is that we start with a fundamental, necessary, irrefutable, absolute truth: The LOI. Using the LOI in itself means that we are searching for the truth. From our very first statement. We must search and make certain that we're using LOI - so we're oriented to the truth from our very first affirmations. Of course, there's more to human reason than merely saying: A=A Additionally, as I said, the truth is validated by correspondence with reality. We could also refer to that as an alignment with being, or "what is". Is the door really locked, in truth? We go and check. Yes, "in the reality I observe, it is locked". The statement corresponds "to what exists". If the door was not locked, then the statement "it is locked" would be false - because it corresponds "to what does not exist". It does not correspond to the reality we observed So, we are oriented to the truth beginning with the necessary truth LOI, recognizing that a true validation is good and a lie or deception is bad, and then actually validating by aligning the statement to reality or "what exists" (or being - what is). Silver Asiatic

Ram, yet another tangent, and you know there are places where relevant panels of experts can take up your claims in detail. KF kairosfocus

Ram @759,

Jews are fighting back against the fake Christian highjacking of our scriptures.

Yes, I can see that you, as God (as you claimed in @719), would certainly take offense at non-Jews hijacking (yes, this is the correct spelling in English) your Jewish scriptures. But your challenge has nothing to do with your Intelligent Design, since ID takes no theological position of the actual source of that intelligent design, and that this forum is absolutely not the correct one for theological debate, even with you as God (@719) presiding. You, as God (@719), might appreciate my taking the time to understand the body of text written by the Hebrews that you chose as later copied and translated in the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Aramaic Peshitta, and "corrected" (their term ) by the Masoretes in the 6th to the 10th century CE, something in which I'm confident that I've only been able to scratch the surface of a study requiring more than a single lifetime! Not even to mention the B'rit Chadashah, also written by Jews before the second destruction of the Temple as foretold by the angel to a man with the Hebrew name of "My judge is God". -Q Querius

WJM

IOW, if I entirely shut off your consciousness, can you still have an experience?

As you present it, no. I cannot be conscious and be non-conscious at the same time. I cannot have a conscious experience while I shut off my consciousness. But are experience and consciousness equivalent terms? You're certainly free to define them that way. But I see it differently. I would define consciousness as having clear, mental awareness. "Was he aware of what he was doing?" This indicates that we can experience things that we are not conscious or aware of at the time (reflecting back we can realize it). Consciousness can also be understood as having deliberation: "He made a conscious decision to do that". This means that we can make decisions "unconsciously", by just habit. So, I wouldn't equate "mind" with "person" - as you already discussed, and I don't think "experience" and "consciousness" are the same things. As I said before, my concern is a reductionist approach that would equate all of human life with "mind" or the idea that "there is no reality unless you're looking at it". I don't think science (quantum physics or otherwise) can tell us what life is, for example. Not only can life not be created in materialist-scientific experiments, but it cannot even be defined as to it's substance. We know chemical components but those do not bring us life. I don't see that experiments with particles and waves tell us what a human person (as I defined with mind, soul and body united) really is or how it is composed. I'll stress it again, I fully respect your views - you've done a serious analysis and have studied sources and have reached your conclusions that way. So, your view deserves respect. There are several versions of Idealism - some theistic, others not. Yours is a particular version. I think there are several different versions because there are a lot of problems that are not easily solved by any one idealist system. Silver Asiatic

Querius@763, I agree with everything you have said here. I might add: -the continued and repeated use of the same (flawed) logic even after the flaws have been demonstrated. Scamp

Q. is the poll mentioned in the video? Could you tell me about where. I'm not interested in watching a whole hour on simulation. And you exaggerrate considerably what I am asking you. Viola Lee

Scamp @760,

Logic is an important tool but when used by people advocating for a preconceived viewpoint it is almost always mis-used. It is my experience that under this circumstance the logic used is often convoluted and based on assumptions that are not proven.

Yes, I agree. It's an easy trap for anyone to fall into, including myself, and the characteristics of such often include the following properties: - Hidden assumptions, parameters, and biases - A single data point or statistical value - Absence of consideration of any contrary evidence or viewpoint - Exaggeration of a conclusion to polarized extremes - Immediate visceral hostility against all open inquiry - Other stuff I've missed -Q Querius

Viola Lee @755

Q. do you have a source for your claim that 60% of cosmologists believe we might be living in a simulation? Does someone make that claim in the video you linked to? If so, do they have a source?

Yes, and does my source have a source and do I have a full list of the physicists/cosmologists queried, and what is the background of each of them, and how they each came to that conclusion, and do any of them have and questionable beliefs that would discredit the entire poll, and what where the parameters of the poll, and was there a statistical reliability analysis performed on the results, and were the researchers conducting the poll qualified to conduct such a poll without hidden biases, and what were each of their qualifications, and were any of them involved in any controversial activities and non-conforming opinions that could then be used to justify throwing out the whole thing? That should keep Querius busy for a few years . . . But you couldn’t be bothered to watch the video containing the evidence and discussion. Ok, I get it. The poll was whether they thought there was at least a 50% chance that the universe is a simulation. -Q Querius

SA said:

In the idea of personhood, mind is not the totality of --->a person<---- . In my view, a person is mind, body and soul; --->We<---- can experience things via the soul, which is transcendent to mind. ... In spiritual terms, --->a person<---- can “lose himself”. So, I’d disagree that we cannot escape our personal perspective. God can communicate directly to the soul, as prophets have said.

What do you mean by "we" or "a person?" If a person "loses himself,' there is no "a person" there to have an experience. I said that the term "mind" is a placeholder for personal experience - the totality of what "a person" experiences from any source, in any way. It is their personal perspective. If a person 'loses their self,' that person is not having an experience. That person is gone. Dividing "that person" up into different avenues of experience, like mind and soul, is like dividing up experience between sight and sound, or between touch and imagination. So what? If That person either has an experience or does not regardless of where the information is coming from or how it gets transformed into some kind of experience. How about we stop using the term mind and boil this down to a simpler term: consciousness. MRT is a theory of consciousness. Let me ask you a simple question: is it possible to have a non-conscious experience? IOW, if I entirely shut off your consciousness, can you still have an experience? William J Murray

Logic is an important tool but when used by people advocating for a preconceived viewpoint it is almost always mis-used. It is my experience that under this circumstance the logic used is often convoluted and based on assumptions that are not proven. Scamp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-synFaADaI&t=184s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jlAHgJcD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIY-UDGwzQg Jews are fighting back against the fake Christian highjacking of our scriptures. --Ram ram

VL, Thanks for your comments. The "other side" are trying their best fight against the obvious. I've dealt with religionists of all kinds (I'm a deist) and they proffer arguments full of holes and cogdis that they don't seem to acknowledge at all. Whatever. Thanks VL. To the honest and unbiased truthseekers I would say, check your assumptions. Check the large holes in the swiss cheese any religio/philosophy. Of course, true emotionallyy-driven cultists will never dislodges themselves from their error, but the hope here is to give mental sustenance to all the real truth seekers, trying to figure out the dirty and dusty trails of life and the meaning thereof, for yourselves. Keep on keeping on. Now... KF's posts have always denied real Bible studies, but "news" (Denise) has always been pretty good and open minded. So I say, If anyone wants a Bible study, you got one. Here I am. The New Testament suffers from there huge problems: 1. False proof texting from the Hebrew Bible. (I'm a Hebrew scholar. Let talk!) 2. Contradictions among the gospels. And contradictions with Paul's letters. 3. Failed prophecies. I will be happy to take on any comers to discuss these issues. Thanks in advance. --Ram ram

re 756. I absolutely agree that, “You cannot do any reasoning at all unless you being with LOI." That is settled between us, I think. But to say, "The LOI is our search for truth" is an equivalence that doesn't make sense to me. Logic is a tool for searching for the truth, but the truth involves much more than logic. It seems like we are stuck on step one, which we agree on, but can’t move on. Please comment on these statements. 1. There is more to showing the truth of something than logic. To show that “the door is locked” is true, you have to go and look at the door. Pure logic can’t answer the question. 2. All people (who we agree have to use the LOI and other basic logical tools in their thinking) vary in how much they care about searching for the truth. Some care a lot, some don’t care at all, some deliberately lie in order to meet any goals. Also, none of us care about searching for the truth about everything: there is too much to know. 3. So searching for the truth, caring about searching for the truth, and even ascertaining what qualifies as the truth for different kinds of things, is a much broader topic than the innate existence of logic as part of our thinking. Viola Lee

VL

When you are solving an algebra equation and want to add 5 to both sides of the equation, you write 5 = 5

1= 1. The person "I" is 1 or symbol SA for myself. A=A. I am Me. I could say I am not Me - so A does not equal A. But that's an untruth. We have to start with the LOI. In context, the symbol "SA" = "a person who doesn't care about whether the door is locked". This is the inviolable truth of LOI. A=A I cannot say "I am a person who does care and I am not that person". That violates LOI. I have to affirm LOI in order to make the affirmative statement. You cannot do any reasoning at all unless you being with LOI. Yes, you can try to deny it but you end up with an untruth. So, the use of LOI is required, necessary and an absolute truth that begins all of our affirmations. The LOI is our search for truth, inherent in all of our rational affirmations since all of them require identity. We are oriented to the truth because we begin all of our reasoning with this necessary truth: A=A and we proceed from that, linking truths to it. To clarify more, let's go back to our box of blue marbles. This time, there's one green marble. "This is a green marble". A=A We have an identity. Please give me "the green marble". We identified it A=A and we can get it. Same thing. "This is a person who does not care" A=A We identified the person. Silver Asiatic

Q. do you have a source for your claim that 60% of cosmologists believe we might be living in a simulation? Does someone make that claim in the video you linked to? If so, do they have a source? Viola Lee

Viola Lee, Ok, check this out . . . The Simulation Hypothesis Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pznWo8f020I -Q Querius

re 752, to SA. Let me jump immediately to the end of your post, where you write,

“I don’t care whether the door is locked”. That’s LOI. “I do care that the door is locked”. That’s LOI. “I will find out if the door is locked.” or “I will not find out if the door is locked”. “I will ask the question.” “I won’t ask the question.” These are all searches for the truth because they’re truth-affirming statements. They’re all just LOI. This is how we live – we continually search for the truth.

SA, you don’t seem to really know what the LOI is and how it’s used. The LOI merely says the everything is itself, and (by the LNC) not another thing. When you are solving an algebra equation and want to add 5 to both sides of the equation, you write 5 = 5: that the law of identity in action. Also, as I explained above, the LNC and LEM can be defined in terms of the LOI and the ideas of negation, conjunction, and disjunction. You write, ““I don’t care whether the door is locked”. That’s LOI”, but that is not at all an example of the LOI, and I can’t think of any interpretation that would make it so. You seem to have made the LOI equivalent to a search for truth, and it’s not. It is a foundational axiom of logic, and logic is a tool for searching for the truth. It’s a tool for making sure the ways in which we string various propositions together are logically sound. But whether the propositions themselves are true goes way beyond logic. Accepting that the LOI is foundational does not immediately imply that someone is going to search for the truth well, or be committed to always searching for the truth, or even care very much about the truth of many things. You can be logical and very wrong, or deceptive, if you are reasoning with propositions which are in fact false or unfounded, Viola Lee

VL To undertake any rational activities, which are the activities we undertake every day, all day – we are searching for the truth of things. We are oriented towards the truth due to our rational nature. Proof of this: We cannot state something like “I will always tell falsehoods.” We can say “I will always tell the truth”. But the previous statement is the Liar’s Paradox. So, we are oriented to the truth. I will explain more further down.

Being logical is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a statement to be true.

Something is true because it aligns with reality. Logic enables us to make that alignment. The LOI is a first principle that makes that alignment possible. So, using the LOI is a necessary act in the pursuit of truth, and the LOI is always true, it admits no exceptions (as we already agreed). We’re not talking about Logic in general, but just A=A. That’s “a truth expression”. As we agreed, it cannot be false. We must begin our rational thought with A=A. It's an absolute condition - an absolute truth that we must affirm. This orients us. We can deny various truths for various reasons, but our direction is in seeking what is true.

They are objective truths if that can be confirmed by common experience.

A=A is an absolute, objective truth. It can be confirmed by common experience. The nature of that formula is evident in reality and it is not a subjective opinion.

My heart is not compelled to beat,

You’re not making a free will decision to cause your heart to beat. By the fact that you are human and living and subject to the biological process – your heart is compelled to beat by biology and life.

That makes it seem like something else is causing my rationality to be something it isn’t, but my rationality and accompanying free will is a starting part that is what it is.

Your rationality is part of your human nature. You cannot freely choose to be a rational being. The LOI is a necessary part of all of your thoughts.

The door is either locked or not locked: that statement is a logical necessity. Caring whether the door is locked, and finding out if the door is locked, goes beyond logic.

“I don’t care whether the door is locked”. That’s LOI. “I do care that the door is locked”. That’s LOI. “I will find out if the door is locked.” or “I will not find out if the door is locked”. “I will ask the question.” “I won’t ask the question.” These are all searches for the truth because they’re truth-affirming statements. They’re all just LOI. This is how we live – we continually search for the truth. We are oriented to the truth because of our nature. An additional point you made is important also. If a person denied A=A, they would either be provocative or lying or trolling. All of these are imperfections or flaws. We could say they’re bad or negative outcomes. A person who is lying or trolling is not seeking the truth. In this sense, the Truth is aligned with the Good. I taught formal logic at a high school level, but I do not consider myself an expert in that particular topic. It's not necessary for the points I'm going through at this time. Silver Asiatic

re 749, to SA. Sa, in your talking about money, I think you are confusing using logic with statements of fact, which involve more than logic. Lying isn’t illogical: it’s just untruthful. Suppose I know that A = it is true that the money belongs to person X. It would be illogical (against LOI et al) for X to say this is my money and it is not my money. But there is nothing illogical about Y saying “this is my money”. It’s not true (either because he is mistaken or lying) but it’s not an illogical statement. Searching for truth and using the logical principles in our rationality are not the same thing. One can be perfectly logical and very wrong and/or dishonest, because there is much more to truth than being logical. Being logical is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a statement to be true. One can be totally indifferent to truth and still be logical in everything they say. In regards, to the idea of objective truth: You write, “A=A is objective. You didn’t create that formula and I didn’t. In fact, no human created it.” Well, here we have to make the distinction I made in my former post. In fact a human did invent that formula. What we didn’t invent was the understandings about our rational nature which that formula describes. Each of us knows that saying “this is a rose and it is not a rose) is illogical, and from those experiences various people (Aristotle and Boole, to name a couple) have formalized A=A et al. You write, “That’s an “objective truth” because it exists external (as an object outside – objective) to us. We can all point to it, discuss it and analyze it, because it’s not a subjective idea.” I’ve mentioned a couple times that the word “objective” has been confusing because people are using it to mean different things. I thing it is appropriate to say that it is an objective fact that all (rationally normal) people think logically as described by the laws of logic. The evidence for that is available to all of us by observing people. But the fact that it is about commonly accessible experiences outside of me doesn’t mean the truth that all people use logic is itself outside me, or anyone. The fact doesn’t suddenly become something that exists somehow disconnected from the people who know that true fact, as some other kind of a thing than something that people know. An example. It is a true fact that there is a maple tree in my front yard. That is an objective fact. Assuming one know the appropriate facts (where my front yard is, and what a maple tree is) anyone can confirm that. Does that mean that “there is a maple tree in my front yard” now has someone external existence outside of the people who have confirmed it? I don’t think. Truths are inside people. They are objective truths if that can be confirmed by common experience. I think people are using “objective” to mean something else. This needs to be cleared up, or perhaps the subjective/objective distinction should be avoided. You write, “compelled to use this truth in all of our thoughts. Even if we rejected it, we still have to use it.” I continue to disagree with the idea of choosing, commitment and now compelled. My heart is not compelled to beat, and my mind is not compelled to be logical. That makes it seem like something else is causing my rationality to be something it isn’t, but my rationality and accompanying free will is a starting part that is what it is. I’ve said this a number of times. I think a confusion here is what I mentioned before. I think you are ascribing more to logic than it entails. Logic is a tool that one must, naturally use, but truth involves much more than logic, It involves facts about the world. You can lie to yourself, or to others, or just be wrong in your facts, without breaking the laws of logic. As I said above, logic is a necessary part of searching for truth, but one must exercise many other qualities other than just logic in one’s search, which can include not even caring to find truth You write, “ With that in mind, the LOI is the mechanism we have that enables us to discern what is true. We start with the LOI and accept it. That formula, A=A becomes the foundation of other truths.” The LOI is a mechanism that enables us to discern the truth, but it is not the mechanism. Many other qualities are exercised by people as they search for truth, You write, Do we “seek the truth”? ?I think we do even when we’re not conscious of that action. “Did I lock the door?” – we want a true answer to that question. “Did I spell that word correctly?” – we seek the truth. “What should I do today?” – in that case, we look for the best answer, depending. “ The door is either locked or not locked: that statement is a logical necessity. Caring whether the door is locked, and finding out if the door is locked, goes beyond logic. Logic is a necessity, but much more is also necessary in order to seek truth. Viola Lee

SA, I just wrote a long post in reply to 742, and now see 749, which I haven't even read. So this is to 742 only. I'll look at 749 in a bit, although some of what you said may be covered in this post (and some not, I think.) to SA. Beware, long post. SA, you write at 742” A=A is a foundational statement. In fact, it’s “the statement that enables us to understand the truth”. It’s the first principle and starting point. Even LNC or LEM cannot function without LOI.” I agree, but I’d like to expand, stress a distinction that I’ve made before, and repeat a question I’ve asked you before. The three basic laws of logic are part of our rational nature. They describe the way any normal rational human being is going to think, irrespective of whether that person has ever had them explicitly described in words or symbols: they will be part of the thinking of an Amazonian native as much as with a person educated in formal logic. The formalization of logic began with Aristotle over 2000 years ago, and the symbolic formalization began with Boole about 200 years ago. Among other things, the LNC and the LEM can both be defined in terms of A=A and basic logical operations. The LNC says something cannot be both A and not A: that is, using ~ for not, ~(A AND ~A) is always true. The Amazonian native know that saying “this is a rose and it is not a rose” doesn’t make sense. Similarly, the LEM says that something is either A or it is not A: (A ORr ~ A) is true. That is, “this is either a rose or it is not a rose”. Formal logic, as developed by Boole, contains the basic ideas of conjunction (AND), disjunction (OR), negation, used above, as well as conditionals (if-then statements), and truth tables about various combinations of the ideas. So from now on, when we write A=A or LOI, I’m assuming we are also talking about these further aspects of formal logic. They are all part of our logical toolbox. (Note: I asked once before - what background do you have in formal logic as described above? Also, I’ll note that I taught all this in geometry class for many years, as geometry is epitome of a subject built on logical structure, using undefined terms, axioms, definitions, and step-by-step lines of logical reasoning where every statement had to be accompanied by its logical justification: the lovely two-column proof!) I belabor this a bit to make this point: the three laws of logic are all formalizations of understandings that all rational human beings have. The formal laws derive their existence from their being descriptions of how human beings think. We often make the mistake, I think, of saying that people “follow the laws of logic” when they think, but really the laws of logic, as abstract and symbolic expressions, follow the thinking of people, not the other way around. We have formalized basic components of our rational thinking, but people who have no knowledge of these formalizations still think logically in that what they think is consistent with the rules we have formalized. You then write, and I summarize, paraphrase, and comment in [ ] (let me know if you think this is accurate: 1. There are no exceptions to A=A. [I agree] 2. A=A is a “necessary truth”. It necessary for anything else to be true. [I agree that it is necessary that all true logical sets of propositions must follow the laws of logic (as I described above} to reach true conclusions] 3. You write “A=A is a key that opens up questions of truth for us.” [It is a necessity for reaching true conclusions. If that’s what you write, I agree.] 4. You write, “We could call A=A an absolute truth.” [If this means absolutely necessary, I agree. “Absolute” can have other connotations that go beyond what we have agreed to so far, but if you mean the equivalent of “necessary”, that I agree.] You then write, “The question is, do we choose this or is it given or both? We agreed it is inherent in us – it’s given as human nature. We are rational and we accept A=A by instinct, so to speak. It is intuitive. I don’t like the word “instinct”, which implies driven for forces beyond our reason and will, such as an instinctual fear of snakes. I don’t particularly like the word “intuitive” in this regard either, as that also implies tapping into something that is beyond or below reason. Logical thinking is part of our rational nature. We experience it subjectively, as part of our experience of own internal thinking and verbal articulation. It just is. Ascribing it to something other than reason itself, such as instinct or intuition, lessens it prominence as a core feature of rationality. You write, “However, do we also choose it? I will say yes. We make a commitment to it. The evidence for this is that a person could just say that they do not want to accept the LOI. ...”, and you go on to discuss some hypothetical person who could choose to not follow A=A. I disagree, and I’ve said I don’t think we choose or commit to be logical, any more (this is just an analogy, I know) than we choose to have our heart beat. Any hypothetical person who declared they were choosing to not be logical in terms of A=A et al would just be being purposively provocative and trollish. Viola Lee

VL Continuing on these ideas:

“That’s the rational process which is not just intuitive but we actually look for reasons”.

We could say that the LOI is intuitive (part of our nature) as we agreed. This would mean that we exert no choice in using it. There's no option. However, we know we are capable of denying A=A for various reasons, in other words, we don't accept the truth (or we tell a lie about something). So, we have to make a commitment to A=A. It's not just that we automatically always accept that the identity of a thing is what it is. "That is my money". A=A. "Ok, it's yours" (accepted). Then later. "Why do you have my money?" "Because it was never yours". (A=A is denied). That means the rational process is not just intuitive (that we have to do it), but we have to make a commitment to being consistent. More importantly, we have to think about A=A and decide that it is right and once we do that, we can proceed.

Subjective vs objective with regards to A=A

KF touched on this previously. What we mean here is that a subjective view is entirely personal. It's a privately held idea. It lives within the person. It can be shared, but it comes from a person. "I like cats". That's a subjective view. Nobody would know that unless I told them, or maybe you could figure it out but you have to find that idea (it's a true statement) inside of my own life. A=A is objective. You didn't create that formula and I didn't. In fact, no human created it. That's an "objective truth" because it exists external (as an object outside - objective) to us. We can all point to it, discuss it and analyze it, because it's not a subjective idea. We could say, "I won't accept it unless I take it into my own mind and think about it" - and that could be true. So, it could be "subjective" in the sense that it's part of your thinking. But it's objective in its origin and reality - it's outside of you or me or anyone.

we are oriented to the truth of things

By our rational nature, we have within us - at least, this absolute truth that A=A. Beyond that, we are compelled to use this truth in all of our thoughts. Even if we rejected it, we still have to use it. But it's not just that we are oriented to LOI, but all of our thoughts and actions and words are directed to what is true. The proof of this is that we cannot consciously force ourselves to deny something that we know to be true. We cannot knowingly tell a lie to ourselves and believe it. We can unknowingly believe our own lie (and be corrected: "You're lying to yourself") but we can't say "ok, here's something false and I will convince myself it is true". In all our thoughts, we sort through things and accept what we think is true. If we want something that is false (and we do at times), we find reasons and pretend to ourselves it is true. We are always oriented to think the truth. A=A is just a part of that. We could deny it but we know it is just telling a lie and we resist that. With that in mind, the LOI is the mechanism we have that enables us to discern what is true. We start with the LOI and accept it. That formula, A=A becomes the foundation of other truths. Do we "seek the truth"? I think we do even when we're not conscious of that action. "Did I lock the door?" - we want a true answer to that question. "Did I spell that word correctly?" - we seek the truth. "What should I do today?" - in that case, we look for the best answer, depending. There may not be one truth of what I should do, but we sort through options and decide (using LOI, LEM and LNC and other ideas - not just those and not just logic). Silver Asiatic

Q writes, "if it turns out to be true that we’re living in a simulation as about 60% of physicists/cosmologists supposedly believe." You've said this before. Can you provide a source? Viola Lee

Querius Thanks for your informative replies.

Many eminent physicists and cosmologists are struggling with this concept and have accomplished amazing mental gymnastics to try to rescue deterministic materialism. It’s not working.

I think other scholars struggle with the concept but not to rescue deterministic materialism. I think classical Christian theism requires an external, material world that really exists and that human beings have real bodies that we can observe. Or let's put it this way, mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile QM with any of our intuitive understandings.

I believe we are spirit beings connected to but transcendent to our physical bodies. I believe it and live it every day, but I can’t prove it outside my own experiential history and those of others. These beliefs are mostly* beyond the grasp of science but within the grasp of human historical documents and archaeology.

I think you can prove you have a body and that you can observe other material things. That's what we live every day.

The presumption of intelligent design is also pragmatic in that it advances science more efficiently than the presumption of random, purposeless, trial-and-error progress.

I think ID theory falls apart under solipsism or living in a simulation or even with idealism where everything is mind and there's no external reality. ID cannot work in a monist system. I also don't see ID as necessary in an idealist viewpoint. But a question for you ... You mentioned that solipsism was a black hole for philosophy. How do you see it that way? Silver Asiatic

WJM Just revisiting this ...

all you’re doing is being inconsistent if you expect others to accept logical truths that are inconvenient to them, but avoid logical truths that are inconvenient to you.

It's a good point, and I owe you an apology also. I was impulsive with my replies and didn't give enough time to think about your viewpoint. The fact is, I don't understand Idealism well-enough and I haven't learned enough about your own view to respond properly. So it comes across as disrespectful and inconsistent, as you rightly point out. You directed me to a lengthy document on idealism. I'd need to study that - and I need a lot more knowledge about how the science feeds that viewpoint. I only have a brief understanding of Berkeley, Kant, Decartes - and even less of 20th century Idealists. Bruce Gordon is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and he supports QM-based Idealism (there's a three-part series with him and Michael Egnor ... https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep131/ ) The point here is I respect the thought and work you've put into your philosophical views and I don't want to give a half-baked reply. You deserve better than that. I'll have to learn a lot more about the topic. i have a strong opposition to it for a number of reasons but I need to articulate those better and understand what idealism is proposing also. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic @738, As Bornagain77 and others here, I believe that the Logos (translated as "word" or concept) holds all things in existence together. I believe we are spirit beings connected to but transcendent to our physical bodies. I believe it and live it every day, but I can't prove it outside my own experiential history and those of others. These beliefs are mostly* beyond the grasp of science but within the grasp of human historical documents and archaeology. * The reason that I wrote "mostly" is that there are a few well-documented scientific papers written on apparent miracles. Here's the title, authors, and introduction of one of them:

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer Clarissa Romez (a), Kenn Freedman (b), David Zaritzkya (a), Joshua W. Brown (a, c) a Global Medical Research Institute, United States b Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, United States c Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E Tenth St, Bloomington, IN 47401, United States Introduction An 18-year-old female lost the majority of her central vision over the course of three months in 1959. Medical records from 1960 indicate visual acuities (VA) of less than 20/400 for both eyes corresponding to legal blindness. On fundus examination of the eye there were dense yellowish-white areas of atrophy in each fovea and the individual was diagnosed with juvenile macular degeneration (JMD). In 1971, another examination recorded her uncorrected VA as finger counting on the right and hand motion on the left. She was diagnosed with macular degeneration (MD) and declared legally blind. In 1972, having been blind for over 12 years, the individual reportedly regained her vision instantaneously after receiving proximal-intercessory-prayer (PIP). Subsequent medical records document repeated substantial improvement; including uncorrected VA of 20/100 in each eye in 1974 and corrected VAs of 20/30 to 20/40 were recorded from 2001 to 2017. To date, her eyesight has remained intact for forty-seven years.

The well-publicized experimental fact that we can collapse wavefunctions by observing/measuring them has profound implications. Quantum tunneling also should have a profound impact on our understanding of reality. Not only does it allow something as large as a virus to pass through an otherwise impenetrable barrier, limit miniaturization of computers, cause mutations in DNA, but is also the reason the fusion of hydrogen is possible, which causes the sun to shine. The astounding design complexity within living things, once thought to generate spontaneously and consist of undifferentiated "protoplasm" within cells, also conveys an impression of the intelligent origin of all existence and life. The presumption of intelligent design is also pragmatic in that it advances science more efficiently than the presumption of random, purposeless, trial-and-error progress. -Q Querius

Silver Asiatic @737,

That’s scientism – it’s based on materialism, that material things are equivalent to reality.

Material things are a sort of reality, but if it turns out to be true that we’re living in a simulation as about 60% of physicists/cosmologists supposedly believe, then are the “pixels” reality? I’d say yes they are. But are those pixels all there is of reality? Certainly not. Even if we’re not living in a simulation, it’s certainly possible for a parallel universe to exist in part within our universe. For example, flatlanders can’t imagine that they inhabit only an infinitesimal part of our own 3D world. They would likely imagine that we don’t exist and cannot interact with their 2D world, but we can. Even in our own universe, dark energy accounts for about 69% of its mass, dark matter about 26%, leaving only about 5% to be directly observable.

That’s the point under consideration with ID. Is materialism true? We can go farther and ask “is scientism the correct method for understanding reality”?

Quantum Mechanics seems to falsify materialism and determinism. Researchers in QM claim that fundamental reality consists of interacting waves of probability and true randomness, information and mathematical logic, and conscious observation or measurement. Everything else, even space-time might be derived from these. And where do the laws of physics come from? Why are orbits elliptical as you were taught? They’re actually not. And how does meat become conscious and think? How can human measurement collapse a wave function as part of a von Neumann chain? Where does information, thought to be conserved, come from and how was it originally generated? Moving backward in time, we can measure the decrease in entropy, limited to where the number of microstates is 1 and the entropy equals 0. At the other end of the entropy scale, we are limited to "the heat death of the universe." Much later, matter will cease to exist (assuming Hawking radiation). Thus, we live in a universe with a limited lifespan. It had a beginning and will have an end.

Even if materialism is proven false, one can still believe that physical science is the only means for obtaining the truth. That view can be challenged (and refuted, I believe).

Many eminent physicists and cosmologists are struggling with this concept and have accomplished amazing mental gymnastics to try to rescue deterministic materialism. It's not working. For example, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder reluctantly admits that true random events occur, but she tries to quarantines these to subatomic quantum scales, but this is still a hairline crack in her otherwise deterministic world. And as I mentioned, at least Lee Smolin is honest enough to state his materialism as his paradigm up front. -Q Querius

BA

Shoot, I have repeatedly argued, via advances in quantum biology, for the reality of a transcendent soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our ‘material/temporal’ bodies.

I apologize - I was just giving my best guess. Your view is similar to mine. But it's a lot different than WJM's. He is saying "there is no material, external reality". For him, "everything is mind" (as I understand his view). For him, material reality does not exist. This would conflict with Christian theism, as you pointed out. God created the material world. True, it is not at the foundation of all reality, but we do have real bodies - and this is what the resurrection is intended to show. Silver Asiatic

Thanks, VL. I apologize for jumping on another topic - I intended to move on with essential matters this Saturday afternoon, but I got started on a quick reply and then it was no longer quick ... Ok, here's a thought to start with: We have A=A and an agreement. You have presented it as "a true statement". I had said it was "a truth expression". What I meant was, it's not just a true statement like "Joseph Biden is president of the USA" or "Los Angeles is in California". Those are true statements, but A=A is a foundational statement. In fact, it's "the statement that enables us to understand the truth". It's the first principle and starting point. Even LNC or LEM cannot function without LOI. So, A=A is a key that opens up questions of truth for us. We have both agreed. Yes, A=A. Plus, there are no exceptions. We could call A=A an absolute truth. It's true in every situation. As such it is a "necessary truth". A=A is necessary for anything else to be true. The question is, do we choose this or is it given or both? We agreed it is inherent in us - it's given as human nature. We are rational and we accept A=A by instinct, so to speak. It is intuitive. However, do we also choose it? I will say yes. We make a commitment to it. The evidence for this is that a person could just say that they do not want to accept the LOI. Can they even make a positive statement without accepting A=A? No, they can't. Because A=A is required in order to say "I reject A=A". But the fact is, there is some hypothetical person who could say it, and what they mean is "I don't care if I am inconsistent or if what I say makes sense all the time." So, they use A=A sometimes, but not others. Silver Asiatic

SA: "BA77: There is no material reality. All reality is the mind of God. We are just minds, not material bodies with minds." If you are going to attribute something to me, be accurate in what I hold. Whereas I do hold that all reality is based in God. I simply note that you, as a Christian Theist, hold the exact same thing. What I do NOT hold is that 'we are just minds'. I never said that, nor have I ever implied that. Shoot, I have repeatedly argued, via advances in quantum biology, for the reality of a transcendent soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our 'material/temporal' bodies. More specifically, I hold that our minds inhabit 'material' bodies. In which the 'material', i.e. atoms and particles, of our bodies, ultimately reduce to a 'information theoretic' base. Not to a materialistic base. All of this is perfectly consistent with experimental evidence from quantum mechanics, and quantum biology, as well as being consistent with Christian Theology I might add. Quotes and Verse:

“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.” Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College 48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” 49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1 Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

bornagain77

re 736: Thanks, SA. I know you've been involved in discussions with WJM, so I'm in no hurry. I like the careful step-by-step constructive conversation we've started, so I'll be available if/when you return to it. Viola Lee

WJM

You can avoid that all you want, but in the end all you’re doing is being inconsistent if you expect others to accept logical truths that are inconvenient to them, but avoid logical truths that are inconvenient to you.

I observe other minds at work. I take in perspectives other than my own. So, I conclude there are other perspectives, other minds and a world outside of my own. If my perception is wrong about this, then how could I be capable of understanding what you have to say? Silver Asiatic

Querius @728

Idealism The idealist philosopher George Berkeley argued that physical objects do not exist independently of the mind that perceives them. An item truly exists only as long as it is observed; otherwise, it is not only meaningless but simply nonexistent. Berkeley does attempt to show things can and do exist apart from the human mind and our perception, but only because there is an all-encompassing Mind in which all "ideas" are perceived – in other words, God, who observes all. Solipsism agrees that nothing exists outside of perception, but would argue that Berkeley falls prey to the egocentric predicament – he can only make his own observations, and thus cannot be truly sure that this God or other people exist to observe "reality". The solipsist would say it is better to disregard the unreliable observations of alleged other people and rely upon the immediate certainty of one's own perceptions.[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

I think we circle around the issues presented on this. I see the philosophical problems, but that's only because I take a different philosophical starting point, and not because solipsism is necessarily a problem. I'm suggesting that this solipsistic view is what we've been discussing. Here are the views, as I see them. WJM: Idealism. There is nothing external to a person's mind. There is no material-reality. Querius: (not sure). There is no material reality. Nothing exists external to mind, but there is just God's mind and human minds. BA77: There is no material reality. All reality is the mind of God. We are just minds, not material bodies with minds. KF: Not sure, but I think he is a classical realist like myself. SA: Metaphysical realism. The material world exists and was created by God. Materialism is false. What "matter is" can be analyzed by QM but not completely understood by it (we cannot know its origins or completely how it is composed without knowing the mind of God). There is an external, material world. Our human intuitions are correct in that real things exist outside of us and they persist in time. They don't pop-in and out of existence just because someone is looking at them. We're not living in a delusion, the Matrix, a simulation or a hoax. There is no direct relationship between quantum physics and the fullness of reality. How matter, forms and substances hold together are known to God - but they are real composites, imperceptible to science but compatible with logic and reason. Humans are real, material bodies, with a mind and with a form (the soul). This is a unified composite, separated at death. Silver Asiatic

WJM

I have repeatedly pointed to one you seem intent on defying, that there is no escape from personal perspective

You equate "personal perspective" with "mind". I pointed out that there are different ways of viewing that. In the idea of personhood, mind is not the totality of a person. In my view, a person is mind, body and soul. We can experience things via the soul, which is transcendent to mind.

Were you the guy that just stopped talking to me about the NDE evidence because you had no answer for NDEs that did not fit the Christian perspective? Was that you avoiding evidence? Maybe it was someone else.

It wasn't me. I don't have problems with NDEs as such, but I also respect anyone who argues from his religious or philosophical perspective. I try to take people from where they are. Why should science be held has having a higher truth-value than philosophy or religion? Science itself cannot give an answer to that question. It can only do what science does - and that is, evaluate the physical world. That's why ID says it cannot tell us about the nature of the designer. Because ID is limited to science.

You mean, you will use science when it supports your perspective, then turn around and ignore it if it does not.

No, I use it for what it is meant for - a study of the physical world. Some people think that science is the only pathway to truth. That's scientism - it's based on materialism, that material things are equivalent to reality. That's the point under consideration with ID. Is materialism true? We can go farther and ask "is scientism the correct method for understanding reality"? Even if materialism is proven false, one can still believe that physical science is the only means for obtaining the truth. That view can be challenged (and refuted, I believe).

Adding “soul” to it doesn’t change the inescapable, self-evidently true statement that there is no escape from personal perspective.

In spiritual terms, a person can "lose himself". So, I'd disagree that we cannot escape our personal perspective. God can communicate directly to the soul, as prophets have said. That's transcendent to personal perspective and to mind. It's God's perspective. God can make it personal, but a person can lose his self-awareness for the sake of something greater. Silver Asiatic

Viola Lee @ 726. That's a great reply, thank you. I appreciate your careful reading and good analysis. Yes, you're right - I skipped over some necessary connections so my summary did not follow from what we agreed upon. I'm glad you caught that. In order to progress in our agreements, we have to go back to A=A because I left some issues undone there. You raised 4 key points: 1. Concern about my statement "That's the rational process which is not just intuitive but we actually look for reasons". 2. How is "truth expression" different from "a true statement"? What further conclusions was I getting at with it? 3. Subjective vs objective with regards to A=A 4. Can we say "we aree oriented to the truth of things" based from our agreement so far on A=A, or do we need other arguments for that? 5. Can I show that we "seek true reasons for our thoughts" based on what we agreed-upon already? I thought I had the time for this today - sorry! I will return later. These are great issues to analyze. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

You said it was impossible for there to be any evidence against your worldview. I pointed out that “it’s not impossible” and explained why.

There are logical impossibilities. A I have repeatedly pointed to one you seem intent on defying, that there is no escape from personal perspective, however you want to section it or label it. It can't be done. That is "my view," SA. I refer to that personal perspective as "consciousness" or "mind." Adding "soul" to it doesn't change the inescapable, self-evidently true statement that there is no escape from personal perspective. You can avoid that all you want, but in the end all you're doing is being inconsistent if you expect others to accept logical truths that are inconvenient to them, but avoid logical truths that are inconvenient to you. Were you the guy that just stopped talking to me about the NDE evidence because you had no answer for NDEs that did not fit the Christian perspective? Was that you avoiding evidence? Maybe it was someone else.

But if we want to talk about philosophy or religion, that requires a different criteria – beyond what science alone can show.

You mean, you will use science when it supports your perspective, then turn around and ignore it if it does not. William J Murray

WJM Just quickly- I'll give a more complete answer later but just this for now ...

but if you’re going to enter into an argument about these things, you’re not going to get away with saying things like “It’s not impossible”

You said it was impossible for there to be any evidence against your worldview. I pointed out that "it's not impossible" and explained why. That was a necessary part of the argument. If we're talking about things that only God knows with certainty (that's different than talking about the results of scientific experiments) like how the entire world is structures, how it was created and the nature and limits of human consciousness (and how consciousness actually interacts with the world), then we have to be open to quite a lot of possibilities. I argue here on UD usually from a scientific, empirical-evidence-based perspective because that's the nature of this kind of argument. But if we want to talk about philosophy or religion, that requires a different criteria - beyond what science alone can show. Silver Asiatic

Here's the thing, SA: you and others are cherry-picking evidence and logic when it suits your ontological commitments. From my perspective, that's fine - there's nothing wrong with that. You and others here have openly said that you are fully committed to your ontologies. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, IMO. If you want to sort and accept or dismiss evidence or argument according to your ontology, have at it, but if you're going to enter into an argument about these things, you're not going to get away with saying things like "It's not impossible" as if that's a valid part any argument, or removing the inconvenient evidence (the quantum debunking of realism) from the table on the one hand, while using convenient evidence on the other (big bang.) Or, expect others to acquiesce to the logic on the one hand (your discussion with VL,) but refuse to do so on the other (the inescapable nature of personal experience.) William J Murray

SA said:

Not true. I already proposed the power of the immortal human soul. Now, we have a conscious mind and a soul. Both can experience things. The evidence for this is that I can be aware of my consciousness. I can improve my awareness. I can be aware of being aware. From this, I can spiritually experience directly in the soul without need for the mind.

This doesn't change anything, SA. In fact, it's all still right there in what you wrote. Notice how you have to word what you write about how you experience your proposed two-element system of soul and mind: you said "I" every time. I experience this, I experience that. When we use the term "mind" or "consciousness," what that word refers to is the "I" that is doing all the experiencing, and all that experience occurs within the "I." Take away that "I" and there is no you to have any experience at all. All experience occurs within that "I," whatever you call it, however you slice it up, and there is no escaping it. You're trying to avoid self-evidently true statement that every experience the "I" has occurs entirely within that "I," regardless of how one tries to avoid it. That's the nature of personal experience, and the reason solipsism is considered an unarguable (even if undesirable) ontology.

Therefore, you cannot say that it’s impossible that God could be doing things that act contrary to what we assume from scientific experiments.

Of course, my arguments here do not extend beyond evidence and logic. Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish. "It's not impossible," however, is not an argument for anything. A neo-darwinist can say that life springing from semi-random mixtures of chemicals in a natural environment "is not impossible." When you have to resort to "it's not impossible," you've found where reason and evidence end and faith has taken over. That' not a bad thing, I'm just pointing it out. I have some beliefs that I cannot argue via evidence or logic, but the difference is that I don't try to.

From those facts, saying that Idealism is necessarily true because of testing from quantum mechanics is not correct. None of us knows how God is holding the universe together and how He created it.

Well, I'll grant you this: for all I know, there are things outside of my "i." How would I know? There's literally no way for me to know that, so it could be true. Perhaps all the scientists and evidence is just what's going on in my particular "I," but you can't have a reasonable discussion that way. What I'm saying is that for all functional intents and purposes, idealism is true. A world external of that makes no difference to the individual because the individual has no way to experience or verify an external world even if it did exist. There's no way out of the experiential prison of the "I." William J Murray

VL, this is a case where language is telling us something: to form meaningful, coded signals and symbols, we have to recognise and use distinctions thus distinct identity. St Paul's C1 Rhetoric 101 exercise points out it is true for music, too: distinct notes to get and recognise a tune or a bugle call to arms. This reality-embeddedness opens up logic of being analysis, starting with how a distinct possible world W must have some A that marks it apart from any close neighbour say W'. From that, we can take up A is A i/l/o its core characteristics c0, c1, c2 . . . cn which must be mutually compatible if it is to be a possible entity. And so forth, including a big chunk of math that by this will have trans-world, universal validity. Which answers Wigner's wonder. Those are not mild, weak results, just the opposite. BTW, as has been drawn out several times already. KF kairosfocus

WJM

It is logically impossible for there to be any evidence against idealism in the first place. It can’t be done, because it is impossible for me to experience anything anywhere except in my consciousness/mind.

Not true. I already proposed the power of the immortal human soul. Now, we have a conscious mind and a soul. Both can experience things. The evidence for this is that I can be aware of my consciousness. I can improve my awareness. I can be aware of being aware. From this, I can spiritually experience directly in the soul without need for the mind. All of that is perfectly logical. We wouldn't say that software can repair itself. It needs an outside agency to evaluate the performance and fix it. You are taking a faith-based position regarding the human soul, and also regarding the mind as the sole means of experience. There is a lot of spiritual literature that argues against that view. We can directly experience things while the human mind (in its temporal existence) is not active. How the interface between mind and body work and how does our body affect our consciousness are other problems that idealism doesn't address. What do we experience after death, if anything? Do we have a mind after our body is dead? Or is it something else that gives us awareness? If something else, can we have the same non-mental awareness while in the body? Again, physics cannot show that idealism is true. It cannot make that kind of determination about reality because it is limited to a study of physical entities. If reality includes more than that, then physics can have nothing to say about it and philosophical realism, our common experience of an external reality, would be true - in spite of what physical experiments show. I think you agreed with that already but then said that such invisible entities add nothing to our knowledge. But again, that's like saying that God is unnecessary because we understand reality well-enough without need for God. You cannot declare with absolute certitude that God does not exist. No one can say that it's impossible that God exists - nobody has that kind of knowledge of reality. Therefore, you cannot say that it's impossible that God could be doing things that act contrary to what we assume from scientific experiments. From those facts, saying that Idealism is necessarily true because of testing from quantum mechanics is not correct. None of us knows how God is holding the universe together and how He created it. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

In some cases, as the example you gave, yes. But metaphysical realism is not an ontology that science can evaluate.).

It doesn't have to. Any form of realism (ERT) is pure speculation without any method or means, even in principle, that could evidence it

Your view requires faith as against such a mountain of evidence that even scientists do not conform to it (your comment on the Big Bang).

It is logically impossible for there to be any evidence against idealism in the first place. It can't be done, because it is impossible for me to experience anything anywhere except in my consciousness/mind. There is no way to even begin to evidence a world outside of mental experience. By any means, scientific or otherwise. My view doesn't require faith in anything other than what is self-evidently true and logically inescapable. And, this is what 100+ years of quantum physics has thus far demonstrated: realism is false. Idealism is true. These are the predictable results under ontological idealism: that we would not be able to locate reality outside of conscious experience (as in, identify innate qualities that exist independent of observation.) William J Murray

Silver Asiatic @713,

The first problem I recognize is that physics cannot tell us “that there is no reality in terms of ontological realism”. Science is not equipped to do that kind of philosophical analysis. QM-Idealism is reductionist. Physicists make statements outside of their competence. Science cannot tell us that nothing exists but what is testable by physics. Saying that ontological realism does not exist assumes that everything is composed of particles and that quantum measurements correctly model all of reality. That’s radically over-stating what physics can tell us.

Yes, there are many examples of overreach both in physics such as super-determinism apologetics and new age pantheistic interpretations (I‘ve had a couple of weird conversations with an emeritus physics professor, a very smart guy, who gives new age lectures on the subject). Silver Asiatic @714,

It says something about the claim that there is “no external reality”. I proposed already some major problems with quotes from physicists “reality does not exist unless you’re observing it”. Nobody bothers going through all the absurd implications of that kind of statement.

Indeed, solipsism being one of them, the equivalent of a black hole in philosophy. William J Murray @725,

I’m guessing that if a physicist says that, what they mean is that what we normally thing of as “reality,” meaning things with characteristics that exist independently of the observer (particles, matter, objects, etc), doesn’t exist as such things unless there is an observer involved. IOW, photons, electrons, etc do not have independent existence as such, but rather exist as information in the form of potential/probabilities of how, where, and what the observer will observe.

Yes, exactly! What’s often ignored is that we have the illusion of a conscious free will for the precise reason that we do actually have a conscious free will. What we choose to measure is all important. Furthermore, the reductionism inherent in materialism ignores the reality of mathematical probability. For example, there’s no question that a spinning coin is real according to materialism, but the reality of an immaterial probability (50%) is not considered outside of a deterministic outcome. The experimental fact that mathematical probability waves can interact with each other becomes problematic as are conjugate pairs/variables with regards to information. So, when we encounter reductio ad absurdum results from our interpretations, it should provide an incentive to question our assumptions of reality, but many brilliant physicists refuse to go down certain roads. At least some of them, such as Lee Smolin, clearly state that assumption to begin with. -Q Querius

WJM

It doesn’t require philosophical analysis for science to disprove (again, inasmuch as science disproves anything) a philosophical ontology.

In some cases, as the example you gave, yes. But metaphysical realism is not an ontology that science can evaluate.

As the video says, to continue to believe in ontological realism is a matter of faith in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

It requires faith to hold any philosophical view. Your view requires faith as against such a mountain of evidence that even scientists do not conform to it (your comment on the Big Bang). "Evidence" about reality does not come solely from physics. We have a common sense understanding and an intuitive understanding. After all, you've pointed to the quality of sensation we may have in our dreams as support for your view. That's highly subjective and faith-based and impossible for science to evaluate. Science cannot directly test and analyze my dreams.

Materialism is another ontology that can be, and has been, investigated by science, and disproved. That is how the entire ontological category of realism was disproved, as this video shows – once materialism was disproved, they tried to salvage some form of realism with further experimentation, but failed every time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Materialism is not the same as Realism. Materialism is not the same as Reality. There are several different versions of what realism is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism#Metaphysical_realism The physicists who see materialism defeated and then conclude that "reality is destroyed" were materialists. Their ontology was wrong before and it remains wrong even though they correctly got rid of materialism. The world cannot be understood using physics alone. Life, for example, is not reducible to physics - quantum or otherwise.

Only if you hold that that intellectual form has it’s own innate characteristics independent of the mind of any individual observer, and those essential forms are what individual observers are interacting with at some level.

Yes, that's philosophical realism. There are intellectual forms (the human soul for example) created by God, independent of the mind. These can also be found at that sub-atomic level and are the background of reality that perdures over time and are what make material substances (substances are a composite with forms). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

The problem with ERTs (ontological realisms) is that they cannot ever be evidenced, even in principle, for the simple fact that in order for an individual to experience anything, the potential for that experience must already reside within them. If it can be caused from the outside, it necessarily can be generated from the inside.

I don't follow this, but the fact that something cannot be "evidenced" (that is, scientifically measured I believe you're saying) does not mean it cannot or does not exist. Again, I mentioned the human soul which cannot be directly observed.

Realism is an entirely irrelevant perspective. An external world adds absolutely nothing to what the individual already has the capacity to experience within.

That's what atheists say about God. Substitute God for Realism or "external world" and you have the same thing. But the fact is, having an external, real, physical world adds quite a lot to human life. In the first place, it means that what we sense is actually something real. It also means we do not have to wonder where everything is coming from. It also means that my physical body is real, just exactly as I experience it. Those benefits for philosophical realism are strong.

It’s not that reality doesn’t exist, it’s just that it doesn’t exist where we thought, or occur how we thought under ontological realism.

I follow what you're saying and I can accept what you're trying to do. The physicist (more than one quoted on this thread I believe) says "reality has been destroyed" another says "reality doesn't exist unless you're looking at it" (so I don't exist unless you're looking at me?). You then say "No, what they meant was ..." -- and you give the direct opposite. They say reality doesn't exist, and you say "It’s not that reality doesn’t exist". Ok, I can understand. What they meant was "if you think materialism is equal to reality" then you're wrong. But that's not saying very much since we knew that without any need for QM. Saying "there is no external reality" assumes one has a comprehensive understanding of "everything that is real". But all they really can see are some experiments from physics. They do not see the work of God, as much as they may pretend to. Again, we are not reducible to physics. Human beings are much greater than that. Silver Asiatic

to SA, re 716 Good: I said, “Those [LOI and heart beats] are just facts of my nature: I don’t “choose” them because there is not an option to not choose them, and thus there is no commitment other than just my existence as a rational, living human being, and you agreed, saying, “The concept [LOI] is embedded in our human nature and why we would say that we are “rational beings” because everything we do comes from this source and we cannot consistently deny it. Then, I said, “the LOI begins as part of our subjective experience–it is part of how we think–but is quickly seen to apply to all people, so it becomes an objective fact in that the evidence for it is available to all”, and you replied,

The difference here is that as part of our subjective experience, we could say that we don’t need a reason to accept the LOI. It just happens. However, when it’s objective, we see the reasons why it is true. That’s the rational process which is not just intuitive but we actually look for reasons.

[Note: your last sentence here doesn’t make sense to me] I said earlier that the word objective has, I think, caused a lot of confusion in discussions here recently. I don’t think that the fact that it is an empirical, confirmable fact that people do in fact use the LOI tells us any more about the reason why that is true than my own experience of why I use the LOI: It is part of all of our natures, and from that commonality comes the objective fact that all of us agree, based on each of our own subjective, that it is essential to our reasoning. When I wrote, “First, the phrase “truth-expression” is not one I have seen before. Why not just say A=A is a true expression?”, you replied “The difference is just that it’s a foundation that enables us to distinguish truth from error. The statement “Error exists” does this.” I don’t see how “truth expression” and “true expression” say anything different. The LOI enables to distinguish one particular kind of error: I can’t say “a rose is not a rose” because that violates the truth that “a rose is a rose”. I’m not sure we can draw any further immediate conclusions. I think you want to draw some further conclusions, but we should discuss them once you offer them as a next step past agreeing on A=A I agree with all you say about identity and separation and boundaries. I don’t think there are any issues here as far as I am concerned You write, “Summarizing. We are rational beings, by human nature, who are oriented to the truth of things. We therefore seek true reasons for our thoughts. That which has an identity is bounded by what it is itself and what it is not. Reality has this two-part structure.” I think “oriented to the truth of things” is a broader statement than we have covered just by agreeing the LOI. All human beings use the LOI (and other fundamental laws of logic) to think. Whether all are “oriented to the truth of things” just because of this is not an immediate corollary, because the phrase “truth of things” covers so much, and there is much more to the search for truth than just using the laws of logic. So I think that sentence brings up much more than just the subject of the truth that the LOI and other laws of logic are embedded in the nature of our rationality. Likewise, I think “seek true reasons for our thoughts” is not quite correct. For one thing, as mentioned in a previous post about choice and commitment, I don’t think we “seek” to use the laws of logic: they are just there in our thinking process. Also, “the truth”, about whatever one might be discussing, involves much more than just using the laws of logic. So I think your summary goes beyond what we have established about the LOI (and other laws of logic). Viola Lee

SA @723, I'm guessing that if a physicist says that, what they mean is that what we normally thing of as "reality," meaning things with characteristics that exist independently of the observer (particles, matter, objects, etc), doesn't exist as such things unless there is an observer involved. IOW, photons, electrons, etc do not have independent existence as such, but rather exist as information in the form of potential/probabilities of how, where, and what the observer will observe. This indicates that the what we call "reality" is not going on "out there," independent of the observer; but rather within the mind of the observer. It's not that reality doesn't exist, it's just that it doesn't exist where we thought, or occur how we thought under ontological realism. William J Murray

SA said:

The first problem I recognize is that physics cannot tell us “that there is no reality in terms of ontological realism”. Science is not equipped to do that kind of philosophical analysis.

It doesn't require philosophical analysis for science to disprove (again, inasmuch as science disproves anything) a philosophical ontology. All it takes is an ontology that relies on a proposition that can be examined scientifically, like Empedocles and his four ultimate elements ontology. Materialism is another ontology that can be, and has been, investigated by science, and disproved. That is how the entire ontological category of realism was disproved, as this video shows - once materialism was disproved, they tried to salvage some form of realism with further experimentation, but failed every time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

QM-Idealism is reductionist. Physicists make statements outside of their competence. Science cannot tell us that nothing exists but what is testable by physics.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

Saying that ontological realism does not exist assumes that everything is composed of particles and that quantum measurements correctly model all of reality.

I'm guessing you said something you didn't mean to say here. Or you said it in too confusing a way for me to parse correctly. Ontological realism doesn't require particles to exist; what it requires is that things outside of conscious experience have their own innate characteristics, called either local or non-local realism. Local realism has long since been disproved, and further tests have disproved the testable theories that attempt to salvage realism via non-local versions. As the video says, to continue to believe in ontological realism is a matter of faith in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So, the intellectual form is a foundation for realism.

Only if you hold that that intellectual form has it's own innate characteristics independent of the mind of any individual observer, and those essential forms are what individual observers are interacting with at some level. There's a serious logical problem with that, though, and in fact with every form of realism (which I have called "external reality theory" in the past, because that is the key ingredient under realist ontologies.) The problem with ERTs (ontological realisms) is that they cannot ever be evidenced, even in principle, for the simple fact that in order for an individual to experience anything, the potential for that experience must already reside within them. If it can be caused from the outside, it necessarily can be generated from the inside. Realism is an entirely irrelevant perspective. An external world adds absolutely nothing to what the individual already has the capacity to experience within.

I proposed already some major problems with quotes from physicists “reality does not exist unless you’re observing it”. Nobody bothers going through all the absurd implications of that kind of statement.

You have to take the words in their proper context, and account for whom they are talking to in terms of how precise they feel they need to be with their wording. People seem to say all kinds of absurd things when taken out of context both textually and situationally. William J Murray

Can you guys name one academic field that speaks in terms consistent with the idea that "reality doesn't exist unless you're looking at it" or as if "there is no external reality"? Archeology? Biology? Medicine? Sociology? Political Science? Engineering? Religion? History? The philosophers I follow argue directly against the idea. It's not that they're unaware of it. Silver Asiatic

William J Murray @708,

What I don’t understand is how the Big Bang Theory has survived in light of quantum physics research. They still talk about “matter” and “energy” as if they actually exist as things external of experience. It’s like cosmologists have walled quantum physics research off and won’t go near it.

Excellent observation! It's as if they are blinded by their ideology. Incidentally, the same issue is present in philosophy, which has largely ignored the implications of QM for almost 100 years! -Q Querius

William J Murray @707,

The reason I don’t worry about simulation theory is because it either begs the question (simulations all the way up?) or puts knowledge of actual reality out of reach. I’m not sure what value simulation theory would provide me.

Yes, you’re right at least in part. A number of physicists believe there’s enough evidence to accept the likelihood that we’re in a simulation (aka holographic universe). They’re not necessarily theists or deists, but are simply considering the evidence. However, their conclusions are generally logical but not compelling in of themselves. These conclusions (aka interpretations) include some deeper form of reality, or a type of pantheism, or belief in simulations “all the way up” within a trans-dimensional infinite time dimension, or perhaps the Judeo-Christian God, etc.

MRT provides me with great value in terms of enjoyment and functionality.

Yes, I think an argument from pragmatism is certainly valid. I use the same argument as one (1) pillar of my Judeo-Christian faith (I have several others). -Q Querius

KF

then we can apply it to being and raise the weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, that we may ask why A is, or is not or is impossible, hoping for a reasonable answer

Yes, we have a standard now for evaluating what is possible and what is necessary.

From that we get to a surprising amount of cosmology and insight into causality etc. especially once we use the possible worlds approach.

True, we can put some pieces together from that. Silver Asiatic

I am God Next --Ram ram

VL, again, see the just above. KF kairosfocus

SA,

We left off with the agreement on A=A. (Querius was quoting from a long time back before we had agreed – yes, we fully agree now). Additionally, we accepted that Identity requires some means of boundary on A, some defining factor. So, A is separated. I used the example of a box of blue marbles. If there was one green marble in the box, I could ask for the green marble. It’s separated from the whole by its unique color. However, if all marbles were blue, I could not ask for “the blue marble” since none of them could be distinguished in that way. This is what A=A means.

Hence, the import that A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics. Which must be coherent in any possible being. Of course, from this we go to the close corollaries, LNC and LEM, thence the rest of core logic, then we can apply it to being and raise the weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, that we may ask why A is, or is not or is impossible, hoping for a reasonable answer. From that we get to a surprising amount of cosmology and insight into causality etc. especially once we use the possible worlds approach. As well, once exploration of being addresses logic of structure and quantity, we come to core mathematics, and to why it is so universally powerful, because without active cause. KF kairosfocus

VL

Those are just facts of my nature: I don’t “choose” them because there is not an option to not choose them, and thus there is no commitment other than just my existence as a rational, living human being.

Ok, that is even stronger than what I proposed and that's good because I agree. The concept is embedded in our human nature and why we would say that we are "rational beings" because everything we do comes from this source and we cannot consistently deny it. But I want to say also, So, we're consistent. The reason I drew this out in such a lengthy way is that people will deny almost every point I made - believe it or not - and I've had arguments that have never gotten this far in agreement. So thank you!

the LOI begins as part of our subjective experience–it is part of how we think–but is quickly seen to apply to all people, so it becomes an objective fact in that the evidence for it is available to all

The difference here is that as part of our subjective experience, we could say that we don't need a reason to accept the LOI. It just happens. However, when it's objective, we see the reasons why it is true. That's the rational process which is not just intuitive but we actually look for reasons.

First, the phrase “truth-expression” is not one I have seen before. Why not just say A=A is a true expression?

The difference is just that it's a foundation that enables us to distinguish truth from error. The statement "Error exists" does this. The next steps look at the separation the LOI contains to create identity. The boundary, by nature, creates that which belongs to the identity and that which does not. A=A can only be true if that which is "not A" is excluded from the equation. There exists, therefore "not A". In fact, we could say that "not A" actively creates the boundary the way rocks, for example, create the edges of a river flowing. The water itself does not limit itself but what is outside of it is the limit. In this case also, there's a Relationship between A and not A. There is a "composition" of the two. I introduced the term "outside", but that's just part of what an identity means. There's inside (within A) and outside (not A). Summarizing. We are rational beings, by human nature, who are oriented to the truth of things. We therefore seek true reasons for our thoughts. That which has an identity is bounded by what it is itself and what it is not. Reality has this two-part structure. Silver Asiatic

Thanks, SA. For the most part, your six points are all different ways of saying, in my words, that the LOI is an inescapable, fundamental aspect of the way our cognitive, rational processes work. “A rose is a rose” is something no rational person will deny. The fact that we have formalized this in our understanding as a law of logic in words and symbols goes back a couple of thousands years, but all people, before that time and/or unaware of the formalizations, have this understanding embedded in how their rational minds work. However, your points bring up some new terms and ideas that are not so clearcut (just as my paragraph probably does). I’ll comment on a view of them, but I don’t want my comments to distract from where we’re going. “1. It’s not a subjective opinion. Neither of us invented this point. It’s something we accept.” I think the words “subjective” and “objective” have caused a lot of confusion here, and have had multiple meanings. I would say that each of us, as we become a rational person, discover within ourself that it is part of our rational nature: it’s just a given of our rational experience. Later we have the formalization explained to us, and we assent and accept that yes, it is true that the LOI is a fundamental part of how we think. Furthermore, we believe that all other people are likewise rational with the LOI as fundamental to their thinking also, so the LOI is a general truth about how all people think. I hesitate to do this because of problems with these words, but I would say that the LOI begins as part of our subjective experience–it is part of how we think–but is quickly seen to apply to all people, so it becomes an objective fact in that the evidence for it is available to all. “2. It’s not strictly a faith-based proposal. As we said, there are some assumptions needed, but this is not a religious teaching.” Absolutely. Has nothing to do with religion. “3. We could say that we made a choice to accept A=A. However, it is simply not possible for us to reject this idea. We could try to reject it, so that means we freely choose it for various reasons. But no matter how hard we try to reject A=A, it is impossible to do that and also remain consistent to the truth.” No, I don’t think it is a choice. It’s as much an embedded inescapable part of our thinking as, you might say, our heart beating is to our body. It just is: a core of our ability to think logically and rationally “4. Now that we agree on A=A, we have a “shared truth”. We have both said, there are no exceptions to this idea, so our shared understanding cannot change.” Agreed, although introducing the idea of “truth” can open connotative difficulties. But I agree there are no exceptions, and that our shared understanding about this (both yours and mine, and humankind’s in general) cannot change “5. A=A is a truth-expression. We both agree that the formula is true. What happens next, however, means that we use this LOI (applying to LEM and LNC) in ways that make sense because we both have made a commitment to the truth of things, and we will be consistent with this.” First, the phrase “truth-expression” is not one I have seen before. Why not just say A=A is a true expression? Also, I don’t think it is correct to say I have made a “commitment” to the truth of things, any more than I think this is a choice. I’ll repeat what I said at 3: using the LOI is no more a “committment” to the truth f things than having my heart beat is a “commitment” to staying alive. Those are just facts of my nature: I don’t “choose” them because there is not an option to not choose them, and thus there is no commitment other than just my existence as a rational, living human being. You write, “But in our case, all we’re saying is “I accept A=A not just for today because I feel like it, but because it’s actually true. I therefore won’t just change my mind later. There are no exceptions to this rule.” Yes, I agree. To summarize, here are the two things that I think are “actually true”: 1. My rational thinking abilities include using the LOI as a fundamental part of all rational thinking that I do. 2. All other rational human beings also use the LOI, and thus it is a core, fundamental part of whatever shared understandings we develop among ourselves. There may be some dangling ideas here, but my hope is that we can move on: what follows from this solid agreement about the LOI? Viola Lee

WJM

What I don’t understand is how the Big Bang Theory has survived in light of quantum physics research.

It says something about the claim that there is "no external reality". I proposed already some major problems with quotes from physicists "reality does not exist unless you're observing it". Nobody bothers going through all the absurd implications of that kind of statement. Silver Asiatic

WJM

I would imagine that if a physicist said, “There is no reality” in light of the results of quantum physics research, what he meant was that there is no reality in terms of ontological realism.

The first problem I recognize is that physics cannot tell us "that there is no reality in terms of ontological realism". Science is not equipped to do that kind of philosophical analysis. QM-Idealism is reductionist. Physicists make statements outside of their competence. Science cannot tell us that nothing exists but what is testable by physics. Saying that ontological realism does not exist assumes that everything is composed of particles and that quantum measurements correctly model all of reality. That's radically over-stating what physics can tell us. Many think for example, that life is reducible to physics. I'm not even talking about consciousness, but just life itself. In my philosophical view (classic Western theism) each living being has an immaterial "form" (we would call it a soul for humans). So, the intellectual form is a foundation for realism. This has religious implications and science really has little or nothing to say at that level. It would be like me saying "my religious beliefs prove that realism is true" - which I could do. Why not? But of course, that kind of argument does not work for people who think physics, for example, is the highest, most accurate and most comprehensive (or even "only") knowledge we have about reality. Silver Asiatic

VL

SA has been good enough to start a conversation about the steps he would take to reach some of the above conclusions, and that has been good. We are working to understand each other, working to see what we agree on, answering each other’s questions, etc.

Thank you and I fully agree - and thanks for your patience. We are moving very slowly through each idea. I'm almost tempted to stop because getting agreement on anything like this has been so rare for me to find - again, I appreciate your forthright approach. But we should just keep moving forward, looking for agreements at each point until we can't go forward. We left off with the agreement on A=A. (Querius was quoting from a long time back before we had agreed - yes, we fully agree now). Additionally, we accepted that Identity requires some means of boundary on A, some defining factor. So, A is separated. I used the example of a box of blue marbles. If there was one green marble in the box, I could ask for the green marble. It's separated from the whole by its unique color. However, if all marbles were blue, I could not ask for "the blue marble" since none of them could be distinguished in that way. This is what A=A means. We separated one thing. It's got defining features and those features create a boundary. At this moment, the discussion does not really go forward in a straight, incremental path. Instead, there are several (I count 10 at least) points that emerge off of our agreement. It's like A=A is the hub or center and other points orbit around it. We already mentioned LEM and LCN, we both agree that those follow from LOI. But more importantly, we can start with one point (and correlatives) I wonder if you agree with: We said A=A is a foundation. Here is what that means. 1. It's not a subjective opinion. Neither of us invented this point. It's something we accept. 2. It's not strictly a faith-based proposal. As we said, there are some assumptions needed, but this is not a religious teaching. 3. We could say that we made a choice to accept A=A. However, it is simply not possible for us to reject this idea. We could try to reject it, so that means we freely choose it for various reasons. But no matter how hard we try to reject A=A, it is impossible to do that and also remain consistent to the truth. 4. Now that we agree on A=A, we have a "shared truth". We have both said, there are no exceptions to this idea, so our shared understanding cannot change. 5. A=A is a truth-expression. We both agree that the formula is true. What happens next, however, means that we use this LOI (applying to LEM and LNC) in ways that make sense because we both have made a commitment to the truth of things, and we will be consistent with this. KF has referred to this previously as "the duty to truth". That was a big debate here previously. But in our case, all we're saying is "I accept A=A not just for today because I feel like it, but because it's actually true. I therefore won't just change my mind later. There are no exceptions to this rule." What all of that is saying is "our views attempt to be consistent with what we know". In other words, we try to line up our ideas with what we think is true. I will add one thing at the end. I am aware of your views, VL (not all ID opponents share it) that there are "different ways of knowing" and I fully agree with that. I am not proposing that all of reality can be modeled by logic. I accept that intuition and also non-logical truths (not "illogical" but rather super-logical, above logic) exist and are necessary and I use them in my worldview. But that's going far beyond where we are right now. We're not looking at implications beyond the few points raised. With all of that, do you agree with the points here? Silver Asiatic

Q, I’m about to retire from this discussion with you, as, I’ve said, you seem to be purposively not forthcoming about what point you are trying to make. You are the person who started talking about experimental evidence way back at 646, although the phrase was “experimental [italicized] knowledge at that time and then I wrote experimental evidence a little later, which is the phrase you have continued to use as you’ve asked me your question multiple times. I gave an answer at 703: I know some about the general outline of the features of the Big Bang theory, but am not very familiar with the technical details of the actual evidence that cosmologists have used to reach those general conclusions: it would be probably more accurate to say that I am familiar with experimentally-based knowledge about the Big Bang. FWIW, I’m more familiar with QM and relativity than I am with cosmology. So, unless you want to explain more about why you’re asking this question, or otherwise further the discussion, I retire from responding to you. I’d like to point out that I have appreciated the discussion started with SA yesterday, which has been of a much higher quality. We are working to understand each other, working to see what we agree on, answering each other’s questions, etc. That is much better than this discussion with you has been. Viola Lee

Astro 101 https://openstax.org/details/books/astronomy kairosfocus

Simple projection backward of expansion multiplied by other phenomena. kairosfocus

What I don't understand is how the Big Bang Theory has survived in light of quantum physics research. They still talk about "matter" and "energy" as if they actually exist as things external of experience. It's like cosmologists have walled quantum physics research off and won't go near it. Not in our house!!! William J Murray

Q said:

Some simulation believers have a different behind-the-simulation causal existence in mind.

The reason I don't worry about simulation theory is because it either begs the question (simulations all the way up?) or puts knowledge of actual reality out of reach. I'm not sure what value simulation theory would provide me. MRT provides me with great value in terms of enjoyment and functionality. William J Murray

Viola Lee @704,

I’m also a little puzzled by your phrase “experimental evidence” and why it’s italicized.

Words are italicized either for emphasis or as a special or a foreign-language term. In this case, it was for emphasis in response to your post in which you wrote:

Q, a “sentient transcendent being” is not within our experimental knowledge.

This is why I asked:

Ok, so what do you consider regarding the Big Bang that qualifies in your view as experimental evidence?

Do you see the connection between your confident use of the term regarding a "sentient transcendent being” in contrast to your puzzlement over the same term in 704. Perhaps you can clarify your own use of the italicized term with respect to the Big Bang. So, one more time: What do you consider regarding the Big Bang that qualifies in your view as experimental evidence? -Q Querius

VL, My point in 672 is that the onward import is there, on the table already. KF F/N: To wit:

Here is where it goes, next, A is A i/l/o distinct characteristics, leads to world W = {A|~A}, so any x in W will be A or else not A but not both or neither. that’s LNC and LEM already. Going beyond, core of Math and so its universal power, just for starters.

The onward linked draws out how the triplet leads to the core of Math and the universal power of that core, using possible worlds approaches. That is significant, i/l/o Wigner's wondering on that power of Mathematics. Logic of structure and quantity, an application and extension of logic of being, allows us to see how key abstracta constrain possibilities by being framework to any possible world, without being active causal agents. Because, without cause, to echo a phrase out there. kairosfocus

I'm also a little puzzled by your phrase "experimental evidence" and why it's italicized. We know a lot about the life cycle of stars, for instance, by gathering data from lots of stars. However, in some sense we don't really experiment on stars (we can't manipulate them), although we do run experiments in the sense that we gather different kinds of data, make hypotheses, gather more data to test the hypotheses, etc. Are you trying to emphasize the word "experiment" in some way for some reason. Again, it would be useful if you were to try to be clear about what's on your mind rather than asking what seem to be somewhat cryptic questions. Viola Lee

Q, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. Even as a layperson, cosmology is not something I know a lot about. I accept some basic things: the universe began in a singularity about 14 billions years ago, there was rapid expansion, at some point (a very short amount of time), elementary particles were formed, and then hydrogen and helium, eventually stars formed which have formed the heavier elements, there is a cosmic background radiation left over from this, the red-shift in star light shows that the universe is expanding. And actually, those are more conclusions than evidence. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what the major evidence is for many of these conclusions. I know the cosmic background radiation is discernible with radio telescopes, but I couldn't tell you the details of what that looks like. What is your point? Do you doubt these conclusions? Do you know more of the details of the actual evidence for the Big Bang? I feel like you're fishing for something and I don't know what it is or how it applies to your position that a "sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention " is the proper metaphysical view about reality. I've said, "That’s why I am asking you to be more specific about the steps you take to conclude that the evidence “points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts)” Maybe you could make your case rather than grilling me about what I know. Viola Lee

Viola Lee, Ok, so what do you consider regarding the Big Bang that qualifies in your view as experimental evidence? -Q Querius

Q, I am referring in general to the same body of experimental evidence that you refer to: QM, the Big Bang, etc., when you have written, multiple times, "QM, space-time, the red shift and extrapolated Big Bang origin, information (and uncertainty), ... ". That's why I am asking you to be more specific about the steps you take to conclude that the evidence "points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts)" Viola Lee

Viola Lee @661,

And those steps are full of assumptions that do not follow from the experimental evidence.

Really? What experimental evidence are you referring to? -Q Querius

Q, you quote me as answering before, “We have discussed other alternative views in other threads before, and I’m not interested in rehashing that”, and then you ask me the same question again. My answer remains the same. Let me quote, for the record,

Q, we have discussed other alternative views in other threads before, and I’m not interested in rehashing that. Concluding that the evidence (which, in respect especially to QM, is open to multiple, possibly untestable interpretations) points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition. Your conclusion that such a conclusion is most likely and all others are thin is just your own faith-based belief system talking. I’ve said all this before, and my attempts to offer other perspectives have not been welcome: in fact, they’ve been met with some ridicule and rudeness. There is no value to me in rehashing previous discussions.

SA has been good enough to start a conversation about the steps he would take to reach some of the above conclusions, and that has been good. Perhaps you also could show the steps by which our experimental knowledge (which I am aware of) leads to your conclusion? Viola Lee

Q, we do have agreement on A=A. I don't know why SA said we didn't, but he and I have been carefully discussing that. We certainly don't have disagreement among those participating in this thread. Viola Lee

William J Murray @687, Yes, you’re right about Realism versus Idealism. To dodge that important distinction temporarily, I’d suggest we use the term “reality” instead. I agree with you on 688 as well. This is where things get “curiouser and curiouser” as Alice would say. -Q Querius

Q, I don't believe there are any "apologists for deterministic materialism" in this conversation. Viola Lee

Silver Asiatic @678,

A=A means realism is true because it gives us a means of making a distinction. It provides a distinct A an identifiable entity and that requires something real.

Right because if we deny that identity then everything else just collapses into incoherence. The fact that we sustain the identity of A is evidence of distinct segmentation by boundary.

What it states is that there is an underlying reality. And accepting that as truth, is a fundamental element in what we can hope to know. There are others as well. For example, another basic assumption is that we are even capable of understanding reality. That’s not "a given" by any means. -Q Querius

Kairosfocus @671,

If we are not responsibly and rationally significantly free, QM, Mathematics, Chemistry, you name it has fallen under a cloud of utter discredit. That has to be faced, the branch on which we all sit.

Great point! I'm likewise suggesting we muster the courage to look at the branch and how we're sawing it. -Q Querius

Silver Asiatic @656,

I don’t think we’ve got a solid agreement so far on: A=A

Um, could we call the lack of agreement on even that an identity crisis? (smile) -Q (sorry, I couldn't resist) Querius

Jerry @653,

That would be a first here.

Haha! Good one! -Q Querius

Viola Lee @652,

Q, we have discussed other alternative views in other threads before, and I’m not interested in rehashing that.

No, I’m simply asking what experimental evidence do we have to work with. You’re rejecting the process of taking an inventory apparently based on fear of a potential conclusion. We’re miles away from that but it seems like you’re afraid of even looking at the experimental evidence that do have. Surely, experimental evidence is not boring, is it? Thus, I ask you again . . . Regarding other possibilities being thin, considering what we know experimentally about QM, space-time, the red shift and extrapolated Big Bang origin, information (and uncertainty), just what are the other reasonable possibilities within our experimental knowledge? -Q Querius

William J Murray @651,

The most obvious candidate is that which we’re all already looking at: us. Me. You. Conscious minds we already know exist. In fact, we have established via 100+ years of quantum physics research that we are, in fact, generating actualities from potentia – choosing them, in fact, via what we call observation.

Sure. That’s given rise to the “ancestor simulation” hypothesis among other potentia. And there are a few others.

Or, to put it very simply, I wasn’t around to cause my own existence or the world I require to exist. Thus, I’m a contingent being, and not the uncaused cause that we’re looking for.

Correct. But hold your horses.

And here’s a logical jewel when it comes to what resides in potentia: we are all eternal, necessary, non-contingent beings at least in what we call potentia, or else we couldn’t ever “become” actual.

Whoa. Some simulation believers have a different behind-the-simulation causal existence in mind. A premature question at this point, which we can raise later, is “Why would we do so?” But why not first get all these possibilities on the table? -Q Querius

Kairosfocus @650,

The issue then is, what good reason do objectors have to infer that we need not point to such a world root, or that there is no serious candidate, or that if there is, that the candidate or candidates is/are impossible of being.

Right. What I’m suggesting is for the objector (or anyone else) to simply perform an inventory on what we experimentally feel confident that we know. I’m aware that the apologists for deterministic materialism are twisting themselves into knots to try to maintain their position. Why not just relax and let the evidence suggest reasonable possibilities? -Q Querius

I would imagine that if a physicist said, "There is no reality" in light of the results of quantum physics research, what he meant was that there is no reality in terms of ontological realism. This is true; ontological realism has been falsified - at least to this point - by 100+ years of quantum physics experiments designed to test various theories where realism could be maintained (local or non-local.) William J Murray

SA said:

A=A means realism is true because it gives us a means of making a distinction. It provides a distinct A an identifiable entity and that requires something real.

You say that as if, under idealism, there is no means if making a distinction. This is false. The difference between ontological idealism and realism is not whether or not one can make distinctions. It is, rather, where those distinctions are made, how they are made, and what they mean. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

The statement, for example (as physicist quoted recently here said: “There is no reality”) means there is no distinct A. So, A does not equal A – since there can be no A.

Ontological realism is not the equivalent of saying "reality exists." Realism refers to a certain category of ontologies. Idealism is a different category of ontologies. Idealism does not claim "There is no reality," only that reality is of a different nature than realist ontologies. William J Murray

VL Thanks for your excellent responses. We have a solid foundation. I will pick up the next steps tomorrow. Also, right - we have not introduced LEM or LNC - not necessary. The point we agreed upon is the question of "boundary" being essential to identity. Sorry I don't have time to go further today - thanks again. Silver Asiatic

KF, my question is to SA in reference to the conversation we are having. However, if you are following along, you might read 670 and note that I have already written, "To save time, perhaps, I also accept the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, by the way." Viola Lee

VL, the what's next is already there, in 672. KF kairosfocus

SA, you write, at 674 "To be distinct, a thing has to have boundaries. It has to have “edges” so to speak. It must have some characteristics that belong to it, so we can separate it." I agree 100%. That was my point about clouds and mountains. You write, "Can you have an identity without some means of identification and therefore without some boundary (distinct characterisitcs)?" No, we cannot. No disagreements. This is good. What is the next step? Viola Lee

SA, were QM used to refute the first principles of reason it would undercut its own foundations, cf here in WAC https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/faq/#LNC KF kairosfocus

KF Right because if we deny that identity then everything else just collapses into incoherence. The fact that we sustain the identity of A is evidence of distinct segmentation by boundary. Silver Asiatic

WJM, A holds identity i/l/o core characteristics of its being. Implicitly A is*, and A has a distinct identity visible through characteristics c1, c2 . . . cn. Where, for example no cx can imply ~cy in such a chain. KF * Or at least would be were some world W the case. kairosfocus

QM can be proposed as a possible refutation, but I think we just have to get agreement on the very first principle before jumping ahead too far. Silver Asiatic

WJM

What determines if realism or idealism is true is what A is, not whether or not A=A.

A=A means realism is true because it gives us a means of making a distinction. It provides a distinct A an identifiable entity and that requires something real. The statement, for example (as physicist quoted recently here said: "There is no reality") means there is no distinct A. So, A does not equal A - since there can be no A. Silver Asiatic

VL, you asked, where does it go next, and you tried to raise QM. I answered, as was relevant. KF kairosfocus

And only that which is actual can instantiate something potential.

How many ways are we going to try and find a different way of saying what I've already said, and not address the evidence and logic following? William J Murray

SA said:

If that is true, then realism is true. If it is false … a lot of problems flow from that.

What determines if realism or idealism is true is what A is, not whether or not A=A. 100+ years of quantum physics research has demonstrated repeatedly that what "A" is supports idealism, not realism. William J Murray

VL

Lets emphasize “There are no exceptions to A=A”, and see what you propose as the next step.

Ok, this is very good. If we disagreed here, it would be a big struggle to move forward, so I appreciate it. We don't have to go through the other Laws. So, we have a foundation for a discussion. This is great. We can talk about things from the same foundation. Otherwise, it would be impossible to communicate. If I said A=A and you denied it, this would destroy discussion. The foundational principle here we can call a Truth. A=A. So, we build on what is true. The next step is what follows necessarily from A=A, and that is: In order to be distinctly identified (Law of Identity), a thing must be distinct and identifiable. That sounds redundant, but it means: To be distinct, a thing has to have boundaries. It has to have "edges" so to speak. It must have some characteristics that belong to it, so we can separate it. If we had a box of blue marbles, they are all blue, all round all made out of glass. If I asked "could you reach in and give me the blue marble"? the term "the" means a distinct A. It would be impossible unless I separated that marble somehow (that marble on the top in the corner that I'm pointing to). What this means is that the Law of Identity (a foundational truth) demands an entity that is distinctly separate. It has to have a boundary. Here's where you may disagree. Can you have an identity without some means of identification and therefore without some boundary (distinct characterisitcs)? Silver Asiatic

KF, please read posts 670 and above so you know what has already been said instead. NO ONE IS QUESTIONING THE LAW OF IDENTITY! Can you hear that? Stay focussed. Viola Lee

PPS, that is probably a C1 Rhetoric 101 example. PPPS: Here is where it goes, next, A is A i/l/o distinct characteristics, leads to w orld W = {A|~A}, so any x in W will be A or else not A but not both or neither. that's LNC and LEM already. Going beyond, core of Math and so its universal power, just for starters. kairosfocus

VL, QM has little to do with that we are either responsibly and rationally significantly free and morally governed, or else we do not have enough to have credible argument much less warrant or knowledge. The fact that we find ourselves rational, is foundational to the existence and support of QM, not the other way around. If we are not responsibly and rationally significantly free, QM, Mathematics, Chemistry, you name it has fallen under a cloud of utter discredit. That has to be faced, the branch on which we all sit. And in particular, without distinct identity, we cannot communicate in reasoned language or calculation. We keep on drifting into sawing at the branch on which we all sit. That does not work. KF PS, Paul of Tarsus on distinct identity:

1Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

That is what you are up against, just to start. A is itself as opposed to what is not A i/l/o its core characteristics. kairosfocus

We already went over that, and dismissed my examples. Let's move on. There may be no disagreements, especially given your explanation about wombels. Lets emphasize "There are no exceptions to A=A", and see what you propose as the next step. To save time, perhaps, I also accept the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, by the way. Viola Lee

VL

There may be disagreements about whether something in reality qualifies as having a distinct identity.

Can you give an example? Silver Asiatic

There are no exceptions to A=A. There may be disagreements about whether something in reality qualifies as having a distinct identity. I suggest we move on and see what the next step is. Viola Lee

VL

If we agree that something is A, we must agree that A=A.

Ok, on your questions of formal logic and symbols, are you proposing there are exceptions to this? If so, could you explain what those exceptions are and give examples?

Do you agree that to apply logic to reality we have to use a model (the word I use) that says A is going to represent something in reality, which is separate from accepting without reservation the logical statement that A=A, where A just stands for the logical concept of a distinct entity.

I don't really understand your question - could you repeat please? Without any references at all, I just proposed A=A. Is that two entities or one? How do you know? Silver Asiatic

Good, SA. You write, “Yes, I agree with everything except perhaps where you’re trying to go with the ideas. I think you’re looking for some way in which A=A can be denied in reality.” I’d ask you not prejudge “where I’m going”. I agree with your remarks about raindrops and clouds. If we agree that something is A, we must agree that A=A. What I am interested in making more explicit is this. Do you agree that to apply logic to reality we have to use a model (the word I use) that says A is going to represent something in reality, which is separate from accepting without reservation the logical statement that A=A, where A just stands for the logical concept of a distinct entity. Do you agree with this distinction between pure logic itself and the use of logic by using logical symbols to represent some aspect of reality? Another question that might be pertinent: do you have some background in symbolic logic: conjunctions, disjunctions, negation, conditionals, truth tables, etc. I’d like to make sure we are on the same page when I use the phrase “pure logic”? Viola Lee

VL

Do you agree with any or all of these comments?

Yes, I agree with everything except perhaps where you're trying to go with the ideas. I think you're looking for some way in which A=A can be denied in reality. You mention ambiguous things like clouds or things that are only A temporarily (raindrops). But those applications are farther beyond what this first point is establishing. If there is some wiggle-room to get past it, that's fine - but it needs to be demonstrated. We say A=A for whatever we say A is. It's not a question of how we measure it. If we say "that cloud is A" and then someone says, "well I think that cloud goes into the next one" they're just saying "you didn't define A very well, so your A disagrees with my A". But each person is still saying A=A. In each case, A necessarily = A or else we wouldn't know what is being referred to. No, that's irrelevant. A=A is obvious for whatever we call it. If we agree "that is A", then it = A. All we're doing is segmenting this one entity and identifying it. Regarding a wombel, it's not totally meaningless because I know what you mean by wombel (something that does not exist that is spelled that way). So, I segment "wombel" and identify it. This is not going any farther in assigning symbols. It's not saying "If A=B". It's just saying, that whatever I identified (A, a wombel, a raindrop), must have a distinct identity. We can refer to it as an entity. We can understand it in a very basic way "it is A and therefore it = A". Agreed? (this is open for JVL and WJM also or anyone else) Silver Asiatic

Ok, SA, lets proceed step-by-step, as you suggest. You write, “It’s the question of why A=A is foundational, and what A=A means that gets disagreement” I accept that logic is part of our cognitive, abstract, rational reasoning skills. I don’t know why that is, so I’ll accept it as a leap of faith. It’s part of my experiential reality, and I accept and endorse it as such. You write, “First, to accept A=A, you have to see A as something unique, with an identity. “A” represents an entity. It actually is an entity as itself. It’s “A”. But it can be whatever in reality. “This is A”. So, you created a separation. “A is something”. I agree with what you write, although you are now talking about applying logic to reality as distinguished from logic as, well, a purely logical subject, as is formalized in symbolic logic. The application of logic always involves creating a model where things in reality are mapped to the logical symbols, and judging whether the model is correct is where disagreements arise. We don’t disagree about the role of logic itself, but we can disagree about the propositions that are mapped to the symbols in our model. This second step is where disagreements arise, not with the logic itself. I agree with you that to apply A=A to reality, A must stand for something that has a distinct identity. This can bring up real-world issues. We might think of a falling raindrop as A, ignoring the slight changes in its shape as it falls as not affected it identity-hood, so to speak. However, as soon as it hits a lake, its identity disappears. Similarly, the identity of a cloud is very nebulous: is there really some clear, logical dividing line between a cloud and what is not the cloud? Or is there some clear dividing line between a mountain and the surrounding hills? My point is that to apply A=A to reality we often have to make decisions as to exactly what A is, and those decisions themselves do not flow from the basic meaning of A=A itself. What exactly is to be considered an entity, with a distinct identity - an “A” - can bring in many factors that go beyond the basic logic itself. Do you agree with any or all of these comments? P.S. I'll add that you can have logically correct statements that are meaningless in respect to reality. "A wombel is a wombel" is a logically true example of A=A even though it is meaningless because there is no such thing as a wombel. Viola Lee

VL

Of course A = A. How can that be something anyone disagrees about? That is a foundational concept in symbolic logic. Applying logic to specific things and situations can bring up additional issues, just as there is a difference between pure and applied math, but as a statement in pure logic, there is no question that A = A.

First, it's good that you accept it. You wonder how anyone can disagree, but that's the very big issue we're getting at. It's the question of why A=A is foundational, and what A=A means that gets disagreement. I am saying A=A represents our understanding of reality. When you imply that that A=A Is obvious, you're already making many assumptions. You're revealing your worldview. What you accept with A=A is a leap of faith. First, to accept A=A, you have to see A as something unique, with an identity. "A" represents an entity. It actually is an entity as itself. It's "A". But it can be whatever in reality. "This is A". So, you created a separation. "A is something". You know A is something because A=A, we can identify it with a fixed value. All of this sounds pretty dull and obvious, but we cannot take one step forward unless we get agreement here. It's possible for people to disagree right at this step. With that, it's pointless to talk about anything that comes after. We have to sort out the problems in the beginning first. Silver Asiatic

Jerry rehashes his standard complaint

Thank you!!! One of the best endorsements I have ever received here. jerry

"They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully" And those steps are full of assumptions that do not follow from the experimental evidence. Viola Lee

Of course A = A. How can that be something anyone disagrees about? That is a foundational concept in symbolic logic. Applying logic to specific things and situations can bring up additional issues, just as there is a difference between pure and applied math, but as a statement in pure logic, there is no question that A = A. Viola Lee

VL

that the evidence (which, in respect especially to QM, is open to multiple, possibly untestable interpretations) points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition.

They're not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully. In fact, the very logic you use to argue anything is the foundation for understanding. It's not religious faith but rather inference to the most reasonable explanation. Silver Asiatic

KF

actually, potential is contingent, not necessary, necessary being is actual not potential.

True - good point. Something is "in potentia" only because it can be actualized. If there is no way it could ever move from potential to actual, then it cannot be potential. It's like 'possiblity' - if there is no way in an infinite number of attempts for an event to occur, then it cannot be called "possible". It's the same with "potential". If there is no way that an essence can move from potential to actual, in any conceivable way in an infinite number of attempts, then it cannot be a potential. Something is only potential if it can be actualized. And only that which is actual can instantiate something potential. You can't have a world that is nothing but potential (unless you have God directly actualizing every potential including the movement of every atom, and that is one way to look at it). But that puts to death secondary causes - no need for them. Silver Asiatic

WJM

Well, to be fair, it’s pretty hard to see anything that undermines your current structure of identity at such a deep level.

I think it's hard to see because believers in non-realism have a difficult time in explaining it, since they use the language and philosophical concepts of realism. Even if we skipped all of that and just started with "why has everyone, everywhere always recognized an external reality"? I think what we end up with, like many things: "They're all deluded". Or in other words "everything you know is an illusion" or "they're all hallucinating". That's exactly the same sorts of responses given against religion, for example. Just taking the Bible as one of many sources, there are something like 150 miracles recorded in the Bible. There's really only one kind of response to that, from the skeptic - see above. Everybody is hallucinating; it's all an illusion; they're just liars and frauds trying to steal money ... It's the same with realism. We looked at the quote given before "Reality does not exist". That's the kind of thing that is said, even though it is irrational. The starting point for realist philosophy is: A=A If that is true, then realism is true. If it is false ... a lot of problems flow from that. Silver Asiatic

Querius @ 615 Thank you.

The problem is when a person plasters you with questions and homework assignments, which takes hours of your time to compose a thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, the response you usually get is a dismissive or skeptical assertion or yet another question that took them all of 10 seconds to compose.

I saw JVL taking a rapid-fire approach and then the topic shifted. But I think he was just responding to the speed of thoughts coming in his mind, and also just firing at the ideas on necessary being with everything he had, looking for a weak spot. Sure that works, but as you say - it takes some considerable work to answer each question, and I would wish that we would just go one step at a time. I rushed ahead and answered all sorts of questions down the path until we get to "how did the designer implement the design?" but that really doesn't work until you get an agreement on the very first steps. I don't think we've got a solid agreement so far on: A=A I mean, we should have it, but that simple equation carries additional meaning and that's where we have to start. Silver Asiatic

JVL @610 Thanks very much for your openness on this discussion. It helps me a lot to know your conclusions, however tentative and from what position you're arguing. No need to apologize, but thank you just same.

Anyway, we will continue to disagree but, I hope, like good neighbours who can still loan each other their lawnmowers and have a joint barbecue.

That is an encouraging thought. Yes, I would hope to reciprocate! As for our debate, I would think it could start with some of the points KF raises often: A=A Get agreement on that and what it entails. Silver Asiatic

Jerry rehashes his standard complaint! :-) Viola Lee

not interested in rehashing

That would be a first here. That’s all that UD is about 99% of the time. Occasionally something new is discussed. But nearly every time when something new is brought up, it is ignored. On rare occasions new territory is actually explored. That’s good and that’s bad. If something is true, then it is impossible to dispute it in any major way. But when something is false or distorted, people become entrenched and won’t admit their error or just ignore it. This includes both sides of the ID debate. There is resistance to discussion and a tendency to attack. Here we are in a typical thread at over 650 comments and can anyone say what has been learned. My guess, nothing. Because learning is not the objective. jerry

Q, we have discussed other alternative views in other threads before, and I'm not interested in rehashing that. Concluding that the evidence (which, in respect especially to QM, is open to multiple, possibly untestable interpretations) points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition. Your conclusion that such a conclusion is most likely and all others are thin is just your own faith-based belief system talking. I've said all this before, and my attempts to offer other perspectives have not been welcome: in fact, they've been met with some ridicule and rudeness. There is no value to me in rehashing previous discussions. Viola Lee

I've established potentia as the root necessary commodity that underlies anything actual, including any deliberate, sentient being. Others might point out that potentia does not provide actual - IOW, potential is not, in and of itself, a cause. The arguments offered about a necessary being that is uncaused (or else logical absurdity) that is the cause of everything else that occurs, or becomes actual from potentia. The most obvious candidate is that which we're all already looking at: us. Me. You. Conscious minds we already know exist. In fact, we have established via 100+ years of quantum physics research that we are, in fact, generating actualities from potentia - choosing them, in fact, via what we call observation. The objection to this, as some would likely argue, is that we are contingent beings; IOW, we have been caused to come into existence. Under that perspective, we are not causeless causes, and so cannot be the explanation for why anything actual exists. We became actual within an already-existing situation of actual space-time populated by people that preceded us. I was born to my parents and so, at the minimum, they were at least in part causes of my very existence. Plus, as the argument goes, I couldn't "come into existence" unless it was into an already-actualized, supportive, contextual world. Or, to put it very simply, I wasn't around to cause my own existence or the world I require to exist. Thus, I'm a contingent being, and not the uncaused cause that we're looking for. Whoa, buddy. Not so fast. Not only is this perspective rooted in a particular ontology, there is plenty of evidence that falsifies it. By "it," I mean (1) that I "began" at birth, and (2) that what we call "the world" we experience was caused from potential into actual before our involvement with that potential. In fact, the evidence shows that actualization of potential is something that only occurs in the now. What exists as our experiential world in the now both before and after observation is potential, and the actualization that occurs in the "now" of observation does not even set that actualize "now" for all observers. The evidence indicates that the actualization of potential is (1) personal, and (2) only occurs for that individual in the "now," of their observation (delayed choice quantum-eraser experiments.) Our observation in the now is even backwards-causal. I cannot cause what what state the world is in (at the quantum level) for other observers; they are causing that for themselves. This means that "the world" was not created prior to us or else there would be no such thing as "quantum physics," generally speaking. We wouldn't be having these kind of experimental results that show actualities being temporarily established in the now for individual observers. IOW, nobody else can cause the world I am experiencing as, via my interaction with the potential, I personally generate actualities. This means "actuality" (compared to potentia) is when something potential is experienced a particular way by an observer. That observer is not setting the actuality for any other observer. Therefore, the evidence clearly indicates that the ontology that some single consciousness has "created" an actual reality for all observers in that reality is false. And here's a logical jewel when it comes to what resides in potentia: we are all eternal, necessary, non-contingent beings at least in what we call potentia, or else we couldn't ever "become" actual. But it's even deeper than that; since actualization of potential into individual experience is backwards-causal, we are necessarily actual beings, in the now, at the moment of creation in any sense of that phrase that takes into account retro-causality. It is only the individual that actualizes potential into experience, and only for that individual, and since the individual generates their past through retro-causality, that individual cannot be a caused or contingent entity. So, we do not need to "imagine" or theorize some other being: we are the eternal-now, uncaused cause of our own experiential reality, drawn from potentia into experience by our own consciousness. William J Murray

Q, the issue is, once a world root necessary being candidate is seriously on the table, if possible then ACTUAL. The issue then is, what good reason do objectors have to infer that we need not point to such a world root, or that there is no serious candidate, or that if there is, that the candidate or candidates is/are impossible of being. Actually, there would be good reason to infer uniqueness, singular serious candidate, the issue is to further understand character. KF kairosfocus

VL, I am not so sure that there is no experiential knowledge of a Transcendent Being with capabilities and attributes of Deity, but for argument I bracket that off. The underlying point is, force of logic is a force of warranting reason. Our causal-thermodynamic succession of years even extended beyond the singularity -- not observed but inferred on good evidence BTW -- points to the infeasibility of traversing the transfinite alleged past in finite stage steps. We therefore know there was a beginning on much the same force of logic plus facts grounds we know of the singularity. Utter nonbeing is a non starter and circular retrocausation is much the same. That forces us to a necessary being world root, which is automatically of transcendent order, here, not composite, not matter-energy in action in a causal-thermodynamic order. Further to which, we are morally governed as we are responsibly, rationally significantly free enough to be credibly arguing on reasons not clashing blind programming. That poses the is-ought gap that post Hume and Euthyphro, points to said root as only locus for bridging the gap. That shifts the balance on merits a nudge or two. KF kairosfocus

Viola Lee, What I suggested is MOST CERTAINLY NOT the experimental knowledge of the conclusion as you objected to (i.e. a sentient being, or other alternative), but rather the experimental knowledge that would support our conclusion of the options we consider possible. Thus, I ask you again . . . Regarding other possibilities being thin, considering what we know experimentally about QM, space-time, the red shift and extrapolated Big Bang origin, information (and uncertainty), just what are the the other reasonable possibilities within our experimental knowledge? -Q Querius

Q, a "sentient transcendent being" is not within our experimental knowledge. Viola Lee

Viola Lee and Kairosfocus, Yes, I presented a sentient transcendent being as a unique and minimal possibility (for example, not a plethora of sentient and transcendent beings nor necessarily God). Viola Lee, Regarding other possibilities being thin, considering what we know experimentally about QM, space-time, the red shift and extrapolated Big Bang origin, information (and uncertainty), just what are the the other reasonable possibilities within our experimental knowledge? -Q Querius

Q & VL: If by "a sentient, transcendent being with motivation and intention is within the realm of possibility" you mean a certain serious candidate necessary being that would function as root of reality, understand that serious candidate necessary beings will be either impossible of being or actual. KF kairosfocus

Ram, actually, potential is contingent, not necessary, necessary being is actual not potential. Maybe you meant capability? However, there actually are infinitely many NBs -- ponder 2 then N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc -- and they are such that no Possible World, no world capable of actualisation, is without them. That is, they are framework to any PW. KF kairosfocus

Q, the logic of usurpation, subversion and Rules for Radicals. You have a point. However, logic including logic of being, is a serious focus. KF kairosfocus

Ram, it seems, rather, that you are conflating philosophical considerations foundational to for example policy analysis, with religious inclination. Were I dealing with religion, I would pivot on the warranted truth of the resurrection with 500 witnesses, then argue that our view of the scriptures should be that of Jesus, then that here is an exposition of relevant texts. The architecture of what I am doing instead is utterly different. I do have key moral concerns, tied to the branch on which we must all sit first duties of reason, tied to the natural law frame that comes from that and which framed the charter of modern constitutional, lawful state democracy. It so happens that the scriptures endorse key elements thereof but that is likely precisely because they are self evident first principles. Similarly, Paul uses musical instruments to highlight the principle of distinct identity, cornerstone of logic; likely a C1 rhetoric 101 example. As for logic of being, necessary being, root of reality and where they lead, that is about worldview framing i/l/o what is more obscurely termed ontology, and yes that does open up study of the idea of God, here as generic ethical theism. But the point is plain, these ideas stand on general merits not scriptural authority, you have misframed me. KF kairosfocus

VL, pardon, there is another, more esoteric name: ontology [= "thing" + "logical study of"] , a major subset of metaphysics. Here is Wiki:

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality. It includes the questions of how entities are grouped into basic categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontology is sometimes referred to as the science of being [--> wrong use of science given cultural context] and belongs to the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that provides an encompassing classification of all entities. Commonly proposed categories include substances, properties, relations, states of affairs and events. These categories are characterized by fundamental ontological concepts, like particularity and universality, abstractness and concreteness, or possibility and necessity. Of special interest is the concept of ontological dependence, which determines whether the entities of a category exist on the most fundamental level. Disagreements within ontology are often about whether entities belonging to a certain category exist and, if so, how they are related to other entities.[1]

It should be fairly obvious that logic of being is far more to the point. Also, Mathematics is probably best understood as [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. it grows in precisely this soil. I thing we need a much more philosophically informed approach to the secondary curriculum, and it would benefit from the key concepts of logic of being. KF kairosfocus

Q says, "Certainly, a sentient, transcendent being with motivation and intention is within the realm of possibility. What else lies within the realm of possibility is, to be generous, thin, potentially multiplying by infinities or dividing by zero." Certainly a "sentient, transcendent being with motivation and intention is within the realm of possibility", although being in the "realm of possibility" is a low bar. But why is an impersonal, transcendent realm of "potentia", to use WJM's term, without specific motivations or intentions, a thinner possibility? And what does "multiplying by infinities or dividing by zero" have to do with that possibility? Viola Lee

William J Murray @620,

As far as the “necessary being,” point, that being is postulated as a logical necessity to answer the infinite regress of contingent (caused) entities, and the “something from nothing” absurdity. Since infinite regress of causation and “something from nothing” are logical absurdities, we are left with some “necessary being,” an uncaused cause.

Well stated and yes, I agree that the “necessary” is a conclusion. What I think is helpful is to take an inventory of our observations and see where they lead us. It’s perfectly acceptable to allow superposition of interpretations. For example, the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics has resulted in fierce debate, not so much about the science—weird things do happen—but rather their interpretation. Some physicist and deterministic materialists spend enormous efforts in protecting their ideology by interpreting the evidence.

However, the results of quantum experiments has called into question what causation is, how it works, and has revealed causation to be non-linear in terms of time. IMO, this reveals the formation of the “necessary being” argument being used here is derived from ontology. IOW, it is logic that is derived from a particular ontology of causation and not just something that is purely logical in nature.

Yes, and there are many interpretations of the most intensely measured and verified branch of all the sciences. I’ve read that QM experiments has been measured to within 10 parts per billion! However, causation is absolutely fundamental to the application of logic. Without causation, what can we know? Without causation, everything is only coincidental and “magical.”

“Necessary being” is still inescapable – you still have to explain why something, rather than nothing, exists –

Exactly. Nature cannot be the cause of nature.

– but it should be understood in light of an ontology that takes into account what the last 100 years of quantum research has revealed about the nature of our existence and what we call “cause and effect.”

Again, exactly. The difficulty is in the interpretation. Specifically, we all tend to project our experience of reality such as a fixed, time-based frame of reference and within our unstated assumptions. For example, Einstein famously claimed that “God doesn’t play with dice.” Why not? Maybe God loves playing with dice! The probabilities are deterministic, but the outcomes follow a normal curve. Again, causality within space-time is a fundamental necessity for our understanding anything. Conscious observation makes it both happen (collapsing the wavefunction resulting in matter and energy) and meaningful. Information is the currency. Logic, mathematics, the scientific method, and measurement are the tools of conscious manipulation of information . . . But the cause of causes is the question. Certainly, a sentient, transcendent being with motivation and intention is within the realm of possibility. What else lies within the realm of possibility is, to be generous, thin, potentially multiplying by infinities or dividing by zero. -Q Querius

Querius: Why does the notion of a necessary being interest you? It's pretty interesting. Doesn't it interest you? JVL

some wish I’d go away

I doubt that. You espouse somethings which some here believe you cannot justify. Myself included. You are just not going to get acceptance for several things. However, there is nothing personal. You are polite which some aren’t. So stay if you believe you are getting something out of it. jerry

A serious response to KF, who wrote, "there is want of familiarity with the concept, logic of being is not exactly a common topic in our education system and for sure it is not found in general media." Very few high schools have philosophy courses, and even then the logic of being that KF references would be at most a small topic compared to the overall course. Logic of being would be more likely found in college courses more specifically focused on the academic tradition in which the topic falls. I'll note that Wikipedia does not have an article on logic of being, and that a Google search doesn't find much on the topic as used by KF. Viola Lee

To Q, re 633: Bull$%#$#^, and totally gratuitous and off-topic. Viola Lee

Ram said:

So many of these guys/gals don’t get it. Astonishing. It’s RIGHT THERE in front of your “eyes”.

Well, to be fair, it's pretty hard to see anything that undermines your current structure of identity at such a deep level. William J Murray

Kairosfocus @618,

Q, likely, there is want of familiarity with the concept, logic of being is not exactly a common topic in our education system and for sure it is not found in general media.

On the contrary, the education system DOES indeed generally teach logic, but it’s a different kind of logic than what you’re used to: 1. Decide what element of cosmic justice to which to aspire, given the expedient political goal. This decision is reserved for your superiors and you always need to pay attention to the latest, cutting-edge terms. 2. Filter the data for the Facts. Determine what camels to swallow and what gnats to strain. 3. Flood all social contacts and media with a simple message until nothing else is heard. 4. Counter any opposition or mild deviation from the current narrative immediately with insane hatred and sanctioned violence. Never, ever apologize. 5. Blame the ultimate consequences and inequities on global warming, racism, or capitalism. What’s important is that “your people” are in charge of everything. Note: History begins with “the now.” What was widely promoted in the past has absolutely NO relevance to the immediate moment. Have a nice life in the socialist worker's paradise. -Q Querius

re 628: Thanks, Bill. Not everyone feels that way: in fact, some wish I'd go away, I think, which I sometimes think would be best for me also. But I'm glad there are people who enjoy hearing and thinking about my perspective. Viola Lee

WJM: The best candidate now for “necessary being” is potential. Yep. The Root is potentia. All Things Potentia. And consciousness experience navigating "though" it. I know that's a little rough on the prose, but I know you get it. So many of these guys/gals don't get it. Astonishing. It's RIGHT THERE in front of your "eyes". Keep posting, WJM. --Bill/RAM ram

Jerry said:

If there were macro events affected by quantum events, someone would noticed a long time ago.

That's like saying if the image on a high-definition TV we see while sitting on our couch doesn't look like it is pixelated, then the pixels we see when looking very closely are not having an effect on the "macro" image we see while sitting on the couch. What we're seeing IS the quantum effects. Trying to separate the two via some kind of imagined "boundary" (which there is not even a theory about, nor has any been found yet) is the habit of conceptual realism/materialism/dualism, which has been effectively disproved. KF said:

I think Thermodynamics actually has a bigger say on the subject. Energy, its dissipation, how that gets us to change and time’s arrow. Indeed I think the best cosmological sense of time, is thermodynamically driven. Hence, cosmos as about 14 BY old. That is why I speak of a causal-thermodynamic temporal order of cumulative succession. Jerry, the correspondence principle requires quantum phenomena to give classical results as they scale up, that is to fit with the reliability of those results. I noted on the thermodynamic connexion of time already.

Thermodynamics is a model, not a cause. Energy is a model, not a cause. These are models of behaviors of something. In a dream, is it thermodynamics that causes the experience of sequences of time? Nope. The question is: what are these models of? Quantum physics experimentation has given us the answer: these are models of experiences in consciousness, not models of things outside of consciousness. Jerry and KF are still interpreting all this from ontologies that have been effectively disproved by science. And so, the kind of "necessary being" that is logically derived from, and dependent upon, that ontological model has been discredited. As has any kind of "God," religion, worldview or spirituality that has been dependent upon ontological realism. The best candidate now for "necessary being" is potential. When you think about it, potential was always the true necessary being; nothing can precede it; it must always exist for anything to exist, and for anything to occur. Even God cannot do anything without potential. It's just that now quantum physics has formalized the existence of potential as more than just some philosophical perspective. Potential for what? Potential for experience. William J Murray

KF, you're hung up on "moral" ideas. They vary so much that it's ridiculous. Your complaints only represent your religious views. It's fascinating that you haven't figure that out yet. You're never going to get everyone to agree with you. Why not? Look at it from outside your religious box. Then maybe you'll understand. Same for all the religionists hangin' around here. --Bill/RAM ram

Viola Lee... I enjoy every comment you make.. I'm a deist. Your comments are very interesting for me. Please keep posting. --Bill ram

WJM @620. There are those of us who understand and "see" this clearly, and those that don't. Is it a matter of birth? I dunno. Wisdom. Thank you, sir. --Bill aka RAM ram

WJM's remarks were in the context of arguments about a necessary being, not about macro events as experienced by us. The point is that arguments about causality, first causes, infinite regresses, etc., are based on our ideas of causality that derive from our experience of macro events, but we don't know much about the underlying principles of how things interact at the quantum level, below the surface of our experience, so to speak. It may be, therefore, that the ontology of quantum reality, whatever it may be, is more applicable to the question of the "root of reality" than an ontology based on our human experience of macro events. Viola Lee

Jerry, the correspondence principle requires quantum phenomena to give classical results as they scale up, that is to fit with the reliability of those results. I noted on the thermodynamic connexion of time already. KF kairosfocus

quantum events we know very little how quantum-level events interact with and influence other events that then are experienced by us

If there were macro events affected by quantum events, someone would noticed a long time ago. The people who study quantum events are all speculating on events that don’t really affect the macro world very much. Makes good table/party talk but that’s it. Here it makes for inane comments. jerry

WJM writes,

However, the results of quantum experiments has called into question what causation is, how it works, and has revealed causation to be non-linear in terms of time. IMO, this reveals the formation of the “necessary being” argument being used here is derived from ontology. IOW, it is logic that is derived from a particular ontology of causation and not just something that is purely logical in nature.

And given that we know very little how quantum-level events interact with and influence other events that then are experienced by us, we don't have much of a quantum ontology to apply logic to. Viola Lee

PPS, Clocks use a credibly regular cyclic process and accumulate cycles, to measure time cumulatively, calendars extend that using lunar and solar cycles to drive the count. kairosfocus

WJM, actually, that sparks me to go to good ole wiki testifying against interest about metaphysical necessity -- one can practically hear them grinding their teeth:

In philosophy, metaphysical necessity, sometimes called broad logical necessity,[1] is one of many different kinds of necessity, which sits between [strict?] logical necessity and nomological (or physical) necessity, in the sense that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa, and metaphysical necessity entails physical necessity, but not vice versa. A proposition is said to be necessary if it could not have failed to be the case. Nomological necessity is necessity according to the laws of physics and logical necessity is necessity according to the laws of logic, while metaphysical necessities are necessary in the sense that the world could not possibly have been otherwise. [--> so, logic of being] What facts are metaphysically necessary, and on what basis we might view certain facts as metaphysically but not logically necessary are subjects of substantial discussion in contemporary philosophy. The concept of a metaphysically necessary being plays an important role in certain arguments for the existence of God, especially the ontological argument, but metaphysical necessity is also one of the central concepts in late 20th century analytic philosophy . . . . Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religion John Hick[2] and William L. Rowe[3] distinguished the following three: 1 factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it. 2 causal necessity (subsumed by Hick under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it. 3 logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible

I like the phrasing, broad logical necessity. It points to the point, logic applied to being and where that leads. Of course, everything in philosophy is controversial, starting with its definition. KF PS, BTW, I think Thermodynamics actually has a bigger say on the subject. Energy, its dissipation, how that gets us to change and time's arrow. Indeed I think the best cosmological sense of time, is thermodynamically driven. Hence, cosmos as about 14 BY old. That is why I speak of a causal-thermodynamic temporal order of cumulative succession. kairosfocus

I think what some here find frustrating about people that will not present much of their own beliefs is that it doesn't provide any capacity to argue that those beliefs are wrong via logic and evidence. Also, some here feel that unless one is agreeable to changing their beliefs or views in light of logic and/or evidence, it doesn't feel to them like that person is arguing in good faith. As far as the "necessary being," point, that being is postulated as a logical necessity to answer the infinite regress of contingent (caused) entities, and the "something from nothing" absurdity. Since infinite regress of causation and "something from nothing" are logical absurdities, we are left with some "necessary being," an uncaused cause. However, the results of quantum experiments has called into question what causation is, how it works, and has revealed causation to be non-linear in terms of time. IMO, this reveals the formation of the "necessary being" argument being used here is derived from ontology. IOW, it is logic that is derived from a particular ontology of causation and not just something that is purely logical in nature. "Necessary being" is still inescapable - you still have to explain why something, rather than nothing, exists - but it should be understood in light of an ontology that takes into account what the last 100 years of quantum research has revealed about the nature of our existence and what we call "cause and effect." William J Murray

H'mm, I see myself discussing "our" education system. Unconsciously, I am implying a scheme across our civilisation, for sure I am not speaking as though I were an American. My unconscious is telling me something I think, that our civilisation has a unified core a canon of education in a high tech ultramodern era and logic of being is not in it. Including, refusing to tease out the view that Mathematics is special and takes universal power from its substance, that it reflects on the logic of structure and quantity, a facet of core being which gives a key part the sort of universal almost magical power Eugene Wigner wondered at. I think that is food for thought. KF kairosfocus

Q, likely, there is want of familiarity with the concept, logic of being is not exactly a common topic in our education system and for sure it is not found in general media. H'mm, SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

God and Other Necessary Beings First published Fri Apr 29, 2005; substantive revision Tue Aug 6, 2019 It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.[1] We will be concerned with the latter sort of entity in this article. There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others. Note that the first entity in this list is a concrete entity, while the rest are abstract entities.[2] Many interesting philosophical questions arise when one inquires about necessary beings: What makes it the case that they exist necessarily? Is there a grounding for their necessary existence? Do some of them depend on others? If so, how might one understand the dependence relation? . . . . The main question we will address in this article is: Does God ground the existence of necessarily existing abstract objects? It is perhaps a more general question than a question one might at first ask: Did God create necessarily existing abstracta? But it is the main question that philosophers who have written about the relation between God and abstract objects have sought to answer . . . . Our discussion of the question of God’s grounding the existence of necessarily existing abstracta bears on the general conversation about the nature of grounding. First, we can note that our divine grounding case stands alongside the Socrates-singleton case in showing that ordinary supervenience won’t capture the grounding relationship properly. For instance, suppose we say that God grounds the existence of the number 2. We then can note that, necessarily God exists just if 2 does (that is, each exist in every possible world). According to ordinary notions of supervenience, the number 2 supervenes on God, and conversely. But we are to think that God grounds the existence of 2, and not vice versa. Second, we have here in the case of divine grounding of abstracta a case where the grounding relationship is typically spelled out in other, familiar terms (and thus isn’t sui generis). As we will see, a number of different philosophers who think that God grounds the existence of necessarily existing abstract objects think that God does so in a causal manner. Others think that the grounding takes place in that necessarily existing abstracta are identical with divine mental states. One might look at those who claim that God causes necessarily existing abstract objects or that they are identical with divine mental states as not asserting that God grounds the existence of necessarily existing abstracta. But as we will see, each of these sorts of theorists really is saying that God grounds the existence of necessarily existing abstract objects . . .

Notice, where the professional debate starts, that the idea of God is that he is among other attributes, a necessary being, just as a concept, so we look at serious candidacy and realise, either impossible or actual obtains. Then, observe where it goes, looking at abstracta such as 2. Then asking how the two are related. OOPSIE! There goes that pesky number 2 again. Double oops, ouch, at least we are on triples now. We see then, that there is a pro level discussion, it is not some fringe topic raised by dubious objectors to the orthodoxy of our day. Possible worlds speak of course gave us means to make out a tractable discussion and from that to see that entities found in every possible world are fabric or framework for such worlds. BTW, if God is necessary to worlds, then were there no God there would be utterly no reality, so somehow God's existence would indeed be tied to grounding other NBs such as 2. 2 is of course eternally contemplated by God, it is the misunderestimated number but it is also warp and woof to existence in a PW, starting with distinct identity, distinction necessarily invoking twoness, this which we contemplate and that which is not this, whether in thought or in material instantiation. And more. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, 600:

the rules of reasoning are based on certain undeniable assumptions and if you want to call that faith based I am all in and so are you.

Every practical argument can only be finite, so assumed start points are inevitable. Which then extends to worldviews and what I call for simplicity their first plausibles. That said, some things are self evident, including things that are branch on which we all sit pervasive first principles. A classic comes from Epictetus, on first principles of right reason:

DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]

KF kairosfocus

JVL @556,

I can understand the impressions you have. But I was primarily interested in the notion of a necessary being.

Why does the notion of a necessary being interest you? -Q Querius

Silver Asiatic, What a patient person you are! The problem is when a person plasters you with questions and homework assignments, which takes hours of your time to compose a thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, the response you usually get is a dismissive or skeptical assertion or yet another question that took them all of 10 seconds to compose. From my perspective, this is very asymmetrical, requiring tons of thought on your part and virtually no effort on the part of the skeptic. What I've found is that when I ask a skeptic a question in return, they almost NEVER answer the question or they evade the question or they ask one in response or they muddy the question by demanding a definition i.e. "But, how do you define reality?" etc. This can go on for an infinite amount of time, at the end of which they simply state that no one can answer their questions. Neat, plausible, and disingenuous. I can easily imagine someone being thrown out of a physics class for questioning everything the professor teaches. Just imagine the scenario. Why not try the reverse, starting with the Socratic approach? -Q Querius

JVL “Anyway, we will continue to disagree but, I hope, like good neighbours who can still loan each other their lawnmowers and have a joint barbecue.” Now that’s the JVL I know and love!! Vivid vividbleau

PS, no I do not deride multiverse models, I just do not find typical ones particularly compelling as more than a projected model past though I know some find them plausible. kairosfocus

JVL, First, possible worlds INCLUDES divergences and alternate timelines, I led with such as easiest to understand and recognise. We can see radical contingency through the window of agent action, first. That establishes plausibility. Then, observe that I went on to:

562: I am using a weak form, world model definition. That probably reflects my exposure to modelling and scenario based strategic planning [including for sustainability analysis and financial modelling], war games etc. That can be obviously extended to the construction of mathematical axiomatisations that set up logic-model worlds, where if the key entities are necessary thus universally present beings, the logic model directly maps to our world and any other possible world. Or we may extend modelling parameters and get a good enough prediction to project for our own world, guiding strategic decisions . . . . We can project alternative cosmologies, indeed, that is how cosmological fine tuning was identified [this is modern cosmology and enfolds a huge range of alternative parameters and laws framing possible cosmi, it is how fine tuning was seen] . . .

So, alternative physics and mathematical worlds and simulations were also explicitly explored, though more briefly than historical forks put up to show that the concept has basic plausibility. Where, my emphasis on a weak sense is key. And no, this is not the place to try to lay out the relevant physics, we both know that a combox cannot do it and it is a needless, make work exercise. We all know that since 1953 at least, fine tuning issues pivoting on variations of laws, parameters etc have been on the table, and we all know the sort of fine tuning results that come from it. Look up Luke Barnes' a fortunate universe. As for empirical support for necessary beings, look around you. There is a world, check, you are part of it and are contingent, check. Now, examine the causal-thermodynamic succession of years for convenience, yes the calendar and underlying astronomy are empirical evidence. Now have courage to respect logic as being able to specify possibilities and the opposite, we know no world is possible with seven sided pentagons without wasting time on trying to draw one. Now, go back 13.75 BY to singularity, taking this as convenient estimate. Year zero. Much empirical support. Now go to the fluctuations model for convenience as it is a widely held multiverse model. This extends causal thermodynamic process, remember this is a model widely held plausible. now count onward in years, -1, -2 etc. Can we infer or suggest for any -k there is -(k+1), - (k+2) etc without limit, i.e. plausibly a transfinite past? NO. No, because were such a fluctuating cosmos actual, each year on the onward cosmological timeline would have to once have been the present then given rise to its IMMEDIATE successor. So, were the past as a whole without beginning and so transfinite, the actual succession of years would have to have traversed a transfinite in finite scale stages. That is an infeasible supertask, logic of being blocks it, here logic of structure and quantity. So even on such a model of the past we are looking at a beginning. So we have three options, cosmos from utter non being, but such has no causal powers. Circular retrocausation has the not yet causing the chain ending in itself, a disguised version of the same. So, we are left with a finitely remote, causally capable necessary being. You can dismiss the logic but then the same should extend to the unobserved fluctuations supercosmos that led to having to go through this in the first place. Instead, straightforward empirical analysis points to about 14 BYA as beginning. Which simply brings up the trilemma at that point. When you dismiss quantities thus the structures they fall in as mere concepts, when they pervade the fabric of the world, pointing out the error is no strawman. The attempted projection fails. I repeat, being and physical embodiment are not the same. As to outlining attributes that would attach to God, you looked at them, at the context of 2,000+ years of philosophical -- not theological -- debates that leads to the summary specification of the idea of God and linked attributes, then suggest there is little or nothing there. I suggest to you that you are being dismissively, selectively hyperskeptical rather than engaging what such an entity would be like: maximally great being, necessary being, creator/source of the world, inherently good and utterly wise. Where we can note as was explored much further above -- 40 comments in an afternoon and it is days ago! -- that attributes are compossible and have a microcosm facet character. There are books on the subject such as this introductory one https://www.amazon.com/Our-Idea-God-Thomas-Morris/dp/1573831018 , there is no way I am going to in effect write a book in a combox. As for necessary being candidates, once serious [no spaghetti monsters -- composite entity -- need apply] it is obvious that we are speaking framework of possible worlds requisite for any world. Whether we know how such are, they do not become, we can know that they exist, starting with simple cases as was shown. The point is, if a serious candidate, not something composite or otherwise contingent etc, what would block actuality is logical contradiction of core characteristics, such as seven sided pentagon. And we both know that it is perfectly possible to know that something is or the like without knowing how it is the case that it is. Whether by observation or force of logic. It is hyperskeptical to use what we do not know to reject what we have good enough reason to acknowledge. And more, there are other things I have to attend to this evening. KF kairosfocus

Vividbleau: About a non empirical claim? Yes, that is what you asked me. JVL

Silver Asiatic: that’s an honorable response. I appreciate your respectfulness. There’s no reason for us to attack one another. If we have misunderstandings, we can sort them out or just agree to disagree. I very much appreciate your statement above. And thank you for being so clear and straightforward. I would not consider myself a materialist in the normal sense; I think there is a lot of slop at the quantum level that stops every thing from being completely deterministic. Also, I would not characterise myself as being an atheist, I think of myself as being an agnostic, someone who has not yet been convinced of the existence of a deity but who is, I hope, open to persuasion. I'm trying to be anyway!! Personally I do find the arguments for unguided evolution to be compelling (I did not say evidence since we're all looking at the same evidence) but I can see how one might come to a different conclusion. In fact, in all honesty, years ago when I first start frequenting this site, I spent a lot of time really questioning and considering the mainstream view. Which meant I read more from both sides. I still accept and acknowledge that all scientific views (and my own) are provisional, i.e. they could change based on new data and evidence. The very last thing I want to be is closed minded. I admit, I don't think it's likely that the general paradigm of unguided evolution will be overturned but I do admit it's possible. I do find it confusing as to what ID is saying in the bigger picture; meaning past just that design was implemented. Sometime. Somewhere. Somehow. But that is not out of disrespect to any one person. It's just that I don't understand how it is that there isn't some research or at least a research agenda in place to deal with those questions. But, hey, it's not for me to direct that is it? I didn't want my views to stop you from expressing yours. If my fears that they would are unfounded then I apologise. It's happened to me before so I may have reacted unfairly to you. Anyway, we will continue to disagree but, I hope, like good neighbours who can still loan each other their lawnmowers and have a joint barbecue. JVL

JVL “If my wife or son tells me something insistently and consistently.” About a non empirical claim? Vivid vividbleau

JVL @603 - that's an honorable response. I appreciate your respectfulness. There's no reason for us to attack one another. If we have misunderstandings, we can sort them out or just agree to disagree. For my view, I'm openly a believer in the Catholic religion - and those doctrines are accessible to anyone. That's the foundation of my worldview. But for this blog (which is not religious), all we need to know is I accept ID (there is evidence of intelligence in nature). I also accept that there is a single first cause for all physical reality, and I am monotheistic, so there is one God - in the classical sense of that idea. God is the first cause of all being and is the completeness and perfection of being. So, when KF talks about necessary being, that's what he's referring to, not because it's any religion that says so, but because the logic says: There must be a cause for anything that begins to exist. If you perceive that I am ridiculing or demeaning your views, then I apologize. I should not do that and I try not to even with people who are very opposed. I realize that materialism is attacked severely here and maybe it drifts over to be too harsh of attacks against individual materialists themselves, and that is not good. I will say that ID is frequently attacked unfairly by people who do not understand the concept. That's another reason why I seek to learn your worldview to see how it may understand things. We have at least one IDist here which a radically different worldview than mine - and I have to admit that I can only barely understand what he is saying, and I believe he has decided to avoid getting into the conflicts of his worldview versus others, and he just focuses on ID. But that just means, our worldviews can create a lot of confusion and it's best to be respectful of each and understand where there are conflicts. Silver Asiatic

VL Welcome back. Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau: Could you give me an example of the type of non empirical evidence you would accept? If my wife or son tells me something insistently and consistently. JVL

JVL “find empirical based arguments and evidence much more compelling. But, like everyone, I accept that sometimes I am swayed by non-empirical evidence.” Could you give me an example of the type of non empirical evidence you would accept? vividbleau

Silver Asiatic: Necessary being is not a mathematical construct. It’s a reality. It’s Being. It’s not math, which is an artificial abstraction from reality. Necessary being is the reality itself. So you have to start there – with contingency. It’s not math. Okay. JVL

Silver Asiatic: The discussion requires honesty and commitment to the truth. You have a worldview that you think is true. All of your questions emerge from that view – it’s your ‘philosophical language’. If I don’t know what language you’re speaking, then I’m talking to a wall. I may need to explain very basic concepts. I am just interested in how you view things. That's all. I get emphatic in my questioning because it seems like people keeping not addressing the questions. what I think doesn't matter, it doesn't change what you think. I know what I think but I'd like to know what you think. If I tell you my world view and then you refuse to tell me yours then what does that say? Doesn't tolerance and the ability to have a dialogue require at least a modicum of trust that the other party won't deride or demean? I promise not to do that. JVL

JVL @598 Yes, that is very helpful and I would say an honest response - thank you. Silver Asiatic

VB

To say that if something begins to exist it must have a cause is not a faith based.

I'll just echo that because it seems we have to repeat the concept frequently. We're looking at causes. The cause of all physical being cannot be physical. If everybody could sign-on to that at least, then we could move forward. Silver Asiatic

JVL “I’m not going to answer that or I don’t know or It’s just a matter of faith.” To say that if something begins to exist it must have a cause is not faith based. To say if something exists now something has always existed is not faith based. To say that something cannot come from nothing is not faith based. True the rules of reasoning are based on certain undeniable assumptions and if you want to call that faith based I am all in and so are you. Vivid vividbleau

A first basic point; Necessary being is not a mathematical construct. It's a reality. It's Being. It's not math, which is an artificial abstraction from reality. Necessary being is the reality itself. So you have to start there - with contingency. It's not math. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: I think that faith is an amazing and precious thing to have. It's like a symphony, something that soars and rises above the chaos and noise of existence. It directs you, it sustains you, it keeps you going when things seem dire and pointless. If you are reluctant to give faith as your core reason then you shouldn't. You should be glad and consider yourself lucky to have that faith. I will not demean or attempt to demolish that. I might wonder how you came to have your faith but that's just curiosity. I hope that helps. JVL

JVL

I don’t think this is a battle between worldview, I’m not trying to change your mind.

The discussion requires honesty and commitment to the truth. You have a worldview that you think is true. All of your questions emerge from that view - it's your 'philosophical language'. If I don't know what language you're speaking, then I'm talking to a wall. I may need to explain very basic concepts. Silver Asiatic

Way up there somplace, SA wrote, "No, you can’t have as I wrote: more than one “absolute infinity” – that is an unbounded, non-contingent infinity. Having different infinities means they are sub-sets and not unbounded. There’s the infinity of odd numbers and the infinity of even numbers, but both are dependent upon each other and therefore contingent." JVL has already pointed out that there are different orders of infinity: the first, lowest order is that of the rationals, but the reals are of the next higher order. In fact, there are an infinity of infinities. SA seemed to be thinking of infinite subsets such as the evens, which are of the same order as the integers: there are just as many even integers as there are integers. In fact there are as many prime numbers as there are integers. And, if you pick any two rational numbers, there are more real numbers between those two rationals than there are integers. Also, SA doesn't correctly use the idea of unbounded: the evens are just as unbounded as the integers, as they have no upper, or lower, limit. And the idea that the evens are “contingent” is not a mathematical idea I have ever heard about. They are a subset of the integers, the integers are a subset of the rationals, the rationals are a subset of the reals, and the reals are a subset of the complex numbers. I’m not sure how the word “contingent” applies here. I, like JVL, get a bit concerned when people talk about infinity without maybe fully understanding some of the complexities. Viola Lee

SA Silver Asiatic March 22, 2022 at 2:42 pm “An unwillingness to reveal your commitments and worldview indicates that you’re not taking the discussion seriously enough to make it worth responding.” Yes it’s very disappointing. Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau: I did not ask if you understand it , do you agree that something can not come from nothing? I don't agree with that even though you phrased it poorly. But I could be wrong. I really don't know. But, in my heart, it feels weird to thing that something can come from nothing. Sounds like the only evidence you accept is that which can be empirically verified and any other answer is faith based, am I wrong? I find empirical based arguments and evidence much more compelling. But, like everyone, I accept that sometimes I am swayed by non-empirical evidence. JVL

Silver Asiatic: Making a commitment to a worldview helps us understand why you do not accept ID. Why don't you just tell me what you think? I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to understand your view. Ok, I’d call that “changing the focus” after extensive responses were given to you already for which you provided inadequate discussion. Personally, I don’t want to chase after a topic especially when you won’t reveal your own first principles. I call it deciding where to frame the discussion. I don't think this is a battle between worldview, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just trying to understand what you think. JVL

Silver Asiatic: You’ve got your answer there, yes. That’s why a commitment to a worldview is necessary. It’s not just open-mindedness, it’s having a good-faith, honest approach. It means having an interest in the truth. Lacking that, it’s a waste of everybody’s time and it just clutters this site up with nonsensical dialogue. We see far too much of that already. I am interested in the truth and I am also very much interested in your view and beliefs. It seems like you are only willing to tell me what you really believe if you think I will accept your revelation as true. But how can I commit to such a thing until I hear what you have to say? I have a view, as do you. We have both held our views for a while. If you refuse to explain your view because you think someone might still disagree with you then what is it you really want? I promise to listen and be respectful. To not deride or dismiss your view. I reserve the right to ask questions and you have the right to say: I'm not going to answer that or I don't know or It's just a matter of faith. It's not a matter of me committing to a worldview is it? Unless you're only willing to talk to those who you already agree with. It's a matter of respect and dignity. That I will always grant you as long as you're honest. JVL

JVL VB “Because you can’t get something ,in this case existence, from nothing! Is it your position that existence came from nothing? If something exists now something must always existed.” JVL “I do not understand the arguments that the universe arose from nothing. “ Vividbleau: Let me ask you a couple of questions. If something exists now do you agree that something always had to exist? “That is a good question. I have to admit I have a hard time understanding nothing existing. The only way I can kind of get my head around the pre-big bang is to think of all our notions of time and space being limited to our perceived and detected universe. BUT, in my mind, I’m still much more of a Newtonian who thinks of there being some kind of uber time and space that encompasses all universes. IF there is more than one.” You did not answer my questions other than with some kind of word salad. I did not ask if you understand it , do you agree that something can not come from nothing? If something exists now has something always existed? “No, it means that I’d like some physics or chemical based arguments. Something that is not belief dependent. If it exists.” Sounds like the only evidence you accept is that which can be empirically verified and any other answer is faith based, am I wrong? Vivid vividbleau

JVL

But, I’m happy to cut things down and restrict the focus

Ok, I'd call that "changing the focus" after extensive responses were given to you already for which you provided inadequate discussion. Personally, I don't want to chase after a topic especially when you won't reveal your own first principles. Silver Asiatic

JVL

If you’re only willing to offer your true opinions to someone who professes to be open minded then you are liable to be fooled by trolls and knaves are you not?

You've got your answer there, yes. That's why a commitment to a worldview is necessary. It's not just open-mindedness, it's having a good-faith, honest approach. It means having an interest in the truth. Lacking that, it's a waste of everybody's time and it just clutters this site up with nonsensical dialogue. We see far too much of that already. Making a commitment to a worldview helps us understand why you do not accept ID. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: Ok, you’ve been talking about the origin of the universe that happened after the universe began. Maybe you should check your mathematics on that. Sigh. Yes, I phrased my question in terms of this necessary being who exists outside of our space and time and I did ask some questions about how that happened. But, I'm happy to cut things down and restrict the focus to stuff that happened AFTER the creation of the universe. Like: how does one resurrect dead people, part the Red Sea, torch Sodom, flatten the walls of Jericho, get a burning bush to speak, etc without spending and focusing energy? Where did that energy come from? How was it focused? JVL

Silver Asiatic: It tells us if you have something to say or if you’re trolling and wasting time. Are you willing to contradict your own worldview? You have to have some skin in the game. Otherwise, it’s not worth the time and effort. I'm perfectly willing to change my tune if you have something concrete and scientific to offer. But, really, that's not the point here is it? I'm not trying to change your mind, I didn't think me changing my mind was a prerequisite to having a discussion. Does that mean I shouldn't have a discussion with you unless you are willing to change your mind? Would you agree to such a deal? If you're only willing to offer your true opinions to someone who professes to be open minded then you are liable to be fooled by trolls and knaves are you not? Why not just be honest and true? Why not just be proud of your views and explain and express them to the best of your ability? What have you got to hide? JVL

Follow up: JVL

I’ve been talking about things that happened AFTER the singularity.

my basic physic questions about the necessary being behind the creation of our universe

Silver Asiatic

JVL

I’ve been talking about things that happened AFTER the singularity.

Ok, you've been talking about the origin of the universe that happened after the universe began. Maybe you should check your mathematics on that. Silver Asiatic

Asauber: Stop trollin’ and I might stop smirking. ? I'm happy to keep pointing out that you won't or can't answer my basic physic questions about the necessary being behind the creation of our universe. Why you won't even try is something only you know. JVL

JVL

Why do you need to know my view to answer my questions?

It tells us if you have something to say or if you're trolling and wasting time. Are you willing to contradict your own worldview? You have to have some skin in the game. Otherwise, it's not worth the time and effort. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. Where did the energy come from to bring about that cause? Based on Big Bang theory there was an explosion of energy at the start of our universe. Where did that energy come from? The universe by definition, is “all physical reality”. But the energy to create it came from something. Where did it come from? An unwillingness to reveal your commitments and worldview indicates that you’re not taking the discussion seriously enough to make it worth responding. I'm not the one proposing an essential being outside of our space and time. You are. So I'm asking you some questions regarding how that being affects and interacts with our space and time. If you can't answer the questions just say so. That's easy. JVL

"You can sit and snark and smirk all you like" JVL, Stop trollin' and I might stop smirking. ;) Andrew asauber

Silver Asiatic: You want to use physical tools for non-physical entities. Do you mean that asking how you affect physical events in our world without expending energy is non-sensical? If you can explain how you part the Red Sea or influence mutations or resurrect dead people or reduce Sodom to ruins or throw down the walls of Jericho without expending and directing energy then please do so. I'm all ears. Substitute the term “philosophy” for mathematics there. You could substitute “logic”. Except I've clearly said I'm talking about the physics. The fact that you offered up a fallacious mathematical argument I'm willing to let go. Again, you cannot use physics to measure what came before the singularity which is what began the physical universe. Physics measures physical entities. “Show me the physical measurements of the non-physical entities”. Can you see the problem? I've been talking about things that happened AFTER the singularity. But, since you brought it up . . . what makes you think that physics would be different before the singularity? Do you think that the laws of the universe vary from time to time or place to place? Does that mean you accept a multi-verse view? You’re unwilling to make the slightest commitment to a worldview, but you argue from a worldview (which leaves me guessing what it is). Why do you need to know my view to answer my questions? Have a go and we'll see what happens. Materialism is self-defeating. Eventually, you need to make a stance, otherwise you just render your questions irrelevant and worthless. Let's see where your world-view leads shall we? Let's smoke-test it. Take it out and put the pedal to the metal and see where it gets us. Starting with: Since the singularity, if you think a being beyond our space and time with no physical manifestation affected physical and historical events in our space and time then where did the energy come from to carry out those effects? How was that energy focused and directed? And if those are ridiculous questions then you have a lot of other explanations regarding how those events were brought about. And, if you think those question don't matter then why is that? Don't you think your world view should have answers for those questions? JVL

An unwillingness to reveal your commitments and worldview indicates that you're not taking the discussion seriously enough to make it worth responding. Silver Asiatic

JVL Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. The universe by definition, is "all physical reality". Silver Asiatic

JVL You want to use physical tools for non-physical entities. You are saying "the origin of all physical entities is a physical entity". It's basic logic. You're calling that "faith". No, it's just bad reasoning on your part. You're the guy saying: " If you haven’t dealt with the mathematics then you shouldn’t talk about it. Mathematics is not a spectator sport. Play the game properly or get off the field." Substitute the term "philosophy" for mathematics there. You could substitute "logic". Again, you cannot use physics to measure what came before the singularity which is what began the physical universe. Physics measures physical entities. "Show me the physical measurements of the non-physical entities". Can you see the problem? You're unwilling to make the slightest commitment to a worldview, but you argue from a worldview (which leaves me guessing what it is). Materialism is self-defeating. Eventually, you need to make a stance, otherwise you just render your questions irrelevant and worthless. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: And we shouldn’t feed the troll. Are you just all faith and no physics then? JVL

Asauber: JVL trollin’ agin[sic]. Well, perhaps you'd like to explain how a necessary being outside of our space and time affected physical events in our space and time. Where did the necessary energy come from? How was it focused? You can sit and snark and smirk all you like but can you actually explain something you believe? Or all you just all faith and no physics? JVL

Andrew @573 And we shouldn't feed the troll. Silver Asiatic

"You could just try and address my queries." JVL trollin' agin. Andrew asauber

Silver Asiatic: It’s most important for you to explain your current beliefs and tell us what evidential support you have for them, as well as what is your standard for evidence is in order to believe anything that you do. I've asked some questions. Can you address them, yes or no? My beliefs have nothing to do with that unless and until I reject one of your answers. Let's hear your responses first: Where did the energy come from which enabled the necessary being to physically intervene in our universe? How was that energy directed? We’re talking to materialists. Those are people who deny that there are any immaterial entities in existence. They are believers in scientism and that everything is ultimately reducible to physics. Are you one of those or not? Let's hear your answers first. If you are, what is your testable evidence to support your personal belief in materialism? Do you have any answers, yes or no? JVL

Silver Asiatic: I can see that the mistake I made was to attempt to answer your questions before getting some kind of commitment from you on your beliefs. You could just try and address my queries. Your over-riding response is that “we need solid reasons” for accepting a view. I suspect you would agree with that. Can I say that this sounds like “feel good” “guesswork” that should be taken by faith? No, it means that I'd like some physics or chemical based arguments. Something that is not belief dependent. If it exists. If not, what precisely and exactly (let’s see the physics) do you mean by “good solid explanation”? So, tell me exactly what you want in an explanation. Then, tell me why what you want is correct. Then I will be able to see if my explanation meets what you mean by a “good solid” one. Well, let's look at the notion that the necessary being has or is intervening in our space time. Leaving aside the question of why they would do such a thing. To affect physical events in our universe requires the expenditure of energy. So, where does that energy come from and how is it focused? I'd like to have some explanation of those things. No, you can’t have as I wrote: more than one “absolute infinity” – that is an unbounded, non-contingent infinity. Having different infinities means they are sub-sets and not unbounded. There’s the infinity of odd numbers and the infinity of even numbers, but both are dependent upon each other and therefore contingent. In metaphysical terms, they are incomplete and therefore cannot be necessary on their own. They need the other to exist. Well, clearly, you are not aware of the existing mathematics regarding such issues. As has been shown by Cantor (over a century ago) there are different 'sizes' of infinity. There are just as many even integers as there are odd integers as there are integers as there are rational numbers. However, it can be shown, that there are more real numbers than there are integers. If you haven't dealt with the mathematics then you shouldn't talk about it. Mathematics is not a spectator sport. Play the game properly or get off the field. It seems that you have read the Old Testament. Are you Jewish? But yes, you’ll certainly find some excellent answers to your questions there. Sadly nothing in the Bible explains where the energy comes from which allows a being existing out of our space and time to influence physical events in our space and time. JVL

Kairosfocus: First, as a simple alternative, consider a neigbouring, divergent world forked from ours in which Mr Trump had won in 2020, or one where Ms Clinton had won in 2016. Surely such outcomes would not have been impossible of being as they embody inherent contradictions. Slightly deeper, consider worlds in which Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, or Washington lost the American Revolution, or Cheng Ho’s successors sailed into Lisbon Harbour with 300 Junks c 1435 or 40. Surely your notion of possible worlds doesn't just rest on pivot points in history? When no physical law or concept needs to be changed. Really? More broadly, I am using a weak form, world model definition. That probably reflects my exposure to modelling and scenario based strategic planning [includng for sustainability analysis and financial modelling], war games etc. That can be obviously extended to the construction of mathematical axiomatisations that set up logic-model worlds, where if the key entities are necessary thus universally present beings, the logic model directly maps to our world and any other possible world. Or we may extend modelling parameters and get a good enough prediction to project for our own world, guiding strategic decisions. Sadly, the Govt of the day did not listen to my Dad’s model and undertook policies that led to collapse that it will take another 40 years to come back from. Logistically constrained modelling in the German General Staff in 1940 – 41 predicted choking off the advance after about 500 miles into Russia, they were ignored and Barbarossa became grim history with consequences and echoes in current headlines. Look, can you provide an example of an alternate possible world that depends on changes in our known physical laws and rules or not? Otherwise you are just playing what if games. Everyone accepts that historical events could have turned out differently. But do those branch points create different, possible worlds? To support your necessary being argument? We can project alternative cosmologies, indeed, that is how cosmological fine tuning was identified. But you haven't provided any alternative cosmologies. If you could that would be illustrative. Now, you seem to object to {}, 2, N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc being real, You know that is not true. For someone who constantly calls 'straw man' I'm dismayed that you resort to that tactic. Perhaps you should try a bit harder. but there is no reason why physical embodiment should constrain reality, actual entities and states of affairs. Fine. Give an example of what you are talking about. Going on, attributes of God (first, considered as a candidate NB) can be identified through logic of being analysis, as was done in outline above. Notice, the constraints on the bill of requisites posed by our being responsibly, rationally, significantly free, morally governed entities, once we address the Euthyphro dilemma, the is-ought gap and Hume’s guillotine. They lead to identifying a framework that is the lead candidate world root adequate to fit. Sigh. You are just going on and on and on without actually providing a concrete and defined example of what you are talking about. IF there is a required being that chooses to intervene in our time and space then, since that kind of intervention requires the expenditure of energy, where does the required energy come from and how is it directed? Can you answer those questions, yes or no? The inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This frame feeds idea of God analysis and philosophical then systematic theology. How does your proposed supreme being affect events in our time and space? Let alone why they should want to since they already know how it's all going to turn out (assuming they are outside of our space and time)? Where does the required energy come from? How is it directed? So, no, attributes of a candidate being worthy of the title God are reasonably readily identified and discussed. Where, serious candidacy to be a necessary, so world framework being carries the import, credibly, either impossible of being or else actual, as has already been discussed. But you can't actually explain how it all works. You can't explain how, physically, events are affected in our space and time. But you can't push around physical particles, you can't bring particles into existence, you can't introduce mutations without expend ending energy in our universe. So, where does that energy come from and how is it directed? JVL

JVL

This after many in the ID camp insist that since certain evolutionary transitions have not been actually observed then their occurrence is subject to question?

We're talking to materialists. Those are people who deny that there are any immaterial entities in existence. They are believers in scientism and that everything is ultimately reducible to physics. Are you one of those or not? If you are, what is your testable evidence to support your personal belief in materialism? Silver Asiatic

JVL You've got a number of questions to answer in post 560. It's most important for you to explain your current beliefs and tell us what evidential support you have for them, as well as what is your standard for evidence is in order to believe anything that you do. Silver Asiatic

Kairosfocus: BTW, necessary being is as solid a reason to exist . . . principle of sufficient reason, weak inquiry form that opens up logic of being analysis — as we can get. Stronger than possible or contingent. For any possible world W, NB b must exist as it is framework for any world to be feasible of instantiation or actual So, no actual empirical evidence is required? This after many in the ID camp insist that since certain evolutionary transitions have not been actually observed then their occurrence is subject to question? What is your criteria? Are you consistent? Can only that which has been actually observed be considered to be true? JVL

Silver Asiatic: When we affirm the existence of an entity A we affirm the existence also of all that is not-that-entity ~A, which must exist to give the entity A distinction. As long as we place a boundary on the entity (our universe) then we have possible world that defines the boundary. Please give an example then of some reality that is not what we experience and perceive. And how is your assertion different from the multi-universe hypothesis that you are likely to deride? JVL

For any possible world W, NB b must exist as it is framework for any world to be feasible of instantiation or actual.

Something cannot be a potential unless there is something that can actualize or instantiate it. It's the same with causality - when something exists then it must have a cause for its existence tracing back to a first, uncaused cause. Silver Asiatic

JVL To highlight KF's statement previously:

Contrast a near neighbour W’ that is different as in W there is some A that is not in the neighbour. W = {A|~A}, so we see duality embedded in the fabric of what it means to be a possible world

When we affirm the existence of an entity A we affirm the existence also of all that is not-that-entity ~A, which must exist to give the entity A distinction. As long as we place a boundary on the entity (our universe) then we have possible world that defines the boundary. Silver Asiatic

JVL, BTW, necessary being is as solid a reason to exist . . . principle of sufficient reason, weak inquiry form that opens up logic of being analysis -- as we can get. Stronger than possible or contingent. For any possible world W, NB b must exist as it is framework for any world to be feasible of instantiation or actual. KF kairosfocus

JVL, First, as a simple alternative, consider a neigbouring, divergent world forked from ours in which Mr Trump had won in 2020, or one where Ms Clinton had won in 2016. Surely such outcomes would not have been impossible of being as they embody inherent contradictions. Slightly deeper, consider worlds in which Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated, or Washington lost the American Revolution, or Cheng Ho's successors sailed into Lisbon Harbour with 300 Junks c 1435 or 40. More broadly, I am using a weak form, world model definition. That probably reflects my exposure to modelling and scenario based strategic planning [includng for sustainability analysis and financial modelling], war games etc. That can be obviously extended to the construction of mathematical axiomatisations that set up logic-model worlds, where if the key entities are necessary thus universally present beings, the logic model directly maps to our world and any other possible world. Or we may extend modelling parameters and get a good enough prediction to project for our own world, guiding strategic decisions. Sadly, the Govt of the day did not listen to my Dad's model and undertook policies that led to collapse that it will take another 40 years to come back from. Logistically constrained modelling in the German General Staff in 1940 - 41 predicted choking off the advance after about 500 miles into Russia, they were ignored and Barbarossa became grim history with consequences and echoes in current headlines. So, possible worlds analysis is soberingly serious business. We can project alternative cosmologies, indeed, that is how cosmological fine tuning was identified. Now, you seem to object to {}, 2, N,Z,Q,R,R*,C etc being real, but there is no reason why physical embodiment should constrain reality, actual entities and states of affairs. And as it is, {} is particularly powerful as on distinct identity there is but one null set, which we refer to all the time and which per von Neumann pervades structure and quantity in the observed cosmos and span of possible worlds. As a reminder: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 . . . {0,1,2 . . . } --> w, omega, order type of N Going on, attributes of God (first, considered as a candidate NB) can be identified through logic of being analysis, as was done in outline above. Notice, the constraints on the bill of requisites posed by our being responsibly, rationally, significantly free, morally governed entities, once we address the Euthyphro dilemma, the is-ought gap and Hume's guillotine. They lead to identifying a framework that is the lead candidate world root adequate to fit. The inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. This frame feeds idea of God analysis and philosophical then systematic theology. So, no, attributes of a candidate being worthy of the title God are reasonably readily identified and discussed. Where, serious candidacy to be a necessary, so world framework being carries the import, credibly, either impossible of being or else actual, as has already been discussed. KF kairosfocus

JVL No, that is wrong. There is no reason to accept something exists unless you can be sure there is a good, solid explanation for how it can exist.

Nothing is wrong in materialism. The atoms bumping in each other think that you are crazy. Sandy

JVL I can see that the mistake I made was to attempt to answer your questions before getting some kind of commitment from you on your beliefs. As I read your replies, I realize you have strong beliefs and these caused you to question my responses. Your over-riding response is that "we need solid reasons" for accepting a view. So, we have competing views. I will assume that you think you have "solid reasons" for your current beliefs. To accept my beliefs, which oppose yours, we would need to compare them and see which has greater support. So, there's no sense talking about a more advanced concept like necessary being if we do not have an agreement and acceptance on the more elementary concepts. So, you'd need to outline your views on this.

No, that is wrong. There is no reason to accept something exists unless you can be sure there is a good, solid explanation for how it can exist.

Can I say that this sounds like "feel good" "guesswork" that should be taken by faith? If not, what precisely and exactly (let's see the physics) do you mean by "good solid explanation"? So, tell me exactly what you want in an explanation. Then, tell me why what you want is correct. Then I will be able to see if my explanation meets what you mean by a "good solid" one.

Where does a non-physical ‘being’ exist? How does a non-physical being interact with the physical world?

After you tell me what a "good solid explanation" means in precise detail, then we need to work on one point at a time. First, you can accept or reject that non-physical things exist. I already gave you an example: A thought or idea. How does a thought move the human body to do things? 1. Do you think thoughts are physical things that can be weighed and measured? 2. Do you think that thoughts can motivate a physical body to do or create things? 3. Where do thoughts go when we are not thinking them? Where did inspirations of thoughts come from? Whatever you believe on this, I should expect "good solid explanations" for everything and they should match your definition of what "good solid explanations" are - complete with the physics of human thoughts. Can you point to a collection of thoughts existing somewhere, as thoughts? If at any time, you are willing to accept that thoughts are non-physical things, then we can move to other parts of the discussion. If you think, however, that thoughts are physical objects, then it would be great for me to learn more about that.

But, mathematically, you can have different infinities so where does that leave your notions?

No, you can't have as I wrote: more than one "absolute infinity" - that is an unbounded, non-contingent infinity. Having different infinities means they are sub-sets and not unbounded. There's the infinity of odd numbers and the infinity of even numbers, but both are dependent upon each other and therefore contingent. In metaphysical terms, they are incomplete and therefore cannot be necessary on their own. They need the other to exist.

You can’t implement design, part the Red Sea, create Adam and Eve, inundate the planet in a flood without expending energy. How does that work?

It seems that you have read the Old Testament. Are you Jewish? But yes, you'll certainly find some excellent answers to your questions there. In any case, I'm always glad to discuss theology, but this really isn't the best blog for that. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: When you seek the cause of something you’re looking for the best candidate. And the best candidate should be something that has a good, solid reason to exist. You have to think in terms of “non-physical”. But how do you do that? Where does a non-physical 'being' exist? How does a non-physical being interact with the physical world? Where does a non-physical being get its energy? To interact with the physical world you need to exert energy. By what immaterial mechanism? Again, it’s like saying “what mechanism is used to create a poem or a song in your mind? No, it's not. If you think that some non-physical being implemented its design during the development of life on Earth then that's NOT just having an idea, that means having a physical effect on physical elements. How did that happen? Where did the energy come from? The necessary being is that which all other being depends. The origin of “our time” is from the source of being. ‘Our time’ is aligned with our physical universe. Outside the physical reality there is no time – so nothing to extend. The necessary being is “timeless” since time is a measurement of change and necessary being is independent of other beings limiting it changing it. That's all just feel good stuff. Explain the physics please. How can a being who has opinions and acts on those opinions in a particular space-time configuration cannot be affected by that time and space. If they can't be affected by what goes on in that space-time then why would they bother to interact with it? Before asking how it works, you need to affirm that it exists. No, that is wrong. There is no reason to accept something exists unless you can be sure there is a good, solid explanation for how it can exist. Unless it's all just about faith. If it's just faith then fine. Nothing to discuss. Accept it or not. But I like to have some more solid explanations before I give my assent. You have to think of what it means to be “spaceless” – outside of physicality Where are you then? How do you interact with or affect our universe? Where does the energy come from to affect events in our universe? This is what I'd like to know. You can't implement design, part the Red Sea, create Adam and Eve, inundate the planet in a flood without expending energy. How does that work? It’s not possible since one would depend on the other (to identify each other) and one would limit the other. One would have more or less being than the other, and that imbalance cannot be sustained in a infinite being. The necessary being is necessary because it alone is the source of all being – the origin of all. Everything else is derived from that being. This is all just guesswork isn't it? What evidence do you have that your statements are correct? But you cannot have more than one “distinct absolute infinite” because infinite entities don’t have edges and shapes to say “here’s where one infinite being ends and here’s where the other one begins”. But, mathematically, you can have different infinities so where does that leave your notions? JVL

Silver Asiatic: That’s a great question, JVL – in fact, one of the ultimate questions. The first thing we can know is that such a being would have to have a motivation and not merely be forced (or determined) by anything else, because nothing else could be a mechanism that causes it to do anything (since necessary being is the source of all mechanisms). So, it has to act freely, as you point out, and therefore must have a motivation. So, do we have any idea of what that would be? Assuming such a being exists in the first place. It's all just so touchy-feely and nebulous. There's nothing concrete or solid to latch onto. JVL

Vividbleau: Let me ask you a couple of questions. If something exists now do you agree that something always had to exist? That is a good question. I have to admit I have a hard time understanding nothing existing. The only way I can kind of get my head around the pre-big bang is to think of all our notions of time and space being limited to our perceived and detected universe. BUT, in my mind, I'm still much more of a Newtonian who thinks of there being some kind of uber time and space that encompasses all universes. IF there is more than one. Because you can’t get something ,in this case existence, from nothing! Is it your position that existence came from nothing? If something exists now something must always existed. I do not understand the arguments that the universe arose from nothing. I keep thinking that, like the example in Flatland, that there must be some kind of intrusion from some other dimensions that we do not detect. But that's just me. So I tend to stay out of those arguments. JVL

Querius: We all have conjectures, beliefs, ideological predispositions, and religious convictions, but they must be clearly identified as such. And this is why I can’t stand assertions masquerading as “science” such as . . . I can understand the impressions you have. But I was primarily interested in the notion of a necessary being. JVL

Kairosfocus: Now, consider what it means to have a distinct, identifiable particular possible world [PW] say W; yes, a “book” of a list of propositions sufficiently complete to specify it as itself, different from any other and in principle actual or potentially actual. Contrast a near neighbour W’ that is different as in W there is some A that is not in the neighbour. W = {A|~A}, so we see duality embedded in the fabric of what it means to be a possible world, indeed, it is at the core of the first law of logic, distinct identity without which we cannot even think or communicate. We don't even know if any other worlds are possible! In fact, you are very fond of disparaging the multi-verse notions. How is your supposition of alternate possible worlds any different from hypothesising a multi-verse? Also, what kind of difference are you thinking of? Do you have an example? Also, I agree with the invariability of mathematics BUT those are just abstract concepts NOT a being. God and God’s attributes are similarly non arbitrary, but are unfamiliar, If we don't know what the attributes are how can we know they are non-arbitrary? Or did you just mean not usual? Anyway, if you could provide some examples of some possible other worlds then I might have a better idea of whether or not your argument has merit. If, however, this is the only possible world then . . . JVL

Vivid @552,

Q maybe you know this but I think I read somewhere that in a 4d or maybe it was a 5d dimension you would be able to turn a basketball inside out with out breaking the plane of its surface. It might have been one of several books I read from Kaku. It was awhile back so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Have you ever heard that before?

Applying the analogy of a 3D entity interacting with a 2D entity . . . The 3D entity would be able to see inside a 2D entity without traversing its boundary (or cutting open its skin). Likewise, a 4D entity would be able then to see everything inside us "laid out flat." Incidentally, a 2D entity would likewise be able to "see inside" a 1D entity such as a line segment along a line. Now wouldn't that be useful to medical science! I vaguely remember reading about the operation of turning something inside-out. IIRC, it was described in Asimov's book, 1, 2, 3, . . . Infinity. -Q Querius

JVL, start with the number 2, yes that underestimated entity. Now, consider what it means to have a distinct, identifiable particular possible world [PW] say W; yes, a "book" of a list of propositions sufficiently complete to specify it as itself, different from any other and in principle actual or potentially actual. Contrast a near neighbour W' that is different as in W there is some A that is not in the neighbour. W = {A|~A}, so we see duality embedded in the fabric of what it means to be a possible world, indeed, it is at the core of the first law of logic, distinct identity without which we cannot even think or communicate. Now, try to imagine some distinct W* where 2 is not embedded in this sort of way, or where it subsequently comes into existence or ceases to exist; impossible, it is embedded, entangled intrinsically in any possible world (and brings with it N, Z,Q,R,R*,C etc . . . and that is already infinitely many NBs). This is part of why a core of Mathematics has universal scope and power. So, though our education and popular discussion do not address logic of being topics such as necessary beings, they are real and framework to ANY PW. Of course, numbers have no active causal powers, they exert only the force of logic of being, because without active cause. Numbers etc, too cannot be located in any museum in any PW, try that utterly unique entity we commonly refer to, {}, the null set. Where is it, when is it, other than effective everywhere in every thing with structure and quantity thanks to von Neumann's construction? Pervasive, framework, without beginning or end so eternal, but not a spacetime, material entity and not a mere fiction or empty form of words. Real, but not material. So, we are building concepts to aid understanding. God and God's attributes are similarly non arbitrary, but are unfamiliar, here as necessary being -- or at least, serious candidate -- but not a mere abstract entity like 2 or {}, one with intelligence, intent and causal capability to actualise and sustain worlds, including ours. The idea of God is not meaningless or incoherent, but embraces ideas now unfamiliar and likely to be met with hyperskepticism. But in fact, the first reason is, these things have been marginalised, and not for any defensible reason. Knowledge itself has become warped and polarised, much less education and popular discussion. (And as warped suggests, evils, culpable evils, are implied, sadly. People of influence who should have done better contributed to warping and marginalisation, often through hyperskepticism.) Coming back, we can categorise possible worlds based classification in a matrix: row 1, possible beings, row 2 what is impossible of being. Col 1 contingent beings and candidates, col 2 necessary beings and candidates. We then assess, finding that what is impossible of being cannot be formed in any world as proposed core characteristics are mutually contradictory eg a seven sided pentagon. A contingent being is in at least one PW but not all, so too we see how cause can be identified as enabling states of affairs and entities that support such CBs. NB by contrast, is in every world as part of framework, for a world to exist or be actualised. Candidates are things we consider, e.g. the famous square circle. So, we can make sense by building a fresh schema of concepts, and in so doing see that these things were lurking next door to more familiar things. Just as infinity lurks in elementary school counting exercises. I recall my being encouraged to keep counting at age 4 then hit ten-ty. No, we call it one hundred. one hundred and one, and so on, I ran out of breath or time. infinity lurked. So does eternity, as an old TV programme used to lead with. KF kairosfocus

Q “Thanks, I loved the trailer!” Awesome!! “Imagining a fourth linear dimension analogous to the 3D intrusion into 2D Flatland is fun! If a 3D sphere intersects a 2D universe, it would appear as if a 2D circle appeared as a point that expands into a circle of increasing diameter. By analogy, a 4D “hypersphere” passing through our 3D space-time would appear as a point and then expand into a larger and larger 3D sphere” Q maybe you know this but I think I read somewhere that in a 4d or maybe it was a 5d dimension you would be able to turn a basketball inside out with out breaking the plane of its surface. It might have been one of several books I read from Kaku. It was awhile back so maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Have you ever heard that before? Vivid vividbleau

JVL @546,

Again, what’s wrong with saying: we don’t know?

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact it has the added advantage of actually being honest! We all have conjectures, beliefs, ideological predispositions, and religious convictions, but they must be clearly identified as such. And this is why I can't stand assertions masquerading as "science" such as - The science is settled . . . - It musta, mighta, coulda . . . (as found in all sensationalist pseudo-scientific news articles) - Most scientists agree that . . . (most scientists either don't agree, aren't sure, or loosely hold) - We now know that . . . - The Law of _______ . . . - Absolute categories as typically presented in multiple choice or true-false questions. Students presented honestly with scientific unknowns, while admittedly remaining unindoctrinated, nevertheless seem to be energized by admissions of scientific ignorance. There's something left for them to discover! -Q Querius

SA “You have to try to think philosophically, not scientifically. Science is the study of the physical universe. It’s the wrong tool to use when studying the origin of physicality, since there is nothing for science to measure, weigh or analyze. Science only works on physical entities in the universe. Before the universe began, science is useless – since there is no time, matter or physical forces.” Exactly, we know logically that if I exist, if the universe exists, something has always existed. Vivid vividbleau

JVL “OR, we can just say: we don’t know but here’s some ideas that might be worth pursuing. Or not.” Let me ask you a couple of questions. If something exists now do you agree that something always had to exist? “What I don’t get is how some are able to so confidently decide that a ‘necessary being’ must exist “ Because you can’t get something ,in this case existence, from nothing! Is it your position that existence came from nothing? If something exists now something must always existed. Vivid vividbleau

JVL

what possible motivation would such a being have in us, etc, etc, etc.

That's a great question, JVL - in fact, one of the ultimate questions. The first thing we can know is that such a being would have to have a motivation and not merely be forced (or determined) by anything else, because nothing else could be a mechanism that causes it to do anything (since necessary being is the source of all mechanisms). So, it has to act freely, as you point out, and therefore must have a motivation. Silver Asiatic

JVL To begin - you're asking questions about origins and therefore causes. You see physical things and events and each is caused by something. So, you ask about the ultimate cause. To stay consistent, the inference is that there is a cause. To suddenly change and think "I'm seeking a cause for origins because everything I know has causes, but in this case, I don't know if it is caused" is not consistent. When you seek the cause of something you're looking for the best candidate. Science cannot tell us what caused the development of life on earth. You think the best candidate is evolution. That's how it works with the cause of all and the existence of the necessary being. That's the best answer. Saying "we don't know" would be like saying the same for many scientific proposals like evolution, for example, because we don't know that evolutionary theory is true.

I don’t understand what being outside of space and time means. Does that mean in dimensions we don’t perceive?

You have to think in terms of "non-physical". Like a thought or idea. It's not a physical thing. Where is a thought stored? It's an immaterial entity that does not occupy space. A thought does not have physical dimensions. "Outside space and time" just means "non-physical". It cannot have "dimensions" because those are physical constructs.

But this being is supposed to interact with our space and time so they must perceive our dimensions as well.

Right, in the same way we perceive thoughts, or you can perceive ideas. If you create an idea of a building, you can see it.

And even though, being outside our space and time, and therefore aware of all that is or will be, they still seem to intervene and tweak with our space-time narrative on occasion at least. How do they do that? By what mechanism do they physically affect events in our space-time?

By what immaterial mechanism? Again, it's like saying "what mechanism is used to create a poem or a song in your mind?

If this being perceives our time then they can extend that timeline before our universe was created. Yes?

No, that's a contradiction. The necessary being is that which all other being depends. The origin of "our time" is from the source of being. 'Our time' is aligned with our physical universe. Outside the physical reality there is no time - so nothing to extend. The necessary being is "timeless" since time is a measurement of change and necessary being is independent of other beings limiting it changing it.

So they have their own, independent timeline?

The eternal Now.

If they don’t have a timeline then what’s the point of intervening in ours?

Necessary being is the origin and source of ours.

How can there be a necessary being with no beginning and no end?

How could the fullness of being have a beginning? What could cause it to begin? How could it come to an end? Where would absolute being disappear to? What would take it away?

I mean, how does that work? I’m not trying to be negative, I’m trying to think scientifically.

You have to try to think philosophically, not scientifically. Science is the study of the physical universe. It's the wrong tool to use when studying the origin of physicality, since there is nothing for science to measure, weigh or analyze. Science only works on physical entities in the universe. Before the universe began, science is useless - since there is no time, matter or physical forces.

How does this all work?

Before asking how it works, you need to affirm that it exists.

‘Where’ does the necessary being reside?

You have to think of what it means to be "spaceless" - outside of physicality. Beyond matter and bodies. There's no "where" as in a street or backyard or playground or house. Those are things in the physical world. There's no "where" even like a star out there, or planet or asteroid. Those are in the physical universe. Where necessary being resides - again, you have all, absolute and complete being without defect. You cannot put an infinite entity into something else. it doesn't have edges. You can't just pick it up and put it somewhere. In fact, even the unvierse itself cannot contain it, since it is the source of the universe and necessarily exists before the universe did.

Is there more than one necessary being?

It's not possible since one would depend on the other (to identify each other) and one would limit the other. One would have more or less being than the other, and that imbalance cannot be sustained in a infinite being. The necessary being is necessary because it alone is the source of all being - the origin of all. Everything else is derived from that being.

Can there be more than one necessary being? Why or why not?

As above, not possible. To have more than one necessary being, each would have to be distinct for some reason. But you cannot have more than one "distinct absolute infinite" because infinite entities don't have edges and shapes to say "here's where one infinite being ends and here's where the other one begins". Additionally, both would have different powers and thus would be less or more being - therefore having the potential to grow or shrink, but over an infinite amount of time - to grow infinitely is to possess all possible being. To shrink infinitely is to become nothing. Silver Asiatic

Querius: Everything spontaneously appeared out of non-existence (aka ex nihilo) about 13.75 billion years ago. This includes space, TIME, particles of matter, energy, probability, gravity, quantum fluctuations, CAUSALITY (?), perhaps “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the Laws of Physics, etc. OR we just don't know how it happened. What existed immaterially to what I just listed potentially includes trans-dimensional systems of logic, a rich set of mathematical systems and relationships including binary operations, set theory, etc., CAUSALITY (?), and conceptual ideals such love, honesty, creativity, . . . consciousness (?), etc. I don't know. Do you? What evidence do you have for your conclusions? Everything was caused by a preexisting “metaverse,” the name of a hypothesized (and egregiously personified by me) source similar to a turtle that lays cosmic eggs, each of which forms a new, independent universe. Metaverse itself has a mother, named Meta-metauniverse, and so on. Thus, we have turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. Arguably, this is not “outside” but parallel. Again, what's wrong with saying: we don't know? Something else that we cannot imagine. OR, we can just say: we don't know but here's some ideas that might be worth pursuing. Or not. What I don't get is how some are able to so confidently decide that a 'necessary being' must exist even though we have no idea where that being exists, how that being interacts with our space-time, why that being should interact with our space-time assuming it can easily see all of our time-line, what possible motivation would such a being have in us, etc, etc, etc. I think these are reasonable questions and, if we are gifted with reason as the story goes, then we should be encouraged to ask such questions and seek the answers. So, what do you think? JVL

Vivid @542, Thanks, I loved the trailer! Imagining a fourth linear dimension analogous to the 3D intrusion into 2D Flatland is fun! If a 3D sphere intersects a 2D universe, it would appear as if a 2D circle appeared as a point that expands into a circle of increasing diameter. By analogy, a 4D "hypersphere" passing through our 3D space-time would appear as a point and then expand into a larger and larger 3D sphere. We can even conjecture that the Big Bang is due to a 4D space intersecting a 3D space. The rate of expansion of the universe would then tell us something about the shape of the 4D space. For example, the intersection of a 4D hypersphere would result in a slowing rate of expansion . . . -Q Querius

Vividbleau: I would suggest the book “Flatland” which is about how beings living in a two dimensional universe would not be able to comprehend our three dimensional universe. It’s an interesting read. I've read that, first time over 40 years ago. But it talks about 'beings' that exist in our dimension plus one more which I don't think is what is being asserted about a necessary being. But, if I'm wrong, then I'm welcome to hear why.ll JVL

William J Murray @537 and JVL @541, Now you’re cooking. Supposing there’s no “outside” of our present space-time universe, one is left with only a few unsatisfactory choices: A. Everything spontaneously appeared out of non-existence (aka ex nihilo) about 13.75 billion years ago. This includes space, TIME, particles of matter, energy, probability, gravity, quantum fluctuations, CAUSALITY (?), perhaps “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the Laws of Physics, etc. What existed immaterially to what I just listed potentially includes trans-dimensional systems of logic, a rich set of mathematical systems and relationships including binary operations, set theory, etc., CAUSALITY (?), and conceptual ideals such love, honesty, creativity, . . . consciousness (?), etc. B. Everything was caused by a preexisting “metaverse,” the name of a hypothesized (and egregiously personified by me) source similar to a turtle that lays cosmic eggs, each of which forms a new, independent universe. Metaverse itself has a mother, named Meta-metauniverse, and so on. Thus, we have turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. Arguably, this is not “outside” but parallel. C. Something else that we cannot imagine. Take your pick. -Q Querius

JVL “I don’t think my queries are disrespectful or inappropriate. “ They are not and you ask good questions. I would suggest the book “Flatland” which is about how beings living in a two dimensional universe would not be able to comprehend our three dimensional universe. It’s an interesting read. You don’t need to read the book, here is a two minute introduction https://youtu.be/C8oiwnNlyE4 I don’t think that if something exists now something must exist “necessarily” should be controversial. I think people equate the acceptance of a necessary existence with the acceptance of Gods existence. It doesn’t, it may well be the universe that exists necessarily, or some other type of existence. “I’d really like to understand the notion but I just don’t get how it works. “ That’s what the Flatlanders” would say. I don’t think we should be surprised that we cannot fully understand how it works. Vivid vividbleau

I'd like, again, to thank everyone who answered my (possibly querulous) questions about the nature of a necessary being. I just can't wrap my head around it. I don't understand what being outside of space and time means. Does that mean in dimensions we don't perceive? But this being is supposed to interact with our space and time so they must perceive our dimensions as well. And even though, being outside our space and time, and therefore aware of all that is or will be, they still seem to intervene and tweak with our space-time narrative on occasion at least. How do they do that? By what mechanism do they physically affect events in our space-time? If this being perceives our time then they can extend that timeline before our universe was created. Yes? So they have their own, independent timeline? If they don't have a timeline then what's the point of intervening in ours? How can there be a necessary being with no beginning and no end? I mean, how does that work? I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to think scientifically. How does this all work? 'Where' does the necessary being reside? Is there more than one necessary being? Can there be more than one necessary being? Why or why not? I'd really like to understand the notion but I just don't get how it works. And since we have the capacity to reason and ask questions then I don't think my queries are disrespectful or inappropriate. Is there some way to explore or investigate the how's and why's? If there isn't then can it be considered a scientific inquiry? Again, thanks for your indulgence. JVL

Vivid:

Hey we can clear this up very easily please give me the physical dimensions of let’s say the law of non contradiction. What does it weigh , what is its mass, etc ?

Good point. It seems logic and reasoning are at a discount, along with their requisite, freedom. Bad signs. KF kairosfocus

PPS, if our particular space time causal-thermodynamic, energy flow driven domain was created, that only implicates our timeline and spacetime domain. Which may well be part of a wider domain with other bubble domains. I am definitely not locking such out. Hence world/reality root. kairosfocus

WJM, antecedence, prior world, root of reality. Root expressive of necessary being. If you will, something, a domain with quasi-time and maybe even quasi-space perhaps best analogous to onward dimensions given mathematical properties, where it is reasonable to suggest antecedence and source, something we have historically called eternity. Obviously at the core of such would be entity not subject to dependence on causal-temporal thermodynamic flow, temporal order as manifested in our world or its suggested extension through a fluctuation prone quantum foam. A world in which information may exist, design may exist and capability to source a world like ours. There is a traditional term, spirit. But such things we can only sketch out on logic of being. For example, no truly necessary being can be properly composite, made up of independently existing prior parts that are detachable, for such is a classic way to be composite. Facets or faces yes, but a holographic, all in one, one in all whole. Which, oddly, is the sort of thing we see hinted at in classic theological texts, suggesting that ancient Hebrew writers may have been on to something when, without a significant tradition of independent speculative philosophising on metaphysics [and hundreds of years before the Greek tradition, though they later were eager students e.g. Philo etc], they spoke in terms of self-revealing, communicative Deity self-described as I AM THAT I AM, self existent, independent, eternal etc. They use echad not yachid in the shema, the confessional, covenantal prayer, a term pointing to complex (not necessarily composite) rather than simple unity. Then there are the remarks of Jesus of Nazareth that I and the Father are One, before Abraham was I am etc. So, we are left to take pause. But the main point is, logic of being points to necessary being world root, embracing that Math describes logic of structure and quantity giving key constraints on possible/impossible being. KF PS, later we may wish to discuss to what extent we may flesh in the framework lines given hard strength by power of logic applied to being and reality. E.g. from our world including our own selves we may infer requisites for root of being. But the reality is, such will necessarily be sketchy, of framework character, not the full orbed substance of a worldview. kairosfocus

Seversky said:

The argument that kf and I have put forward is that, since there is something there must always have been something, the reason being that, if there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing because you can’t get something out of nothing.

Querius replied:

Yes, I agree. And that something, called “reality,” is fundamentally not particles or waves, but information. And since information is conserved, we need an external source of that information.

Q, I believe you are saying here that we need a source of information that is external to what we call the space-time universe. The problem is, there was no "before" space-time, and there is no "outside of" space time. If space-time was created, then the information for it had to exist somewhere & before space-time was created. Unfortunately, it seems to be also your argument no such time or place existed. William J Murray

Vivid & Q, on the fluctuation model, perhaps by its design, while our cosmos has a zero point the underlying domain has onward causal thermodynamic succession so time. The point is the logic of structure and quantity forces that to still be finite because of its contingent, successive nature. KF kairosfocus

JVL, we do not know whether our cosmos fits with a fluctuation model, but that model does not change the implication of an onward finite past as explained. I cannot say there actually was a 15 BY past, only that there is a model that would give something like that. I am simply noting the physics is not constrained to be just as our observed cosmos. Once there is a world there will be necessary beings, starting with 2, etc. As for root reality, that is a necessary being. The reason why only a finite actual past for thermodynamic-causal temporal order was given, traversing forward stage by successive stage to now can only traverse a finite. Going forward may be potentially infinite but at no stage would an actual infinity be traversed. KF kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic, Nicely stated. With regards to the singularity, one can ask with more insight the brilliant polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's famous question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" -Q Querius

JVL Excellent questions.

What’s to stop you from going back on and on, one step after another, will that being already be there?

What we would have is the impossibility of traversing an infinite regress. If the physical universe went on and on forever, never reaching an initial cause or first origin - then everything that came along "after" would have taken an infinite amount of time to appear. So there would have to be an infinite number of days before today arrived. But time going across an infinite span like that would never reach today. If there was never a beginning, there could be no starting point. So, not only would we have no cause for the whole infinite string of physical events (we'd see box-cars on a train track moving forward with no engine to pull them), but we couldn't add new days to that infinite string (like tomorrow) since it would take an infinity (which never is completed) to get here.

How do you know that? Is that not just an assumption on your part? What physics do they have to follow?

We know this because the singularity created the physical universe. Physics is a measure of the physical world. Prior to the singularity, there could be no physical world since the physical universe came into existence at that time. So, what preceded the singularity could not be physical. The cause of the material world has to be immaterial (because matter could not be the creator of matter).

But what about your necessary being? Is their past finite? If yes then what created them? If not then is the past really finite?

The necessary being cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence. If it did, then it would be possible to not exist (since what it depends on might not exist). The necessary being has to contain within itself everything required for existence - so, it is the fullness of being. It is not changed by anything external and so not living within time. Silver Asiatic

Q “There was no “before” the Big Bang!” Correct and I use that term , gotta think of a better way. Perhaps “the universe exists therefore something has always existed “ one candidate ( a flawed one IMO )is the universe itself has always existed. Vivid vividbleau

Scamp “SC “that is based on an extrapolation from our knowledge of the physical universe.” You have it assed backwards. Our knowledge of the physical universe depend on the application of reason, logic etc. Hey we can clear this up very easily please give me the physical dimensions of let’s say the law of non contradiction. What does it weigh , what is its mass, etc ? Vivid vividbleau

JVL @528,

Okay, but if you went back 15 billion years (before our universe was created based on current estimates) would that necessary being already exist? What if you went back 20 billion years? Or 200 billion years?

There was no "before" the Big Bang! There was no space, no time, no atoms, no electrons, no protons, no neutrons, no quarks, no leptons, no bosons, no gluons, no photons, no energy, no forces, no probabilities, no stars, no black holes, no gravity, no laws of physics . . . Assuming a transcendent being of some kind exists, that being must necessarily exist outside of space and time. For such a being, existence is not divided into past, present, and future, but rather a timeless existence. That being might choose to be called "I AM." -Q Querius

Scamp VB: There are lots of unsupported speculations that are not illogical. “And they all have the same thing In common They are based on assumptions and extrapolations from things we have knowledge about. For example, without modern knowledge of the cosmos and Newtonian physics it would be logical to conclude that the earth was the centre of the universe.” Why you bring up something that that I certainly agree with as on objection to my disagreement with your claim that all unsupported speculations are illogical has me mystified. Try again and please stay on topic. “We don’t know that it “began”. Well you brought it up not me Scamp “But we don’t known what the Big Bang was, how it was caused, if anything existed before that,” Actually I do know that if the Big Bang occurred that something existed before that. VB. “Nothing can cause nothing , nothing has no ontological existence, no casual power whatsoever.” SC “that is based on an extrapolation from our knowledge of the physical universe. But we have no knowledge of “nothing”. We can’t even envision what it would be or what it could entail” I know what it could entail it would entail “nothing” Furthermore the LNC is not a physical thing or perhaps you can tell me it’s physical dimensions. If something exists something must have always existed, you seem to hold to the absurd claim that something can exist before it exists which is crazy talk and a Charlie horse to the ears. Vivid vividbleau

Kairosfocus: We therefore need a world/reality root that is finitely remote and of non contingent possible character, i.e. a necessary being, capable of causing worlds. Okay, but if you went back 15 billion years (before our universe was created based on current estimates) would that necessary being already exist? What if you went back 20 billion years? Or 200 billion years? What's to stop you from going back on and on, one step after another, will that being already be there? whatever comes before the singularity needs not follow the same physics How do you know that? Is that not just an assumption on your part? What physics do they have to follow? We know the past to be finite and that the physical cosmos had a beginning. But what about your necessary being? Is their past finite? If yes then what created them? If not then is the past really finite? JVL

Sc, you have been adequately answered. KF PPS, for example we do know there was a beginning to the causal-thermodynamic temporal order, for many reasons. Our cosmos credibly traces to a singularity. It has not run down into heat death and the numbers of white dwarfs as cooling down stellar remnants that will take a very long time to cool tell a story. Likewise, even on a beyond the singularity, the heat death issue is very present, and there is a logic of being constraint. For, a past without beginning implies that for every - k beyond the singularity there are onward, -(k+1), -(k+2) . . . in effect going on yet again without limit. The descent through - k to 0 and then up to now requires actual succession, not a mathematical model, and the succession would be transfinite to now. But a transfinite succession of finite stages -- years for convenience, cannot be completed. We know the past to be finite and that the physical cosmos had a beginning. kairosfocus

Scamp,

I probably should have said that it would be logical to conclude that the sun, moon and stars orbited around earth.

No, because there's no preferred frame of reference. Sure, one can use a frame of reference with the earth as the center of the solar system, and we do when we talk about "sunrise" and "sunset." There is no "before" T=0. T=0 is when space-time began. We can't observe historical events or do experiments on them beyond measuring the Cosmic Background Radiation, stellar spectra and red shift, periodic fluctuations such as in binary stars and pulsars, gravitational lensing, etc. From this data, theories are developed. New data modifies, strengthens or weakens theories, or even supplants them. -Q Querius

Querius: LOL. The earth IS the center of the universe. And so is every other location in the universe.

I will take your word for it. I probably should have said that it would be logical to conclude that the sun, moon and stars orbited around earth.

No, they came later. It’s believed that the space-time began at a single point (T=0) that inflated rapidly at first and was initially filled with a quark-gluon plasma (T=10^-10 to 10^-6 seconds).

Is this supported by experimentation or just speculation? Regardless, we don’t know what happened at or before T=0. And we don’t know what happened for the first tiny fraction of time after T=0. Scamp

Scamp,

For example, without modern knowledge of the cosmos and Newtonian physics it would be logical to conclude that the earth was the centre of the universe.

LOL. The earth IS the center of the universe. And so is every other location in the universe.

We don’t know that it “began”. We just know that approximately 14 billion years ago the universe consisted of protons and neutrons in a very small volume.

No, they came later. It's believed that the space-time began at a single point (T=0) that inflated rapidly at first and was initially filled with a quark-gluon plasma (T=10^-10 to 10^-6 seconds). -Q Querius

William J Murray @515,

And since information is conserved, we need an external source of that information.

I’d like to see you or anyone explain the logic of this claim.

1. Look up the Law of Conservation of Information. 2. Explain where information came from in the first place. -Q Querius

KF: Sc, you are simply doubling down at this point. The record is above. KF

No, I am simply repeating a warranted conclusion based on thousands of observations. Scamp

VB: There are lots of unsupported speculations that are not illogical.

And they all have the same thing In common They are based on assumptions and extrapolations from things we have knowledge about. For example, without modern knowledge of the cosmos and Newtonian physics it would be logical to conclude that the earth was the centre of the universe.

What is illogical is that which began to exist came from nothing.

We don’t know that it “began”. We just know that approximately 14 billion years ago the universe consisted of protons and neutrons in a very small volume. Anything before that is pure speculation.

Nothing can cause nothing , nothing has no ontological existence, no casual power whatsoever.

that is based on an extrapolation from our knowledge of the physical universe. But we have no knowledge of “nothing”. We can’t even envision what it would be or what it could entail. Scamp

Sev, that sort of regress is tantamount to reductio ad absurdum. KF kairosfocus

Sc, you are simply doubling down at this point. The record is above. KF kairosfocus

:KF That is a classic case of setting up and knocking over a strawman given what I have been at pains to do, and in context it is laced with ad hom too.

No, it is nothing more than a warranted conclusion based on the observation of the hundreds of thousands of words you have posted here. Far more warranted, I might add, than the conclusions you draw about the motivations of everyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. Scamp

Kairosfocus/511

Sev, that is a recipe for infinite regress of doubts and disputes, and thus for selective hyperskepticism.

Yes, it is. No one said it was going to be easy but that doesn't mean we should grasp the first straw that comes along promising a spurious certainty.

Instead, as we are finite, fallible, struggling and too often ill willed, we need to recognise that we all have faith points at core of our world views which are subject to comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power.

We all choose anchor points for our beliefs although just how firm they are is open to question.

Where, a relatively few self evident first facts and principles help us test the quality of our thought, but we can never compose a full worldview just from those.

I start from a small set of premises: 1) I exist. 2) I would like to continue my existence for as long as it is both possible and tolerable. 3) I presume other people and other animals exist. 4) I presume those other people and animals would also like to continue their existences for as long as they are both possible and tolerable. Everything else follows from them.

And right now it is unwarranted confidence in radically secular ideas dressed up in lab coats that are leading to deep, deep trouble. KF

An exaggerated confidence in science is as unwarranted as the same in religions or political ideologies. What we are well-advised to be wary of, however, is where these theologies and ideologies try to undermine science in order to advance the causes of their own unwarranted certainties. Seversky

Es58/

How many 1000’s of iou 1 complex explanation, which increase by bounds with each new discovery, and multiplies the complexity of The very explanation they were trying to provide, by in from the “scientific community”, payable sometime between here and eternity, usually much closer to The latter, does one accept and still call oneself a “skeptic” (as opposed to one operating on blind faith)?

Why would you expect that science should know everything now? This Universe in which we find ourselves is unimaginably vast and has been around for around 13.8 bn years. It doesn't come with a handy user's guide so science is having to work it out on the fly. Modern science has only been on the job for a few hundred years at best. I think we can afford to be patient. Seversky

And since information is conserved, we need an external source of that information.

I'd like to see you or anyone explain the logic of this claim. William J Murray

Seversky,

Consciousness would seem to be a property of certain arrangements of matter and energy. . . . We are also struggling to say what consciousness is.

Then, we should be able to detect consciousness in billions and billions of random combinations of particles and energy. But particles and energy don’t observe/measure themselves, otherwise we would observe random wavefunction collapses. For example, the double-slit experiment would sometimes go from a diffraction pattern to double bars by itself. Only conscious observation has been demonstrated to collapse the wavefunction (and in the quantum Zeno effect). These affect the information of what’s being observed.

If it’s a property of matter then presumably quarks come into it somewhere but exactly how is still beyond us.

Notice that the assertion above is entirely a statement of faith.

We don’t know that space-time originated in the Big Bang. All we can really say is that observational data points back to a time some 13.8 bn years ago or thereabouts when the Universe was much smaller and denser.

Yes, we do. Matter didn’t "explode" from a compressed state into existing space-time. Space-time has been observed to be expanding, and that at an accelerating rate. By calculating the rate in reverse, we come a 13.8 billion year approximation for the age of the universe.

The argument that kf and I have put forward is that, since there is something there must always have been something, the reason being that, if there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing because you can’t get something out of nothing.

Yes, I agree. And that something, called “reality,” is fundamentally not particles or waves, but information. And since information is conserved, we need an external source of that information.

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God . . .

-Q Querius

Hi510 SeverskyMarch 19, 2022 at 8:20 pm Skepticism, it seems to me, is very little different from Hume’s dictum that a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence How many 1000's of iou 1 complex explanation, which increase by bounds with each new discovery, and multiplies the complexity of The very explanation they were trying to provide, by in from the "scientific community", payable sometime between here and eternity, usually much closer to The latter, does one accept and still call oneself a "skeptic" (as opposed to one operating on blind faith)? es58

Querius/505

1. A being. Presumably you mean a conscious, sentient being outside of space-time. If consciousness is instead a property of matter and its arrangement, you have the problem of identifying a new property in quarks that imbue consciousness and sentience that’s detectable when in sufficient quantity and arrangement.

Consciousness would seem to be a property of certain arrangements of matter and energy. We see it associated with physic animal brains but not with rocks or trees, for example. We are also struggling to say what consciousness is. If it's a property of matter then presumably quarks come into it somewhere but exactly how is still beyond us.

2. A being existing infinitely in the past. The problem is that space-time originated with the big bang: there was no space or time before the big bang, so there’s no “before.” Speculating that some being exists in a different space-time merely kicks the can down the road.

We don't know that space-time originated in the Big Bang. All we can really say is that observational data points back to a time some 13.8 bn years ago or thereabouts when the Universe was much smaller and denser. Originally, it was thought that this pointed towards everything being compressed into a primordial singularity of infinite density and mass but it now appears that this assumption is being questioned. The argument that kf and I have put forward is that, since there is something there must always have been something, the reason being that, if there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing because you can't get something out of nothing. I think that what we can say with a high degree of confidence is that, while we know a lot more than we used to, there is still an awful lot that we are missing. Seversky

Sev, that is a recipe for infinite regress of doubts and disputes, and thus for selective hyperskepticism. Instead, as we are finite, fallible, struggling and too often ill willed, we need to recognise that we all have faith points at core of our world views which are subject to comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. Where, a relatively few self evident first facts and principles help us test the quality of our thought, but we can never compose a full worldview just from those. And right now it is unwarranted confidence in radically secular ideas dressed up in lab coats that are leading to deep, deep trouble. KF kairosfocus

Skepticism, it seems to me, is very little different from Hume's dictum that a wise person proportions their belief to the evidence. If someone tells me the have fairies at the bottom of their garden but all they can offer as proof is a grainy photograph that could very easily have been faked then I am under no obligation to believe that claim. It may still be true but unless and until better evidence comes along it is more likely to be false. The reality is that there are very few things of which we can be certain. In the majority of cases, in my view, it's more accurate to say that we have varying degrees of confidence in things. It is unwarranted certainty in religious beliefs or political ideologies that causes so much mischief. Seversky

Sc, BTW, look at what you wrote above, in 475:

KF has made no secret that he believes that the Christian God is the origin of everything. And there is nothing wrong with that. Because of his beliefs, he jumps on the idea of a necessary being, as it is consistent with the beliefs he already has.

That is a classic case of setting up and knocking over a strawman given what I have been at pains to do, and in context it is laced with ad hom too. So, we know that not only will you do something like that but in short order +24 comments is it, you will rhetorically suggest you have not. Sad, but to be taken into the reckoning. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @506, Yes. And this is where quantum mechanics kicks in. It's currently believed that the fundamental reality we experience is not particles and energy, but information. The conscious observation of information in the form of mathematical probability waves results in their collapse into particles and energy. Where does this information originate? -Q Querius

JVL, being does not imply person though it can include such, in the relevant sense, 0, 1, 2, . . . are beings. Be-ing is about existence. Some are personal, others are not, e.g. a rock or the number 2. But as I noted, there is no distinct possible world where 2 is not framework, just distinction to have a particular possible world is enough to show that. KF kairosfocus

Sc [& attn JVL], whatever comes before the singularity needs not follow the same physics -- hence the fine tuning discussion and the concept of possible other physical domains -- but core logic of being including key matters of structure and quantity truly are framework to any possible world. Where, a PW is a sufficiently complete description of how this or another world is, was or could be. One of the points of that logic is, that utter non being -- the true nothing -- can have no causal powers so were such the case it would forever obtain, i.e. there would never be a world. That a world is, implies something else, the reality/world root always was, a necessary being. That it is credible our cosmos began to exist, perhaps 13.75 BYA, implies a causal antecedent. Where, the issue then is to characterise that root and something like our being morally governed is relevant. And being is used very broadly here, it is not synonymous with physicality. KF kairosfocus

JVL @496,

Why does it have to be a ‘being’? And, if that being did not have a ’cause’ or origin then it must have always been around, i.e. infinitely far in the past, yes? Because there was never a ‘time’ it was not around.

There are several problems with your statements: 1. A being. Presumably you mean a conscious, sentient being outside of space-time. If consciousness is instead a property of matter and its arrangement, you have the problem of identifying a new property in quarks that imbue consciousness and sentience that’s detectable when in sufficient quantity and arrangement. 2. A being existing infinitely in the past. The problem is that space-time originated with the big bang: there was no space or time before the big bang, so there’s no “before.” Speculating that some being exists in a different space-time merely kicks the can down the road. -Q Querius

EDTA

At the very least, your skepticism would seem to make it very difficult to persuade others that they don’t know the things they think they know. Sounds like you have staked out an uphill battle for yourself.

That's the problem - skepticism undercuts the claims of the skeptic, and thus, as you say - it becomes difficult for the skeptic to convince anyone of anything (except to be skeptical, but even that's not convincing). Yes, a very steep uphill battle. We can't hide from the responsibility of life - to live with meaning and purpose and to make the best use of the time we have on earth. That means, we should always seek the truth and seek to live by it. Silver Asiatic

JVL

Why does it have to be a ‘being’? And, if that being did not have a ’cause’ or origin then it must have always been around, i.e. infinitely far in the past, yes? Because there was never a ‘time’ it was not around.

What is present in the effect must be present, in potential, in the cause. So, we look at the cause of various beings - thus the cause must be being capable of causing all others. Our regress back through causes stops with one necessary one. We see train cars moving on the track. Ultimately, that string of effects ends with an engine car, the cause of its motion. In another sense - all things we observe have their existence derived from something else. Eventually, there needs to be a source for the "derivitave being" -- a source that gives those properties which cannot come from the derivative beings themselves. Silver Asiatic

EDTA “ I have to ask myself whether you know enough things with certainty to be able to legitimately say that we can’t know the things we claim to know.” To say we can’t know certain things would not one have to first know something about the thing we can’t know? Just another example of self referential incoherence dressed up as a sophisticated argument. Vivid vividbleau

Scamp “But since we don’t know this, any proposal would be unsupported speculation, and therefore not logical.” Ahh no. An unsupported speculation is just that it’s unsupported. There are lots of unsupported speculations that are not illogical. What is illogical is that which began to exist came from nothing. Nothing can cause nothing , nothing has no ontological existence, no casual power whatsoever. Logic cannot tell us what is true it can only tell us what cannot be true and for existence to spring from non existence is illogical. We are left with the absurd conclusion that something exists before it exists. Vivid vividbleau

VB: Logically we know something must have existence “before” that.

If what existed before followed the physical laws as we understand them today then I would agree with you. But since we don’t know this, any proposal would be unsupported speculation, and therefore not logical. In other words, the only conclusion we can reach is that we don’t know. Scamp

VL, As I read back through today's comments, I have to ask myself whether you know enough things with certainty to be able to legitimately say that we can't know the things we claim to know. This is how hyperskepticism comes back to bite a person... At the very least, your skepticism would seem to make it very difficult to persuade others that they don't know the things they think they know. Sounds like you have staked out an uphill battle for yourself. EDTA

Scamp “But we don’t known what the Big Bang was, how it was caused, if anything existed before that,” Logically we know something must have existence “before” that. Vivid vividbleau

KF: Sc, no, your ad hom imaginary strawman reconstruction fails.

You obviously do not understand what an ad hom is.

I am not arbitrarily jumping on the idea of a necessary being, I am looking at logic of being with possible worlds as a framework. [followed by something I can’t even begin to make sense of].

Who is suggesting that you are arbitrarily jumping to the conclusion of a necessary being? Concluding something that is consistent with and supportive of your existing beliefs is anything but arbitrary. But you have to admit that it is certainly comforting and self-reinforcing. We have pretty good theories, although very incomplete, about what happened shortly after the event we call the Big Bang up until the current universe. But we don’t known what the Big Bang was, how it was caused, if anything existed before that, and thousands of other things. Throwing a “necessary being” into the mix is simply not warranted, and can only bias our search. Scamp

Kairosfocus: We therefore need a world/reality root that is finitely remote and of non contingent possible character, i.e. a necessary being, capable of causing worlds. Why does it have to be a 'being'? And, if that being did not have a 'cause' or origin then it must have always been around, i.e. infinitely far in the past, yes? Because there was never a 'time' it was not around. JVL

JVL, everything must have a cause has literally infinitely many exceptions, start with every n in N, the counting naturals. The sounder rule is, that which begins or ends or is otherwise contingent has a cause. Our causal-thermodynamic, temporal order extends to the actual past, and that past is contingent at each stage (for convenience, years). It cannot be transfinite, as successive traversal of such is an infeasible supertask. Where, a world from utter non being fails and with it circular retrocausation. We therefore need a world/reality root that is finitely remote and of non contingent possible character, i.e. a necessary being, capable of causing worlds. The issue then is nature of that root, and a further constraint comes from adequate grounding of our morally governed responsible rational freedom, which post Hume etc can only be addressed through bridging the IS-OUGHT gap in the root. That poses an explanatory challenge on inference to best explanation at worldview level informed by comparative difficulties. (Such is an abductive matter, not a deductive one, as in general is worldview choice.) KF kairosfocus

Vivid, Word salads indeed! So, here's something to consider. A lot of chatbots, particularly those designed for customer support, include a library of short FAQ answers in response to keywords. One can easily imagine a matrix of these answers, each with a spectrum of attitudes ranging from conciliatory to complimentary to accusative to pejorative. To "humanize" these responses, one can include several versions of each response in the library. This helps avoid suspicion. Thus, imagine a chatbot/trollbot designed with a strong ideological focus. One can also program it to quote previously posted sentences containing the triggering keyword. We know that chatbots now pass the Turing test, but what we don't know but suspect is that a large number of social media responses are actually computer-generated propaganda (CGP). "Word salad" responses are a little more challenging than response libraries, but still highly likely considering that Natural Language Parsing (and synthesis) has been around since the 1950s. None of these technologies require a human to interact with us, and so represent an entirely plausible way to waste our time in pseudo debate. Sobering thoughts. -Q Querius

Kairosfocus: that root is finitely remote and necessary being, not causally dependent, framework to any possible worlds but with power to be source of worlds, not like mathematical abstracta etc This is part of what puzzles me . . . everything must have a cause at some time except, since you don't accept an infinite regress, it must stop somewhere and that cause must be an all knowing and loving God (after a few more deductive steps)? I'm just trying to get all those argumentative steps elucidated and clear. JVL

KF? Seriously, I'll leave. Viola Lee

Q “However, I don’t appreciate comments that simply cast an unsupported judgment as a sort of imperious equivalent of Jabba the Hutt.” The most preachy self righteous poster here( not referring to you) however we are treated constantly to wonderful word salads . Vivid vividbleau

" as a sort of imperious equivalent of Jabba the Hutt." ??? :-) Viola Lee

Silver Asiatic,

I take it also to mean “it doesn’t leave us with very much to discuss further”. I said that before – there’s nowhere to go with the discussion at that point, and nobody should be forced to talk about things they don’t want to talk about.

Yes, exactly. When I post something, I usually try to include something informative--new information that colors the discussion. However, I don't appreciate comments that simply cast an unsupported judgment as a sort of imperious equivalent of Jabba the Hutt. To me a parade of colorful opinions is pointless and a waste of time. -Q Querius

SA says, "When asked to defend it, you’ve said that metaphysics is entirely subjective opinion." Well, that's not exactly my view. My views are 1) we can't really know about metaphysical issues, and 2) we often adopt speculative metaphysical narratives that seem to add to our lives even though they are not really true in any ontological sense, for various practical reasons. Viola Lee

Moral judgments are choices. We can bring to bear multiple "is's"–factual statements– but we also then consult our values and make a moral choice. There are other views than thinking there is a bridge at the root of reality. I know Hume lies in a certain tradition, but just quoting Hume doesn't address some alternative views. Viola Lee

VL

I think I’ve offered a lot to defend my views

On the topic of origins, your view is that you don't know and it's unknowable. There's no God. There's something immaterial. When asked to defend it, you've said that metaphysics is entirely subjective opinion. If that's good enough for you, I don't know why anyone would be interested in going further (note of ironic-caution to myself in responding here ...) Silver Asiatic

Hmmm. I think I've offered a lot to defend my views, if you're talking about me, including my view that we need to carefully distinguish between things we can know about and things we can't. Viola Lee

PS, the inference that morality is relativist or subjective or emotive runs into self defeating trouble in many ways as has been highlighted many times. Here is a basic clip:

Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.

kairosfocus

VL, you clearly refuse to see the point Hume drew out in his guillotine. Duly noted. KF kairosfocus

Sc, no, your ad hom imaginary strawman reconstruction fails. I am not arbitrarily jumping on the idea of a necessary being, I am looking at logic of being with possible worlds as a framework. In part, my considerations are actually in the context of answering Wigner's wonder on the power of Mathematics, and decades ago, to the nature of number and even what is Mathematics. Best answer, [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, i.e. an extension of logic of being. That builds on Lesson 1 in Uni Math, from a Famous Professor I silently tip hat to again. He defined Math as study of structure, my extension just draws up interesting details. In that context, we can see what is possible vs impossible of being, then of the former, contingent vs necessary. A fire is Copi's example: contingent on enabling on/off causal factors as per fire tetrahedron. So, consider beings -- contingent ones are in some but not all, and causes can be identified through factors switching on/off etc. Necessary, because framework to any world existing, any world. I gave two-ness, tied to distinct identity, just a distinct PW already has it present as framework. There is no distinct PW without duality, nor can it be switched on or off. And so forth. The impossibility of a world from utter non being (including circular retrocausation) and the infeasibility of traversing a transfinite span of years for convenience, leads to need for necessary, world root being at finite remove, one with power to cause a world. Including, one with morally governed creatures. KF kairosfocus

Yes, KF, you assume that morality goes back to the root of reality. No amount of philosophy can show that morality is anything other than something humans do on our own. Viola Lee

Querius You said earlier ... “If you don’t believe that everything came from nothing before time began and don’t believe in God, that doesn’t leave you with very much.” I take it also to mean "it doesn't leave us with very much to discuss further". I said that before - there's nowhere to go with the discussion at that point, and nobody should be forced to talk about things they don't want to talk about. But it's a caution to myself when I add a comment here or there. I think the same is true for nihilistic-materialism and deism. There's nothing to discuss if the person doesn't want to probe the meaning of their own worldview. Some of those people, however, spare nothing in attacking ID or ridiculing God - but when asked to defend their own view they become defensive and quiet. At the same time, I would agree with anyone who said that physical science has no answers for immaterial entities. Science and math are not the right tools for analyzing such, except in a negative way (it's not this or that). Silver Asiatic

Q, I have explained that I'm not interested, at least in this thread, about the debate between "cosmologists and physicists". I'm interested in other topics. You say, "I provided links to this subject" and "Currently, there’s vigorous informed debate in the scientific community on this subject." What topic? You aren't clear. Have you paid attention to my previous responses to you? You write, It’s even been estimated that among secular cosmologists, 60% believe in a holographic universe and that what we experience is a simulation of reality." Source? "In comparison, the objections here amount to baby talk" Not a helpful comment. Viola Lee

VL, I make no such assumption. I believe you were present when the discussion was highlighted that there are two challenges, the older Euthyphro dilemma as it is called, and Hume's guillotine: his being "surpriz'd" to see IS-IS then -- gap -- ought ought. Answering the second, I accept that at no level subsequent to the reality root can the IS-OUGHT gap be bridged, that is why the answer is sought there. And that brings up Euthyphro in support: the required goodness must neither be arbitrary nor itself just there out of nothing. As well, to imagine that oughtness is meaningless or the like would so devastate much of our constitution as responsible, rational creatures (not least, involving grand delusion) the answer needs to be meaningful and reasonable. What I actually did, many times, is to highlight a bill of requisites for the root of reality. Necessary being, antecedent to causal-thermodynamic temporal order, where we also saw why that must be finitely remote. Causally capable of sourcing a cosmos. This includes being able to bridge is and ought, implying that the ultimate is grounds goodness, inherent to its nature and has wisdom so the order of reality exhibits purpose that is not chaotic, a Demiurge fails. This is the context in which I have spoken to a worldview level inference to best explanation across alternatives. I noted, on history, just one serious candidate after many centuries, a familiar figure, but invited a serious alternative. Candidate to beat: the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, rational service that accords with our evident nature. KF PS, Sc, what I have laid out in summary is actually the God of Philosophers, God as conceived through ethical theism informed by logic of being etc. kairosfocus

Kairosfocus and Silver Asiatic, Viola Lee is simply morphing issues and putting words in our mouths, and this admittedly without even attempting to understand the debates among physicists and cosmologists. I provided links to this subject, but being filled with opinion, didn't bother looking at them. I'm honestly sorry that Viola Lee is not actually engaging with cogent reasoning. What comes to my mind is Proverbs 18:2. In the NIV translation, it reads like this:

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.

Currently, there's vigorous informed debate in the scientific community on this subject. Scientific options and their implications are well known. In comparison, the objections here amount to baby talk. Scamp, None of the Christians here claim that their belief in God is a scientific conclusion, but rather it's a paradigm. Conversely, there are no professional cosmologists that claim scientific proof of the origin of the universe, and there are no origin of life researchers who claim scientific proof of a particular path of the origin of life. Dr. James Tour famously challenged them with a "show me" to provide a chemical pathway to life and no one has been able to do so. Intelligent Design makes no claims about the type of intelligence behind our reality, but simply takes a pragmatic position that the ID paradigm results in faster scientific progress than any other paradigm such as random chance. It's even been estimated that among secular cosmologists, 60% believe in a holographic universe and that what we experience is a simulation of reality. However, this again is a pragmatic position and takes no position on God. In fact, some of them believe we're living in an "ancestor simulation." -Q Querius

VL

I was referring to necessity, not rationality in the line you quoted

We arrive at the requirement for necessity through the rational process. Denying it creates an irrational origin - which is harder to explain.

“immaterial” is just a word meaning “not material” without any other content.

Immaterial carries with it quite a lot of information and content. Do the laws of physics apply? Can it be modeled mathematically? Can it be bounded by physical space? Can it by measured by physical elements (time)? Is it composed of parts? Does it have size, weight, shape, density? Does it have physical operations? Can we understand immateriality by things we experience and encounter in human life? Is "mind" a candidate? Are "intellectual processes" compatible? Is rationality compatible with immateriality? Can there be more than one immaterial origin? If so, how can multiple be related? What distinguishes them - their boundaries. Saying merely "we don't know" closes off all of those inquiries where we can have "greater or lesser" understanding from ideas that are more reasonable or less reasonable. Positing the existence of multiple immaterial beings brings a lot of problems that a single immaterial origin avoids. Silver Asiatic

VL: You also assume that a necessary being at the root of reality is, well, necessary.

I have only marginally been following this thread but I think that you have touched on the crux of the issue. KF has made no secret that he believes that the Christian God is the origin of everything. And there is nothing wrong with that. Because of his beliefs, he jumps on the idea of a necessary being, as it is consistent with the beliefs he already has. But none of this is proof that a necessary being is needed. The most we can say is that we don’t know how it all began, or even if there was a beginning. Scamp

re 473: SA, I was referring to necessity, not rationality in the line you quoted. Also, re 471, you wrote, :The default, therefore, is that there is a ground of being – or origin for things and that origin cannot be material, since the material cannot create the material. So, there’s an immaterial origin with the power and capability of creating the material. That says quite a lot right there." As I wrote to Zweston at 466, that actually doesn’t say anything, because “immaterial” is just a word meaning “not material” without any other content. I listed a bunch of “possible” metaphysical things in 467, such as “The Hindu trio of gods of creation, maintenance, and destruction, or Allah, or the Tao, or the Aborigene dreamtime”. Those are all “immaterial”, but without further information (which we do not have) we know nothing more. Zwestn used the word “supenatural” and you use the word “immaterial”, but both are just placeholders for “I don’t know what, but not material.” Viola Lee

VL

Whatever is at the root of reality may just be without necessarily being so.

That's an irrational conclusion. It would mean that we are more rational than the root of reality (from where we obtained our rational nature) is. Silver Asiatic

KF, One assumption you are making, and it is a faith-based assumption, is that morality extends back to the root of reality, and that there is an is-ought gap to be bridged. I don’t believe that. We’ve had interminable discussions about this before, so no need to go there again. You also assume that a necessary being at the root of reality is, well, necessary. I don’t believe that. Whatever is at the root of reality may just be without necessarily being so. Your beliefs come out of a certain academic tradition. There are other perspectives. Yours doesn’t have a special predominance in metaphysics. Viola Lee

VL

Both these statements assume that the default (correct) belief is God, and anyone who doesn’t believe in God has to justify their disbelief. I don’t accept that assumption. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believe

The default is that things which exist, have a reason for their existence. Things that begin to exist, have a cause for their existence. That's the default because those are universally evident truths. Beyond that, some proposals for the origin of the world are "more reasonable" than others. To say that an immaterial entity exists, but we can know nothing about it - is not as reasonable as saying "an immaterial entity exists and therefore we can know something about it" (since we must know something to know it exists). The default, therefore, is that there is a ground of being - or origin for things and that origin cannot be material, since the material cannot create the material. So, there's an immaterial origin with the power and capability of creating the material. That says quite a lot right there. Silver Asiatic

VL, there is no question begging assumption or a priori imposition that God is default. There is a discussion of why we need a necessary being of some sort as reality root, and of how our existence as morally governed creatures conditions the evaluation of that root. Further to which, it is noted that after centuries it remains true that there is just one serious candidate to bridge is and ought in the root. Note, a serious candidate NB will be either impossible of being or actual. The issue, then is to provide another serious alternative capable of bridging the is ought gap or else showing why God is impossible of being or else why, despite much serious thought on the subject God is not in fact a serious candidate. I only pause to note that the attempt to deny knowledge on such matters is a knowledge claim, as has been pointed out several times for cause as outlined. KF kairosfocus

JVL, if it is root of reality, ponder our causal-thermodynamic temporal order and say the succession of years or epochs to and beyond the singularity or the like. Succession like that by finite stages cannot traverse the transfinite exhaustively. It began, at some point. So we need a root of worlds/reality, world zero if you will. And given the world from utter non being that haunts both "from nothing" and circular retrocausation, that root is finitely remote and necessary being, not causally dependent, framework to any possible worlds but with power to be source of worlds, not like mathematical abstracta etc. Further, with us as clearly morally governed as a branch on which we sit root of our responsible, rational freedom -- which we have, or else rational discussion is empty delusion [including whatever leads some to such inference] -- that entity is in the only place is and ought can be soundly bridged. At that point, and all of this is outline, we face worldview level inference to the best explanation on comparative difficulties. There is but one serious candidate that has the required inherent goodness and utter wisdom to bridge, after centuries and eras of debates. The inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. If one doubts, provide an alternative _____ and do so without self defeating incoherence etc. _______ KF kairosfocus

“I just think in order to rule out God, don’t you have to have a position on what created the universe? ”

That would depend on one's ontological presuppositions. William J Murray

KF writes, “you need to answer to on what grounds you hold him [God] impossible of being”, and Zweston asks, “I just think in order to rule out God ...”. Both these statements assume that the default (correct) belief is God, and anyone who doesn’t believe in God has to justify their disbelief. I don’t accept that assumption. The burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer. KF’s comment is odd for another reason. Of course, God is possible. So is the Hindu trio of gods of creation, maintenance, and destruction, or Allah, or the Tao, or the Aborigene dreamtime. Do I have to prove them all impossible? One certainly can’t believe all possible things: one has to sort out all the evidence and believe what seems most likely, balanced by an estimate of how certain one is in general. Saying that I need to show that God is impossible is not true: that is in fact an impossible demand, and not one I need to take seriously. Also KF writes, “you need to answer to the grounding of our rationally and responsible free being.” This is another “need” that I don’t have. I have said innumerable times that I accept the reality of our rational mind and our free will, and I’ve said innumerable times that I don’t know, and don’t think we can know, where that comes from. I have also often said that my own favored, speculative beliefs–my own preferred narratives–are for an underlying, unknown impersonal Oneness out of which both the physical and the mental worlds arise. My emphasis is thus not to devise some analytic explanation of what I can in fact not know, but rather to concentrate on how to live well given the capacities that I have as a human. Viola Lee

Zweston writes, "I just think in order to rule out God, don’t you have to have a position on what created the universe? " My position is that no one knows. I would rather live with uncertainty than think I, or anyone, knows more than we do. I think it's reasonable to not have a position on something that is beyond the reach of our experience. Saying that there must be something supernatural that created nature is an empty statement in that, as I said above, we don't know anything about what that something is. "Supernatural" in this case is just a placeholder term for "we don't know". Viola Lee

Well, since this IS the immaterial world, I'd say that yes, math exists in the immaterial world. So does everything else. You guys let me know when science finds evidence of a material world. William J Murray

Viola Lee at 459... I just think in order to rule out God, don't you have to have a position on what created the universe? That is what your last few posts have been about. Origin of the universe. If it had a beginning, where did it come from? What do you hold to? What would be a position you would want to defend at this time? Surely you have one... I just don't see how anyone can get around a supernatural (out of nature) cause for the universe. zweston

JVL, similarly, if it is about our self moved, reflexive responsible, rational, significant freedom, my point is, branch on which we all sit. So, to object is self referentially incoherent; that, comes out in many ways. Only if we are sufficiently free and self moved can we rise above the computationalism of dynamic-stochastic substrates . . . non rational, GIGO limited, blind processing . . . to credibly think, reason, argue, judge, conclude etc with any credibility. Whether hypercalvinist [and I have known such] or materialist or psychosocial determinist or whatever, my concern is self defeat of reason. Let us at least recognise that though we may and do err, we can reason, correctly conclude, warrant and know. KF kairosfocus

JVL, I don't know what you want. If it is the categorisations of logic of being, that is just a use of possible world speak to clarify what is possible/impossible of being, and of the former, what is contingent and what is necessary. For the latter case, ponder seven sided pentagons. It is almost a footnote to observe that what is always present in any PW must be something framework to such worlds, e.g. the structures and quantities behind core mathematics. That is, necessity of being is non-arbitrary, it has a natural sense and carries import of permanency: imagine a distinct world W without twoness, already, oops distinct is carrying duality with it, and obviously this neither began nor can it cease, it is of eternal character. Hence too universality of core Math. In that context, we can ponder serious candidate NB's, which will either be impossible [think square circles etc] or else actual, i.e. possible, so in at least one world and framework to worlds so in all. As a weak form, consider, credibly necessary. As regarding God as conceived through generic ethical theism, obviously a serious candidate. So, either impossible or else actual, and it matters but little if you soften it. Thus, the challenge to those who would dismiss God. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: We are familiar with time, not with necessary being. As for refusing faith in God, it is your choice; however as God is manifestly a serious candidate NB, you need to answer to on what grounds you hold him impossible of being, and having done so, you need to answer to the grounding of our rationally and responsible free being — requisites or even imperatives of rational discourse — without self referential incoherence. The they are all fiction, no one knows etc fail the self referentiality test. I do apologise; I know you've laid out the argument for the above many, many times and I was thinking about what I remembered of that argument and I was thinking about a particular step in that argument when it occurred to me that my memory of the statements made might be incorrect. So, I would greatly appreciate if you would point me to your best summary of the case. I want to be sure I've got it right before I make a comment, IF I make a comment. Thanks. JVL

VL, necessary being entities pervade any possible world as part of its framework. We are familiar with time, not with necessary being. As for refusing faith in God, it is your choice; however as God is manifestly a serious candidate NB, you need to answer to on what grounds you hold him impossible of being, and having done so, you need to answer to the grounding of our rationally and responsible free being -- requisites or even imperatives of rational discourse -- without self referential incoherence. The they are all fiction, no one knows etc fail the self referentiality test. KF kairosfocus

to Zweston. I'm very much a layperson when it comes to cosmology. I accept the basic idea that the universe is about 14.8 billion years old, began as a "singularity", expanded, stars formed from the first elements, heavier elements formed in stars, etc: pretty much the standard current theory. I'm not quite sure why you asked me, though, as this doesn't seem to what I've been discussing in this thread. Viola Lee

Q, you write, "If you don’t believe that everything came from nothing before time began and don’t believe in God, that doesn’t leave you with very much." I'm not sure whether you've been in on discussions with me, but I think you have, and I've certainly discussed my thoughts on this, including offering alternatives to the materialism/God dichotomy to which you refer. Also, even if the concepts of " love, justice, and mercy also exist within time but are themselves timeless", which is a separate subject, that doesn't make the ways in which timeless concepts and reality within time interact any less mysterious. Viola Lee

Viola, what do you believe about the history of the cosmos and its origins (or lack thereof?) zweston

Viola Lee, If you don't believe that everything came from nothing before time began and don't believe in God, that doesn't leave you with very much. That mathematics can exist in time but is not time (actually space-time) dependent isn't much of a mystery. The concepts of love, justice, and mercy also exist within time but are themselves timeless. Just sayin' -Q Querius

re 451: KF agrees with Sev. 2 + 2 =4 has always existed, in some sense. It seems one can conclude that whatever the nature of that existence is, it is outside of time. (Although it is also inside time, so how it gets here is an another mystery! Viola Lee

No, I did neither. I don't believe something came from nothing, or that nature came from nature, so Hawkings doesn't interest me, and that topic hasn't been part of this discussion. And I don't believe in God, so saying "God is a mathematician" doesn't interest me, and I don't think that has been part of this discussion. I do appreciate the role Dyson played in helping popularize Feynman, but my beliefs are more like Feynman's. (However, my daughter did have lunch with Dyson one time!) Viola Lee

Viola Lee @450, Obviously, you didn't read the paper I linked to in @439. Did you watch the video of Freeman Dyson in @449? -Q Querius

VL, I simply report what others have seriously argued. KF kairosfocus

VL, the logic of structure and quantity behind 2 + 3 = 5, is part of the framework for any world to exist. So, given that utter non being has no causal capability, and that circular retrocausation is this by another route, we have infinite causal-thermofynamic-temporal past or finitely remote necessary world root being. On either case, the logic of structure and quantity would still be there. Of course, infinite past has a traversal roadblock, but that is onward. The logic of structure and quantity behind such, always was and cannot cease to be, it is a cluster of necessary, world framework entities. KF kairosfocus

Q writes, "They choose to believe in a cosmic turtle named “Multiverse” who lays eggs called universes. Actually KF implied this might figuratively be the case in posts 433 and 438 above, although where the "quantum foam" came from is the next level question. Viola Lee

Seversky @448, Yes, information is conserved and it's the fundamental essence of reality, but where does it come from? Freeman Dyson - 'God appears to be a mathematician' https://youtu.be/ESyqh1M_kf0

I find it a miracle. I mean, I don’t pretend to understand it and I think it is absolutely marvelous that nature somehow thinks like a mathematician, that was what James Jeans said that… that God appears to be a mathematician. And it is astonishing that somehow all these weird mathematical ideas which we have invented for purely aesthetic reasons, essentially just as works of art, as intellectual constructions, turn up then unexpectedly to be used in nature. There’re so many examples of this, of course. Of course, the classic case was differential geometry which was invented by Gauss for very practical purposes, just for projecting maps from the spherical earth onto a plane, onto a piece of paper, so he invented this differential geometry as a way of representing curved surfaces on a flat plane. And then 50 years later Riemann applied that to a description of space and conjectured that space itself might actually be curved, but it was still sort of purely an intellectual hypothesis without any kind of physical basis. And then another 50 years later it turned out to be the essential tool for Einstein to understand gravitation. It is in fact what Einstein used for general relativity. So, it’s built… it’s built deep into the structure of space-time.

But some people still prefer to believe that nature created nature from nothing before time began. They choose to believe in a cosmic turtle named “Multiverse” who lays eggs called universes. And Multiverse had a mother named “Multimultiverse.” Thus it’s turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. -Q Querius

Viola Lee/447

:-). So how long has it been true that 2 + 2 = 4? Does that fact have a finite or infinite past? Inquiring minds want to know.

Hmmm, that's a tough one. If there is a conservation law for information - in other words, it can be neither created nor destroyed - then it must always have been true and always will be. Seversky

:-). So how long has it been true that 2 + 2 = 4? Does that fact have a finite or infinite past? Inquiring minds want to know. Viola Lee

Viola Lee/444

Does time exist in the immaterial world? ?

I would say that unless you can demonstrate the existence of an immaterial world then the question is immaterial. Of course, if you hold that this world is immaterial then the answer is 'yes', although I would still advise against walking in front of fast-moving vehicles. Seversky

Sentient experience of any sort, it seems to me, requires coherent sequences of experiences, and that in any reasonable sense of the term, can be called "time." William J Murray

Does time exist in the immaterial world? :-) Viola Lee

WJM

“Where did God create space? When did God create time?” These questions point to the absurdity of the notion that God “created” space and time.

But that assumes that the creation act has to take place in a space or a time. But even in human creations, we can have immaterial ideas. A great invention, for example, is not the product of a physical space. It occurs as an immaterial idea in the mind. Silver Asiatic

The thing about the past is that nobody can demonstrate it ever existed at all. It's kind of like the theory of a reality external of experience; nobody can demonstrate it exists. As sentient beings, we're all locked into the experiential now. There's no escape from it. I raised the question some time ago to the effect of: "Where did God create space? When did God create time?" These questions point to the absurdity of the notion that God "created" space and time. KF's answer, if I remember correctly, was that other space or other time could exist outside the framework of our particular universe. That was question-begging at its finest. Okay, so God existed in some kind of space-time continuum before he created this one. Where did that space-time continuum come from? There are all sorts of logical conundrums here that don't make sense. William J Murray

VL & Q, I am pointing to a major model of the past on the table. We have to take it seriously but not as certain truth. And yes space, time, mass, gravity are all intertwined. One of the tricks of expansion is that gravitationally bound regions such as galaxies are like raisins in a bread swelling as yeast bubbles. The big scale cause-effect themodynamic influence also applies. After all the expansion is temporally cumulative. KF kairosfocus

Q, it was KF who first mentioned "probabilistic “quantum foam” or “quantum fluctuations" and speculated that time as we know it might exist outside of our universe, not me. Almost everything you addressed to me in your post aren't things that I've been talking about. It seems like I'm an imaginary person in your mind, not really me. Viola Lee

Kairosfocus, Viola Lee apparently doesn't understand the close association with space and time . . . so much that it's now called space-time. The inflation and expansion of the universe resulted in almost all of the observed red shift of light from distant stars, and which is not limited by the speed of light. The red shift is not due to stars moving but as space-time moving "under" the stars This has been compared to inflating a balloon covered with dots. The dots aren't moving on the surface of the balloon, but the balloon is expanding "under" the dots. Extrapolating backwards, this is how scientists estimate that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years from a singularity, the beginning of space-time (there was no "before"). But if time is infinite, so is space, and if space-time is expanding--as we know from the red shift--so is the distance between stars. However, the red shift has been measured and it's not infinite or else we would not be able to see any stars. In fact, the red shift is used to get an approximate distance from the earth which is proportional to Hubble's constant. When Viola Lee refers to probabilistic "quantum foam" or "quantum fluctuations one cannot forget that probabilities cannot exist outside of time. But there's more to the story. Stephen Hawking devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to try to come up with a plausible way of how nature could create nature from nothing (non existence) without needing to acknowledge God. Here's a great article on the subject: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/ -Q Querius

VL, it does not matter what I think [which happens to be that multiple sub cosmi are possible though perhaps it can be argued not plausible enough to be taken for granted], it is the case that this is a significant model that must be appreciated in its own terms. Where, the thermodynamic-causal, energy flow view of time will then extend beyond our own singularity. In that context the beginning is pushed back but still will be finitely remote. And BTW, the older oscillating cosmos model runs out of thermodynamic steam eventually. KF kairosfocus

So do you believe that is it most probable that other universes have popped-up, and continue to do so, and that there are therefore many universes, which may or may not be like ours? Viola Lee

VL, the context of discussion is necessarily involving modern cosmology and therefore the fluctuation universe model. Once we take what you say you know seriously, causal-thermodynamic, thus temporal process continues beyond the point of our local universe's singularity. As that has a corner of the debate, it is reasonable to argue in that light as was done for several years with you present. In short, this is a key model of the past of origins that needs to be addressed, whichever model of origins turns out to be more or less correct. This model brings with it the issue of an onward past without limit, which BTW can be counted in years for convenience as finite stages and using the singularity as zero point [rather than transition i BC to 1 AD, or exhausting Julian date and projecting negative values etc] thus bringing in negative numbers in the count. So, they all come in the door together. KF kairosfocus

KF you write, " We both know that the cosmological discussion of a quantum foam etc or the like where sub cosmi like ours are held to pop up as fluctuations, is a continuation of causal-thermodynamic thus temporal reasoning." So you think our universe came about by popping up as a continuation of causal-thermodynamics? - True? That is, you think that time as we know was also passing before our universe came into existence? - True? Note well: I'm not discussing the infinite/finite past issue. I'm discussing the issue of whether time existed before our universe began in the same way it is passing now in our universe. Viola Lee

Q:

VL: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell Q: Yes, but his observation is incomplete: fools, fanatics, charlatans, and . . . eyewitnesses.

Prezactly. KF kairosfocus

PPS, We both know that the cosmological discussion of a quantum foam etc or the like where sub cosmi like ours are held to pop up as fluctuations, is a continuation of causal-thermodynamic thus temporal reasoning. That is the precise reason why its transfinite past extension becomes problematic. There is no room to obfuscate the need for a finitely remote necessary being as reality root. kairosfocus

VL, now you know why I use an abstract count of epochs. The point is, causal-temporal space is often held infinite in the past, as you know as you were there when it was debated. Such, however counted, cannot be transfinite in the past. And yes, we can ask questions about what is the nature of eternity or whatever, all we know is it is there as necessary so eternal being must underlie reality as its root. We do not get a world from non being and circular retro-causation is the same in disguise. That only leaves a necessary being world root, which we can therefore regard as warranted so objectively known to be the case. That we know very little about that different order, we see through a glass darkly, does not obfuscate or distract from what we do know and what we do know is pivotal regarding ultimate origin. KF PS: Spotty Internet kairosfocus

Some documentation. Sometimes I save my posts. In a thred with BA a year ago, I found this.

ET writes, “The problem is thinking in terms of space-time (infinity) and applying it before space-time existed.” I’m just talking about the mathematics of infinity. I agree with you that space-time as we know it in our universe can’t be extrapolated back before or outside our universe, whatever that means.

And in a comment to you, I wrote, "First, I already said to ET above that I don't think we know at all what the nature of time might be outside our universe. I'm just discussing this from a mathematical point of view." And to you,

Also above I wrote (and this is something I have said every time this subject has come up, "I don’t think we know at all what the nature of time might be outside our universe. I’m just discussing this from a mathematical point of view." I am making no arguments about what real time might be: I am just discussing the notion of time as modelled by the negative integers.

So I think I've been consistent about making this distinction. Viola Lee

OK, then my point is that it is an unjustified extrapolation to think that time as we know it in our universe applies to whatever something came before our universe. Time as we know it involves a set of causally connected moments that at least at the macro level can be modeled by a number line. I don't think we are justified at all in thinking that same kind of linear progression of events went on before the universe came into being. So the model of time on a number line really only applies to our universe. That is why my position in all our previous discussions was that we weren't really talking about real time–we were using the language of time, as a model, to talk about the mathematics of infinity. Viola Lee

VL, The argument does not reference the beginning of the universe. EDTA

Vividbleau @424

“objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist, “ VL is the above true?

LOL Viola Lee @425,

We have no evidence about these things, so we have nothing to base an objective truth on.

Wishful thinking. We have tons of evidence: logical, experiential, revelatory, historical, and natural.

That’s not what I believe. It is what many here believe: i.e., Christianity is the only true religion.

It's my belief that authentic Christianity is the opposite of religion. If you can construct a general definition that encompasses all religions, including motivation, you'll be in a position to see why I would make this assertion. My unanswered question from 292 and 318 will give you a clue: "Do you know what charge was used by the Romans to convict and kill Christians?"

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.” — Bertrand Russell

Yes, but his observation is incomplete: fools, fanatics, charlatans, and . . . eyewitnesses.

VL @397. . . how could we get any evidence that one set of beliefs is true, or not. Without a way to test, how could we tell?

Ahh. Let me list some of the tests: • Exhibit profound wisdom, coherence, consistency, purpose • Doing things that only God can do • Predicting events that only God could predict • Knowing things that only God could know • Fruit of profoundly transformed lives for the better • Personal experience, revelation, preceded by willingness to try • A surplus of imitators, frauds, charlatans, and phonies • Unexpected aspects that differ from natural and typical social behaviors -Q Querius

Hmmm. I didn't say indefinitely in the line of mine you quoted. But the argument for the finitude of the past did assume that it went back past the beginning of the universe, didn't it? Viola Lee

VL,

...so the question of thinking of time as continuing on in a linear fashion before that point is not applicable.

Since the argument for the finitude of the past does not assume that time goes back indefinitely--that would be silly--, that does not seem to be a valid objection to the argument. (You are a very skeptical person, I find!) EDTA

The word "objective" is used in multiple ways around here. What I mean is that we don't have any evidence to base objective truths about the mysteries of existence in the sense of common experiences that we can use to determine if something is true. Why is there a universe like ours? Why does consciousness exist, and how does it interact with the physical world? What is there besides the universe, or was before the universe. We have no evidence about these things, so we have nothing to base an objective truth on. Viola Lee

VL “My perspective is incoherent to you because it is not framed in your perspective” No it is in incoherent to me because it is indeed illogical, incoherent, self refuting and contradictory. Ones perspective does not nullify rationality nor abrogate the laws of logic. “objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist, “ VL is the above true? Vivid vividbleau

EDTA, first, my remarks to KF at 421 apply here, also: the integers as a model for time cease to become applicable before the beginning of the universe, so the question of thinking of time as continuing on in a linear fashion before that point is not applicable. It can be an exercise in the mathematics of infinity, but not something that can tell us anything metaphysical about whatever existed "before" our universe. As to your second question, I have no idea, and I don't thing "converted" is the right word. In various forums over the years I have found people who have appreciated what I've had to say and how I said it. Also, one of the values of discussions is one learns things about what one believes by articulating their thoughts, so I'm sure I have influenced others, in part by being a part of their exploring their own thoughts, and been influenced by others, on these matters. Viola Lee

re 420, to KF. Thanks for the lecture about things I already know, KF, but not relevant to my point, which is that the nature and flow of time in our universe can't be extrapolated back before our universe began. That is very unlikely to be the case, and certainly nothing we have any evidence for. So thinking about the number line as a model of time that extends back past the start of our universe is a fallacious idea, I think. Viola Lee

VL, I was just offering up a non-cultural, non-historically-based thing that we might be able to find agreement on. Yes, it does deal with time, but if just defined as a succession of moments of some size, that does not seem controversial...we shouldn't need to know everything about the nature of time to see that it cannot be past-infinite... May I ask how many individuals, initially dogmatic about metaphysical matters, you have succeeded in converting to metaphysically-agnostic? EDTA

VL, time is primarily a thermodynamic concept, before/after -- thus too simultaneity -- is about causal flow and energy constraints. Thus, entropy is pivotal to time. Then too we have regular cyclical processes starting with pendulums and water clocks or graded candles then mechanical clocks which we then harness to give interval scaling with in principle analogue flow. Then of course relativity enters and we get spacetime, with simultaneity influenced by speed of light constraints. BTW, last I checked, time is the most precisely measured quantity. KF kairosfocus

SA you write, "If you accept my explanation of the objective nature of the philosophical search, then you should say that. If you don’t accept, then you should say why." Too many posts have gone by: can you explain again what your explanation is, or point to the post in which you stated it? Viola Lee

VL

But you’re the one who brought up Wilhelm Schmidt’s theory of primitive monotheism!

You asked the question in 392. I answered.

How am I jumping to a different subject by responding to something you said???

By avoiding entirely the refutation of your view that I provided, which was the original topic and jumping to the question of religious development. The topic that was being discussed was the nature of metaphysical, religious and philosophical belief. If you accept my explanation of the objective nature of the philosophical search, then you should say that. If you don't accept, then you should say why. Silver Asiatic

re 408, to SA: You wrote.

"But I’ll mention this also, VL – you quickly jumped to a different topic after I pointed out that you are using objective truth to establish your worldview. It’s not subjective, as you had claimed. Running after an entirely different topic is not the best way to pursue that understanding, but if you are reflecting on what I said, that is great – no need to respond. I just don’t think it makes sense to drop that one thing and start pursuing the history and development of religion.

But you're the one who brought up Wilhelm Schmidt’s theory of primitive monotheism! How am I jumping to a different subject by responding to something you said??? Viola Lee

re 412, to EDTA: Hi EDTA. We don’t know what the nature of time is, or if that concept even makes sense, applied to whatever came “before” or is “outside” of our universe. All of my discussion with you and others was about using the integers as a model for time, but I’m sure I offered the disclaimer that it was just the mathematics that I was interested in because I don’t really think we can use the integers as a model for time past the point where we believe our universe again. So I was never discussing real metaphysics in those discussions. I think if one went back and looked at those discussions one would find that I tried to be clear about that. Viola Lee

VL,

I think my continued concern is that people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong about religion is one of the most divisive forces in the world. If people were less attached to their metaphysical dogmas I think the world would be a better place.

EDTA

Right now we (in the US anyway) are arguing over basics that we once had agreement on, like which extreme end of the political spectrum is going to be in charge (shades of 1920/30s Germany, btw). We only got into this predicament after the US’ religious core decayed beyond a certain point.

1: We are seeing, of course today's form of the black legend. Somehow, RELIGION (and especially Christian faith) is singled out as the or a leading cause of war, oppression etc all because of intolerant ill informed dogmatism on dubious metaphysics matters. 2: In actuality, a much better case can be made for lawless oligarchy as the root of distress. Sometimes, that has been through church leaders failing to live by the gospel's integral ethics. Most of the time however, it is power without effective accountability and with breakdown of cultural buttresses of lawfulness that led to and yet leads to rapaciousness. 3: For instance, the undeniably single worst holocaust in history is advancing globally at another million victims per week, on a base of 800+ millions in 40+ years, likely 1.4+ billions, the slaughter of our living posterity in the womb, often under slogans about right to choose or the like. 4: So heinous and manifest is this that it marks our era as the darkest of ages, and we can readily see why this is a pons asinorum. If someone cannot recocnise and acknowledge this case, for cause, we have no good reason to trust their moral or intellectual judgement. And, given how corrosively corrupting blood guilt is, we can readily see why this watershed issue has corrupted every aspect of policy, government and politics. 5: So, we know whose report is likely to be twisted and ruinous, not excepting US politics. 6: Given such widespread warping and its penumbra of tainting, it is not surprising -- though it is sad, to see that we often see confession by projection on root reality issues. So, s/he who dares to point to first truths and first duties is suspect, stigmatised and accused, evading the little matter of objective warrant and the other little one of fairness. 7: Once this pernicious mindset is entrenched, one who insists on pointing to such first truths and duties will often be perceived in terms of incendiary, toxic scapegoated stereotypes: fundy, extreme right wing theocratic Christofascist or the like. 8: Neatly, this allows locking out without ever having to consider the merits seriously. 9: Yes, that is the fallacy of the hostile, closed, bigoted mind, precisely what those who go down this road would brand others with. Hence, cognitive dissonance defended by projection to the other. 10: Now, I am not saying any particular person here at UD is like that, I am pointing out a toxic cultural dynamic. From which, we need to turn away. 11: Where, worldviews analysis on comparative difficulties and taking principled stances in that light would be the very opposite of untutored, indoctrinated dogmatism. Such involves logic, warrant and evaluation of fallacies. 12: As far as political spectra go, the Left-Right model started with U-shaped legislature halls and seating the monarchists in the place of honour, on the Speaker's right. So, the increasingly disreputable were more and more leftward. Which, came to be associated with radical socialist ideologies. And yes, such are legion. 13: Then, after 1916 - 18, the monarchical empires collapsed, and the right had no real definition. 14: In Germany, for instance we saw a National [vs Lenin's International] Socialist German [victim group to be rescued] Worker's/Labour Party, NSDAP, Nazi for short. So, as it was right of Stalin, who in his mind was the centre of the political world, it was deemed right wing. Mussolini, a socialist, was similarly deemed right wing, fascism; never mind the common socialisation theme, statist political messianism and myth of unprecedented crisis crying out for a man of destiny superman political messiah above and beyond law. 15: Instead, a sounder historically anchored view starts with autocracy [a temporary state, one man cannot rule a nation by himself] > oligarchy [lawless vs lawful] || > Constitutional Democracy > Minimal state libertarianism > state of nature or anarchy [so intolerable it repels to the other end]. The || wall implies that until printing, vernacular Bibles, literacy spreading on that, newspapers, tracts, pamphlets and bills, coffee houses etc there was no effective basis for that unstable but buttress-able balance, Constitutional Democracy. 16: What is happening in the US and elsewhere, is deep rooted, entrenched subversion and usurpation pursuing the manifest design of lawless ideological oligarchy, effectively a new form of idolatrous political messianism. 17: it is time to take up a naturally upright and straight plumb line and challenge the crooked yardsticks and their champions. KF kairosfocus

KF @ 407, Excellent! Thank you very much for posting that. EDTA

VL,

I think my continued concern is that people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong about religion is one of the most divisive forces in the world. If people were less attached to their metaphysical dogmas I think the world would be a better place.

Right now we (in the US anyway) are arguing over basics that we once had agreement on, like which extreme end of the political spectrum is going to be in charge (shades of 1920/30s Germany, btw). We only got into this predicament after the US' religious core decayed beyond a certain point. EDTA

VL, Sorry to bring this up again, but I must, as it is extremely relevant: In offering that argument for the finitude of the past, I am offering a metaphysical position that is not based on anything cultural, no historical claims, nothing of that sort. The argument is just a philosophical/mathematical way to see that the past must be finite. That could be your _first_ solid metaphysical position, and it avoids the things you consider problematic. EDTA

VL, actually, your claim is incoherent because you assert an objective truth claim that implies denial of such claims. I have offered to you suggestions as to how you can raise concerns, doubts and beliefs etc without such self referential incoherence. But so far, you reject them or side step them at the least, showing that arguably you are actually committed to the claim that is self referential and incoherent. KF PS, note:

[387:] What one can safely say is that we are error prone, that the subject is controversial or difficult, that particular errors are identified or that one has doubts on claims so far [preferably with specific reasons] or the like. BTW, an identified particular error on a domain of knowledge, D, is an objective point of knowledge, ~d in D. Of course, to claim that for all existing or possible claims d, ~d obtains instead, is to assert a global albeit negative knowledge claim in D. Self referentiality is a real bear in analysis, reasoning and epistemology.

kairosfocus

VL

My perspective is incoherent to you because it is not framed in your perspective: what you are saying is that they way to be coherent is to agree with you.

I pointed out that you're making objective, evidence-based statements but then just saying you've got a personal, subjective opinion and the topic is unknowable. To make that coherent, you have to accept there is evidence-based, objective fact and truths that can be discussed and analyzed. This does not eliminate all the mystery of life and the world, but it means that we can use the tools of reason and truths to get understanding. Silver Asiatic

VL You responded to WJM's question with this:

I think my continued concern is that people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong about religion is one of the most divisive forces in the world. If people were less attached to their metaphysical dogmas I think the world would be a better place.

But you've said that's just a subjective philosophical opinion and you don't know if it is true or false.

However, my position is that objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist

As above, you don't know if that philosophical statement is true or false - so I think WJM's question stands. You just have mysteries, subjective opinions and no objective truths in your philosophy - how does that help? How can you advance in knowledge or wisdom about life? Anybody can accept that you have various opinions, of whatever kind - but they are inaccessible to reason and logic and objective fact, since you say they're just subjective and based on unknowable mysteries. Silver Asiatic

VL

What high costs and big risks does religion have in a culture?

I think Jesus paid a high cost. For a contemporary version, the life of St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta or St. Padre Pio ... good starting points. Lots of sacrifice and suffering for a non-worldly ideal. Evolution has nothing to offer on that. But I'll mention this also, VL - you quickly jumped to a different topic after I pointed out that you are using objective truth to establish your worldview. It's not subjective, as you had claimed. Running after an entirely different topic is not the best way to pursue that understanding, but if you are reflecting on what I said, that is great - no need to respond. I just don't think it makes sense to drop that one thing and start pursuing the history and development of religion. Silver Asiatic

CD, I have decided, on observing the onward exchanges, that it is worth some time to respond regarding Mackie's concession, as it draws out some of the underlying patterns and issues in the exchanges here and elsewhere. Let us therefore notice, from Mackie's post humous The Miracle of Theism, the guarded, reluctant retraction of the earlier confident argument that the logical form of the problem of evil was decisive against theism. That is, in two separate passages:

[W]e can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. [--> explicitly, a concession, and a big one] But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. [p. 154] . . . . [A]ll forms of the free will defence fail [--> really? We shall see . . . ], and since this defence alone had any chance of success there is no plausible theodicy on offer [--> note improper conflation of a defense with theodicy]. We cannot, indeed, take the problem of evil as a conclusive disproof of traditional theism, [--> the buried headline and lead!] because, as we have seen, there is some flexibility in its doctrines, and in particular in the additional premisses needed to make the problem explicit. [--> a key point of Plantinga was that the alleged contradiction was not explicit so an implied or invited premise had to be identified] There may be some way of adjusting these which avoids an internal contradiction with-out giving up anything essential to theism.

[--> better, atheists etc have not found such an additional premise: a necessary truth or a construct acceptable to theists as what informed theists actually believe and so the logical form of the problem of evils as advertised for centuries by atheists etc, fails to deliver as advertised]

But none has yet been clearly presented [--> he disputes Plantinga], and there is a strong presumption

[--> not, demonstration! He confesses to a faith commitment here as he cannot claim a proof]

that theism cannot be made coherent without a serious change in at least one of its central doctrines. [p. 176] [J L Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (1982, i.e. post mortem), pp. 154, 176.]

We can readily see: 1: that he has indeed conceded the logical problem of evil, and we can discern his general attitude to philosophical theism from his term, "doctrines," a term that obviously suggests dogmas and dogmatism, when premises would be more apt -- so we must discount for that attitude in parsing his concession. 2: As he tries to dismiss theodicies, only defenses are on offer, but he will not here call Plantinga by name. 3: When he speaks of "flexibility" and "the additional premisses needed to make the problem [of evil] explicit" he clearly implies that Plantinga is right to note that there is no explicit contradiction, and that 4: to get a contradiction, additional propositions are needed, which need to be necessarily true and/or acceptable to academically serious ethical theists -- on pain of, yes, strawman fallacy (a, sadly, commonly encountered problem). 5: That Mackie manifestly cannot produce such a necessary or acceptable augmenting proposition -- or he would triumphantly announce it -- tells the rest of the story. For, instead, 6: he is forced to concede, tellingly, "We cannot, indeed, take the problem of evil as a conclusive disproof of traditional theism" . . . in short, the original claim that that had happened, has failed. 7: Which is all we need to know the true balance on the merits, despite his assertions that Plantinga's arguments fail. For, 8: had he a decisive refutation, Mackie would not have had to leave the door open like that. 9: No wonder, then, that we can see how, Michael Palmer, in The Atheist's Primer, admits:

Mackie, in his The Miracle of Theism (1982) concedes that Plantinga has shown how God and evil can co-exist – that he has successfully resolved a logical problem

[--> oh, nothing more than showing among professional philosophers that the claimed irrefutable incoherence and impossibility of God due to the logical form of the problem of evil fails; grade D, work harder!]

– but that the substantive issue still remains unanswered. After all, as Plantinga himself has made clear, a defence is not a theodicy,

[--> but it opens up reasonable confidence in God and a possible way to better understand his key attributes, so too the value of our responsible, conscience guided freedom to reason, decide, love, know etc]

and the reason why evil exists at all still remains to be explained.[Lutterworths (2012), p. 64.]

. . . so, too, we see in the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, the almost in passing remark:

Planting stipulates that, in order to show theism to be self-contradictory and thus irrational, the burden is on the non-theistic critic to utilize propositions that are essential to theism, or necessarily true, or logical consequences of such propositions [--> another way to be necessary]. Clearly, there is no logical problem for the theist if he is not committed to each proposition in the [theistic] set [as presented and/or augmented by atheologians] or if the set does not really entail a contradiction. The logical argument faded as theists were generally successful in rejecting the assumption that free will is compatibilist in nature as well as the assumption that God must eliminate all evil [to be good, omnipotent and omniscient]. Mackie’s concession, however, comes short of full surrender:

[W]e can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether [the Free Will Defence] offers a real solution of the problem is another question. (1982: 154)

Following this admission, most thinkers transitioned to the evidential argument from evil while some continued searching for a viable logical argument.[Oxford (2013), eds Bullivant & Ruse, in Ch. 5, "The Problem of Evil," by Michael L. Peterson.]

and, in a recent Reddit post, by u/deleted under the r/DebateReligion subreddit, essentially the same admission is given as the majority view of relevant philosophers:

The logical problem of evil was supposed to show that a three-trait god (all-knowing, all-powerful, maximally-good) was logically impossible. After Plantinga vs. Mackie, I think most philosophers would agree that Plantinga at least showed there was no logical impossibility. However, there still probably remained a great unlikelihood,

[--> actually not, as once God is a serious candidate necessary being, once such is credibly possible he is credibly actual. Further, those who object based on inductive forms, are apparently in effect attaching themselves to a compatibilist form of determinism, which is hugely controversial and arguably self referentialy incoherent. For, they assume the credibility of their own reasoning but imply or invite that our apparent freedom, responsibility and rationality, thus ability to credibly argue and know are in fact driven and controlled by antecedent forces that are irrelevant to our choosing and predetermine our behaviour, thought, argument etc. If they do not, they need to explain ______ including why the Atheist's Handbook argues in that light.]

and that unlikelihood is known as the evidential problem of evil . . .

10: So, we freely conclude that the holder of the field is Plantinga's: [2b:] “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” 11: This directly shows that the theistic set is coherent as if there is a good reason to do so an utterly wise God would know it and an utterly good God would act to gain in creation a whole new category of virtue due to genuine, significant freedom to love, reason, think, warrant, know and decide. That is, 12: We see [5a:] “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Where, 13: the notion that significant freedom can be antecedently programmed and determined -- compatibilism -- is false on its face. Which, arguably, is tantamount to transworld depravity: no world with significantly free thus ought guided creatures capable of moral, intellectual and cultural good is possible in which across the span of reality all such creatures at all times only use freedom to the good. (And yes, equally arguably for Judaeo-Christian theism, heaven is part of a package deal, with an associated world of soul test.) So, 14: the logical form of the problem of evils is dead and conceded to be dead. 15: As noted, the inductive form faces two key challenges, [a] coherently defining good/evil without implying that the world/reality root is indeed recognisably the inherently good, utterly wise, necessary and maximally great being and creator God of generic ethical theism; also [b] arguing without self referentially reducing our rational, responsible, morally governed significant freedom to grand delusion or utter dubiousness. 16: Objectors to the God of ethical theism are therefore invited to answer the challenges __________ and/or to explain why the Mackie concession fails __________ . (Predictably, hard to do or it would have been done by 1981 by the leading modern proponent of the attempt to refute theism by appealing to the repulsiveness of evil.) KF kairosfocus

If people were less attached to their metaphysical dogmas I think the world would be a better place.

Now that is a belief. But definitely not justified. The modern world is the result of specific beliefs taking hold. Now the modern world has lots of shortcomings but can anyone point to a better time and place. Obviously No! Somehow the world has gotten better in many ways. Shouldn't one try to understand this? While all cultures may have something to offer for everyone, nearly all have left their populations stagnated over the centuries. The modern world arose in a small place a few centuries ago and then spread gradually to surrounding geographical areas and to their colonies and then suddenly to a lot of the world. jerry

re 402: WJM asks a question: "However, I wonder why you also have in your personal set of beliefs the belief that no one can know metaphysical truths. You’ve repeated that several times. If you don’t mind my asking, what value does that add to your perspective and choice to live in the mystery of you, yourself, not knowing?" Good question. I think my continued concern is that people thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong about religion is one of the most divisive forces in the world. If people were less attached to their metaphysical dogmas I think the world would be a better place. Viola Lee

I have responded to this charge multiple times. My explanation is not accepted. We are looking at things from different perspectives. My perspective is incoherent to you because it is not framed in your perspective: what you are saying is that they way to be coherent is to agree with you. Doesn't work. We disagree about fundamental things. C'est la vie. Viola Lee

KF “The self referential incoherence is blatant. But, it will be predictably side stepped. KF” Of course it will it’s called cognitive dissonance or maybe it’s a lack of cognition ability “objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist, “ It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the self referential incoherence of the above. Vivid vividbleau

VL, You've decided to "live in the mystery," so to speak. Perfectly valid way for you to choose to live and arrange your beliefs, IMO. However, I wonder why you also have in your personal set of beliefs the belief that no one can know metaphysical truths. You've repeated that several times. If you don't mind my asking, what value does that add to your perspective and choice to live in the mystery of you, yourself, not knowing? William J Murray

Vivid, yes. The self referential incoherence is blatant. But, it will be predictably side stepped. KF kairosfocus

VL, Pardon, but there you go again -- and it is not merely me speaking "as usual," you really need to face the self referentiality issue:

you twice refer to my opinions not being supported by objective truths. However, my position is that objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist, so your objection, from that point of view, carries no weight.

See the literally central claim to objective truth, hiding in oh it's just my opinion? A claim that denies objective truth to a realm you have become dismissive of. But instead, you have claimed privileged knowledge of the realm. BTW, disagreement and diverse opinion does not imply absence of objective truth or actual reality. It simply means, we err and disagree about things close to our hearts. So, we need to seek and follow first principles and first facts. While, not falling into selective hyperskepticism, as if one dismisses what one ought not, it is typically because one swallows what s/he didn't ought to: crooked yardsticks. Meanwhile there is on the table a laying out of a coherent framework for ethical theism, contrary to your dismissiveness above. And, the attempt to use the logical problem of evils to blunt it failed fifty years ago. Those who then switched to inductive forms then run into the challenges that rational, responsible, morally governed significant freedom is at the heart of our vaunted rationality. So, we need an adequate framework for that that does not dissolve into self referential incoherence or manifest error. The ability to identify good and evil is one facet. The implication post Hume that only at reality root can we bridge is and ought is another. That that root is finitely remote is another again, i.e. there was no infinite, year by year successive transfinite causal temporal past able to reach to now because of the implicit infeasible supertask of transfinite traverse. That we need necessary being at world/reality root becomes another. So does the evident fine tuning of our observed cosmos, fitted to C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. And more. All of these support the point that there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. If you doubt, simply provide another ______ and address comparative difficulties __ especially without falling afoul of self referential incoherence. I have already laid out above, what we can say without such self-refutation, on this and many other philosophically tinged matters:

[387:] What one can safely say is that we are error prone, that the subject is controversial or difficult, that particular errors are identified or that one has doubts on claims so far [preferably with specific reasons] or the like. BTW, an identified particular error on a domain of knowledge, D, is an objective point of knowledge, ~d in D. Of course, to claim that for all existing or possible claims d, ~d obtains instead, is to assert a global albeit negative knowledge claim in D. Self referentiality is a real bear in analysis, reasoning and epistemology.

BTW, we are probably both able to recall the 70's and 80's, where economics was widely viewed as tangled in hopelessly tangled debates. Much of that was driven by the ideological push of Marxism, and a lot more by starry eyed progressives who imagined their Keynesianism would solve the problems. Across the 80's the recession to break the great inflation with stagnation, the exposure of how the media sought to ideologically manipulate news [especially in the US -- what has been happening recently is just they have gone even farther], the breakdown of the Communist central planning and fall of the iron curtain as the cold war, the real slow burn WW3, was won, revealed a very different picture. For, von Mises was right in the 1920's, yes, before Keynes. The market is central to the economy, and centralised planning is self defeating due to problem of valuation and required information processing. Debates there yet are, but the sense that oh there is nothing there to be objectively known has evaporated. We can point to the breakdown of classical physics that itself came about by revolution, indeed that is how revolution took up the meaning of political and institutional upheaval. From the 1880's to the 1930's there was a transformation, one that has left us with many mysteries and has firmly entrenched the pessimistic induction. Our science, though objectively tested by empirical means, is subject to radical revision or replacement. The notion of settled science boils down to a blind appeal to the celebrity scientists or the lab coat clad voices of officialdom. As, more and more are seeing with this pandemic, and as, worryingly the incidence of cardiovascular system damage may well point to. So, to first principles and first duties of right reason we must go. Likewise, to realising that error exists is a self evident, undeniable first truth that establishes that there are knowable, even utterly certain, truths. This already shatters relativisms, subjectivism and the like. As was pointed out long ago for cause but which was of course side stepped. From such humble first truths, much can be done, much can be learned. If, we are willing. KF kairosfocus

SA / EDTA Thought you might find this from Tim Keller of interest “Skeptics believe that any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true. But this objection is itself a religious belief. It assumes God is unknowable, or God is loving but not wrathful, or God is an impersonal force rather than a person.. All these are unprovable faith assumptions. In addition, their proponents believe they have a superior way to view things…. Their view is also an exclusive claim about the nature of spiritual reality. If all (exclusive ) views are to be discouraged this one should be as well.” Vivid vividbleau

If we cannot test the details at the fringe, perhaps we can test the core: look for basic things that have a solid grounding. For instance, that infusing large amounts of information into matter requires a mind of some sort. But it sounds as if you have given up the whole project, with no desire to search any further. I guess I just have this urge to keep digging no matter what, despite the difficulties posed by human nature. EDTA

EDTA, you write, "human beings will always invent variations, possibly in proportion to the inability to test the details. " I agree. My position is that the probability of testing the details of our religious metaphysical beliefs is extremely small, if not zero, so the likelihood that we will invent stories is almost certain. You write, "But that troublesome bit of human nature says nothing about whether part or all of the idea is true or false, or to what degree. How could it?" But if we can't test metaphysical details, then yes, how could we get any evidence that one set of beliefs is true, or not. If you strip away the cultural specificities, the Australian aborigenes might have the the core ideas right, or the Taoist, or the Hindus with the numerous personified forces, or the Native Americans, or .... Without a way to test, how could we tell? This is why the best conclusion to come to is that the specifics of the various religions are all wrong. One might look at commonalities among all religions (as comparative religion does) but even there the most likely explanation is that those commonalities reflect common aspects of human social and psychological needs, not some common access to ontological truths. Viola Lee

Perhaps in a different thread, but I thought I replied to your question: Whether one idea is true or none, human beings will always invent variations, possibly in proportion to the inability to test the details. But that troublesome bit of human nature says nothing about whether part or all of the idea is true or false, or to what degree. How could it? EDTA

re 393, to SA: SA writes, "The original religions worldwide were monotheistic." I seriously doubt that. I have a degree in anthropology with an emphasis on religion, and have studied primitive religions. I'm not sure what "original" religions are being referred to, or what the source of this claim are, but I don't think this is true. I looked at the Wikipedia article on Schmidt. One comment was , "On Primitive Revelation, Eric J. Sharpe has said: "Schmidt did believe the emergent data of historical ethnology to be fundamentally in accord with biblical revelation. . . A revised and augmented version of this apologetical monograph was published in an English translation as Primitive Revelation (Sharpe 1939)."[5]" I don't think an apologetic approach "fundamentally in accord with biblical revelation" is likely to be the "pre-eminent study on the historical development of religion." Also, you write, “That’s a far bigger problem for atheism to deal with. Evolution has no answer for it. Religion does not confer adaptive advantage – on the contrary, religion always comes with a very high cost and big risks which argues directly against selection for fitness.” First, I’ll remind you that I am not a materialist, which is often mistaken as equivalent to atheism. But with that said, I don’t think this has anything to do with evolution. We’re talking about human beings, irrespective of how they got here, going back tens of thousands of years, and especially concerning the past hundreds of years for which we have written and observational evidence of religion in many cultures. Religion plays an important role in all societies. It is often the core around which social structure and stability is build. Usually the metaphysical portions (gods, spirit, etc.) are linked with numerous beliefs about norms, cultural roles, social cohesion, etc. From a culture point of view, it is not correct to say that “religion always comes with a very high cost and big risks.” What high costs and big risks does religion have in a culture? Viola Lee

SA: We talk about such things frequently here. From a Darwin perspective, you’re right. The genocide of an entire race of people, putting them in gas chambers is not more evil than being dishonest about perfume. That’s the barbaric nature of materialist atheism in a nutshell.

But I am not talking about the Darwinist, materialist or atheist perspective. I am talking about evil being ranked on a gut reaction perspective. Leave aside everyone’s belief system and worldviews. Is there anyone who doesn’t think that killing children is a worse evil than a white lie? And why is that? I propose that it is a ranking based on a personal gut reaction. Scamp

VL

But I also claim that all philosophical and religious metaphysical beliefs are not true, and for that I think I have some good evidence.

This is the point I was getting at. You're making a philosophical statement here, but making it an "evidence based" proposal. You're pointing to an objective standard (evidence) and not just a subjective idea. Now there's something to discuss. Is your evidence good or bad? That's an objective, fact-based approach. So, it's not merely subjective. Otherwise, if it was just your subjective opinion - there's nothing anybody could say much about it since you can based your opinion on nothing at all. But again, here you're pointing to a "truth" - based on "evidence". Now we can analyze and discuss and possibly learn. But that also means, you have to be open to the fact that philosophy can be (as yours is) based on evidence and not just on subjective opinion.

how do you account for all these wrong system

Wilhelm Schmidt's theory of primitive monotheism still stands as the pre-eminent study on the historical development of religion. The original religions worldwide were monotheistic. In the same way that mutations tend to break down an organism over time, mutations in religion broke the original revelation into polytheism: idolatry of various kinds, totemism, fetish, mythology, ancestor worship, nature worship, pantheism, etc. It's the result of sin and the rebellion within the human heart against the revelation of God - but even within the pagan polytheisms, there's a single, supreme God - which traces back to the original revelation. It's more of a question as to why is there this common belief in all tribes, continents, nations, races, ethnicities. That's a far bigger problem for atheism to deal with. Evolution has no answer for it. Religion does not confer adaptive advantage - on the contrary, religion always comes with a very high cost and big risks which argues directly against selection for fitness. Silver Asiatic

re 389, to SA. Well, SA, I appreciate you sticking with this. I wrote, “No, I am not claiming or implying “objective knowledge on the subjects in question. [that is, metaphysical beliefs] I’ve made that very clear, I think.” You replied,

“Your philosophical views are not founded on objective truths, but on subjective opinions. That’s your belief. What that means is, you could be wrong and those you disagree with could be right. You have said it, you don’t know if your views are true or not. You state: “we don’t know and can’t, and that our analytic attempts to understand the mysteries are misguided. So, you could be wrong about that. You give a philosophical opinion, unsupported by objective truth – so it could be wrong.

Yes, I could be wrong. Before I go further, let me continue to emphasize that I am talking about metaphysical beliefs, such as the existence of gods of any sort, or the nature of some reality before and/or behind the universe we know, or the nature of consciousness. That is what the word “mysteries” is referring to in this discussion right now. With that said, in your quotes above you twice refer to my opinions not being supported by objective truths. However, my position is that objective truths about these mysteries don’t exist, so your objection, from that point of view, carries no weight. In my opinion, your subjective opinion that there are objective truths is just that: a subjective opinion, no different than any other philosophical or religious opinions about the mysteries of life and the universe. You write, “So in the end, it might be nice to know your opinions but they do not advance our knowledge except that we know what VL’s opinion is and we also know that on your own standard, you don’t know if your philosophy is right or wrong.” True. All any of us can do is share our opinions about the mysteries and perhaps find others with whom we can share our beliefs, or even influence people to have opinions more like ours. You write, “So, when you make declarative statements, you do not have an objective reason for affirming or denying them. “ True. I addressed that in the paragraph that begins “With that said ...” =============== As I’ve thought about this, I realize a distinction that I’d like to make clearer. I don’t believe (this is what I am claiming) that these mysteries of existence are knowable, and that thus my own beliefs about the mysteries are merely speculative, as are everyone’s: I choose to hold my speculative beliefs as true for me, very vaguel,y for various reasons, but I don’t, and can’t, claim that they are ontologically true. But I also claim that all philosophical and religious metaphysical beliefs are not true, and for that I think I have some good evidence. The fact that so many different religious perspectives exist shows that creating and adopting religious stories is a fundamental human need. I also think there is evidence from the psychology of belief systems that supports the idea that people build and defend belief systems, and once they get committed to a way of believing, starting with being a child, they are not likely, in many cases, especially when surrounded by like-minded people and particularly if they feel threatened by the existence of other possible beliefs pressing in on them, to change their beliefs or even entertain the thought of others being right. So I think (and I’ve said his before) all such metaphysical systems are thus human inventions which, once embedded in a culture and passed on through the generations become as water is to the fish: such a part of people’s cognitive environment that they can’t even imagine thinking differently. And for those of you who protest that there might be one correct view, and all the rest are wrong, no one has responded to my question from posts above (stated somewhat differently than this): how do you account for all these wrong systems, and why do you think somehow your system escapes the conditions that make all the others wrong? Viola Lee

VL @ 386 "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell chuckdarwin

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches about the value and meaning of philosophy:

Now the reason why the philosopher is compared to the poet is that both are concerned with wonders. For the myths with which the poets deal are composed of wonders, and the philosophers themselves were moved to philosophize as a result of wonder. And since wonder stems from ignorance, they were obviously moved to philosophize in order to escape from ignorance. It is accordingly evident from this that "they pursued" knowledge, or diligently sought it, only for itself and not for any utility or usefulness.

So, philosophy begins with "wonder" - and that may rightly be viewed as having humility before the things we see or encounter. But wonder is caused by ignorance. And philosophy is the work we do to "escape from ignorance". Simply resting in the idea that our nature and origin and the meaning of things is "unknowable" leaves us in ignorance - and we should seek to escape from that condition.

Pythagoras, when asked what he professed himself to be, refused to call himself a wise man as his predecessors had done, because he thought this was presumptuous, but called himself a philosopher, i.e., a lover of wisdom.f 1 And from that time the name "wise man" was changed to "philosopher," and "wisdom" to "philosophy." This name also contributes something to the point under discussion, for that man seems to be a lover of wisdom who seeks wisdom, not for some other reason, but for itself alone. For he who seeks one thing on account of something else, has greater love for that on whose account he seeks than for that which he seeks. https://archive.org/details/AquinasCommentaryOnTheMetaphysics/Aquinas.CommentaryOnTheMetaphysicsOfAristotleI/page/n48/mode/1up

Contemplation is the greatest activity we can undertake and philosophy is the contemplation of reality in its highest form. So, we should see wisdom - that's the greatest work we can do. Theology is the highest form of contemplation where we put our minds, by faith, into the understanding of the highest possible reality - the Divine Being. Silver Asiatic

VL It might be helpful to sort this out.

No, I am not claiming or implying “objective knowledge on the subjects in question.” I’ve made that very clear, I think.

Your philosophical views are not founded on objective truths, but on subjective opinions. That's your belief. What that means is, you could be wrong and those you disagree with could be right. You have said it, you don't know if your views are true or not. You state:

we don’t know and can’t, and that our analytic attempts to understand the mysteries are misguided.

So, you could be wrong about that. You give a philosophical opinion, unsupported by objective truth - so it could be wrong. So in the end, it might be nice to know your opinions but they do not advance our knowledge except that we know what VL's opinion is and we also know that on your own standard, you don't know if your philosophy is right or wrong. So, when you make declarative statements, you do not have an objective reason for affirming or denying them. You'd have to accept that anything KF or myself says "could be right" and everything you say in opposition could be wrong. You simply don't know either way. In fact, I think you'd necessarily have to say that you have no objective basis upon which to disagree with us. Silver Asiatic

KF writes, as usual, "It is incoherent to assert, imply or invite the conclusion that objective knowledge in general, or regarding particular subjects of interest is impossible or unattainable or even unattained. As, all of these are claimed or implied objective knowledge on the subjects in question." No, I am not claiming or implying "objective knowledge on the subjects in question." I've made that very clear, I think. Also, I'm not talking about objective knowledge in general. I am talking about specific issues in metaphysics. Let's be clear about that also. Viola Lee

VL, the issue is, the narrator claims a privileged viewpoint which he has no right to. One, that is self referential and incoherent. It is incoherent to assert, imply or invite the conclusion that objective knowledge in general, or regarding particular subjects of interest is impossible or unattainable or even unattained. As, all of these are claimed or implied objective knowledge on the subjects in question. So, the claims, implications or invitations destroy themselves. What one can safely say is that we are error prone, that the subject is controversial or difficult, that particular errors are identified or that one has doubts on claims so far [preferably with specific reasons] or the like. BTW, an identified particular error on a domain of knowledge, D, is an objective point of knowledge, ~d in D. Of course, to claim that for all existing or possible claims d, ~d obtains instead, is to assert a global albeit negative knowledge claim in D. Self referentiality is a real bear in analysis, reasoning and epistemology. KF kairosfocus

I think being being absolutely sure that your perspective is right and there are no other true perspectives is wrong. We are all human beings wanting to have some structure for understanding the mysteries of existence. One solution ( to use the analogy of the blind man and the elephant that KF is fond of) is to believe that all the different approaches to the mysteries contain some value, even though they all are in some particular cultural context. The other solution is the on in my quote: radical humility and surrender to the mystery. That is, to recognize that we don't know and can't, and that our analytic attempts to understand the mysteries are misguided. Viola Lee

VL

I’m not guilty of what you wrote, but you are.

You're saying someone can be "guilty" for believing their own story? Or perhaps your story is "more correct" than anyone else's? Silver Asiatic

SA, you write,

“My story” says that I’m right and you’re wrong. “My story” says that there are no other good perspectives except my own. My personal, subjective storytelling says that I’m correct and you are not.

That's not what I believe. It is what many here believe: i.e., Christianity is the only true religion. I'm not guilty of what you wrote, but you are. Viola Lee

VL

I accept that the use of logic is a part of our rational abilities. I’ve always said that, multiple times. However, I don’t pretend, as you do, to know why.

The use of first principles of logic is an objective basis for rational analysis. We arrive at truths which transcend personal opinions.

That is your opinion. It’s no less an opinion than my opinions. We have, and live by, different metaphysical opinions.

If everything is merely subjective stories, then there's no reason for me to believe you and I can just disagree. "My story" says that I'm right and you're wrong. "My story" says that there are no other good perspectives except my own. My personal, subjective storytelling says that I'm correct and you are not. But that kills the idea that we are rational beings and we must arrive at truths about humanity and not merely be guided by our own personal storytelling. We have to be grounded in a shared reality. Otherwise, there can be no foundation for understanding. Silver Asiatic

Yes, SA that is what you seek. I have expressed my opinions about the limitations of that. KF says opinion is not warrant. I say that the warrant he thinks can be found can't in fact be found, and we have to live with uncertainty. I'm not trying to convince you of that, but I am trying to make it clear that alternate perspectives exist. You say, "They’re solid truths that transcend the individual – they come from God." That is your opinion. It's no less an opinion than my opinions. We have, and live by, different metaphysical opinions. You write, "The First Principles of Logic are not subjective stories. They are the foundation for reality and for human intelligence. From those first principles, we learn about the universe and about God." I accept that the use of logic is a part of our rational abilities. I've always said that, multiple times. However, I don't pretend, as you do, to know why. Viola Lee

VL

I realize the only proper response to existence is radical humility and surrender to the mystery.

This a profound notion and a very good one, in my view. The key ideas are humility and surrender. But I suggest there is a conflict if "the mystery" is unknowable ultimately and forever. The reason for this is because humility and surrender bow us down in a spirit of awe before something greater than ourselves. This is why Idolatry would be a vice or sin for humans. To bow ourselves down before a non-living rock, for example. Or to "surrender" to a block of wood, destroys our own integrity as human beings. We are far greater beings than rocks or wood carvings - so we can't rightly be humbled before them. We can't treat a dead tree branch as if it has the same, sacred integrity and value, as a living human being. So, humility always points to something greater. But if we are "humble before the unknowable mystery" - that's a problem because whatever is "possible to be known" in some way, is greater than an "unknowable force" that exists without love. If we are humble before God who is the perfect greatness of all things - wisdom and love especially, then we are acting rightly. If we're humbled before an impersonal "force" of some kind - then we're degrading ourselves. Silver Asiatic

VL

I have chosen the perspective that seems best to me, for multiple reasons, even though I understand that it is “my story” and not some definitive statement that I know is true.

In philosophical discussions, the task is a search for the truth about things. When we discover a truth, it has value for everyone. So, we discuss it objectively. We seek universal values that can help human life. If we find these to be true in an ultimate sense, then we can teach them to others. That's what Socrates did, and Aristotle and Confucius. Jesus took it farther from philosophical truths to divine teachings from God. But in all these cases, they weren't saying "this is my personal story". Yes, you're free to do that. But as you say, these are not "truths" that you're adhering to, but just your opinion. They cannot be taught to others as truths. But we do have truths about life, the universe and humanity that are not just personal stories. They're solid truths that transcend the individual - they come from God. You use those truths all the time when you try to rationally discuss things with people. The First Principles of Logic are not subjective stories. They are the foundation for reality and for human intelligence. From those first principles, we learn about the universe and about God. With that, saying that the attributes of God are entirely unknown is contradictory. Silver Asiatic

VL, >> they are things I choose to hold as true for and to me>> This defines opinion, not truth or warrant, you imply or invite the inference that there is no adequate warrant, but as these beliefs are themselves claiming or suggesting that they are true never mind the caveats put up, they fall under self referential incoherence. Opinion is not warranted truth. Is it your second order opinion that these beliefs are warranted or at the least as warranted as any other, if so why. If not, then recognise that what you may opine is a suggestion without grounds, and one that will run into self referential incoherence. >>even though I also realize that they might not actually be true.>> So then, kindly do not insist on making sweeping objective claims as I responded to above. Such claims are manifestly self referential and incoherent. KF kairosfocus

SA, yes. We did not walk away when quantum and relativity presented us with puzzles. Nor, the transfinite. For that matter, no one can give a precising definition of life. Instead we go by paradigm examples and family resemblance. For evils, post 1945, Hitler's 3rd Reich is a classic case of reference, though Stalin and Mao are comparably bad. Kant gave the Categorical Imperative, which is a good yardstick for identifying principal evils. We can go on to evils that do not arise directly from morally governed responsible freedom of choice and first duties, but from circumstances of a world governed by laws and potential impacts of tectonic events such as the Lisbon 1755 quake vs the Port Royal quake. Oddly, the latter, 1692, was generally seen as judgement on the richest, wickedest city in the world, reducing it to a sleepy fishing village with ruins and a church with a testimony on a grave in the wall. KF kairosfocus

re 375 to KF. I addressed those points in 373. Our posts probably crossed in the mail, so to speak. Viola Lee

F/N: As it seems advisable to give context, Plato's Socrates on the Ship of State:

It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:

>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State [ --> here we see Plato's philosopher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. [--> the issue of competence and character as qualifications to rule] The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction [--> the sophists, the Demagogues, Alcibiades and co, etc]; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable [--> implies a need for a corruption-restraining minority providing proverbial salt and light, cf. Ac 27, as well as justifying a governing structure turning on separation of powers, checks and balances], and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>

(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)

KF kairosfocus

VL, >>every philosophical or religious paradigm is just a subjective human opinion>> self referential and incoherent, as this is just such an opinion or paradigm. >> and the origin and purpose of consciousness is not only unknown but unknowable>> Translated, my preferred worldview cannot answer so I project the same fault to others. KF kairosfocus

Jerry, pardon, but the very definition of philosophy, is that it is the department of difficult questions, there will therefore be no simplistic answers, though they may be simple in how they are worded. Accordingly, exacting formulation comparable to mathematics, legal agreements and systematic theology will be key. A famous warning, from everybody's favourite fisherman, in his theological will, is:

2 Peter 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Yes, some things genuinely are difficult and turn on subtle differences of meaning that can have big consequences. That evil is, classically, privation of the good is simply put, but unpacking it is subtle and not simplistic. And I daresay, this answer has been provided many, many times and unpacked, by several people, but has often been sidelined and treated as though it had not been given. Likewise, the point of Plantinga's argument turns on the difference between a theodicy and a defense, the latter only requiring logical possibility [as opposed to plausibility to an arbitrarily hyperskeptical objector] and coherence to overturn the accusation that there is incoherence in the ethical theistic concept of God. Astonishingly, just now I saw yet another case of someone writing in the literature and making that error. A theodicy aims at plausible truth, establishing a conclusion as to what is the case. A defense in this context, only seeks to overturn claimed incoherence, which then opens up the issue of the implications of God as serious candidate root of reality and self-existent necessary, maximally great, utterly wise and inherently good being. It is in order to note on that sort of issue, and it is appropriate to lay out that an alleged refutation objectively sets up and knocks over a strawman version of the argument. It is further in order to note that too many objectors in and around UD and in other spheres habitually use red herrings led to strawmen soaked in ad hominems, which they set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. KF PS, the mutiny on the ship of state has to do with wanting the helm and scheming to get it, while lacking key capability, leading to predictable disaster. kairosfocus

re 370, to SA: It's someone else's meme. How's this:

When I start thinking about the nature of reality and realize that every philosophical or religious paradigm is just a subjective human opinion and the origin and purpose of consciousness is not only unknown but unknowable, I realize the only proper response to existence is radical humility and surrender to the mystery.

Of course these are, I will own them, my realizations, and they are things I choose to hold as true for and to me, even though I also realize that they might not actually be true. But, as Dylan wrote, "You can't open up your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view": I have chosen the perspective that seems best to me, for multiple reasons, even though I understand that it is "my story" and not some definitive statement that I know is true. Viola Lee

Scamp, Why would I need to prove it? I doubt you require proof for a lot of your own positions. Assessing evil requires a moral structure. I'm a Catholic Christian, if that helps you understand where I'm coming from. Andrew asauber

Scamp

So, what is more evil? Telling a woman that you like her perfume, when you don’t, or killing a child?

We talk about such things frequently here. From a Darwin perspective, you're right. The genocide of an entire race of people, putting them in gas chambers is not more evil than being dishonest about perfume. That's the barbaric nature of materialist atheism in a nutshell. Silver Asiatic

VL

every philosophical or religious paradigm is just a subjective human opinion and, in truth, the origin and purpose of consciousness is not only unknown but unknowable

Note the phrase in bold. Can you see that what this meme says is incoherent and contradictory? Silver Asiatic

Andrew: This is just emotionalism. It doesn’t equate at all to how evil something is.

You state this, but can you prove it? For example, KF frequently uses the example of kidnapping, torturing and killing a child for pleasure as an example of evil. He also says that lying is evil. So, what is more evil? Telling a woman that you like her perfume, when you don’t, or killing a child? Scamp

Speaking of "my story", I ran into a buddhist meme recently that expresses one of my deep feelings:

When I start thinking about the nature of reality and realize that every philosophical or religious paradigm is just a subjective human opinion and, in truth, the origin and purpose of consciousness is not only unknown but unknowable, I realize the only proper response to existence is radical humility and surrender to the mystery.

Viola Lee

I bowed out of the discussion with Jerry @351 but not on the thread itself. Silver Asiatic

Andrew @ 364 True. We measure evil against the good that it harms. So, harms against innocence, purity, trust, potential of life - are more serious evils (murdering innocent children) than harm against somebody's non-living property (breaking down their picket fence). Both are evils but are weighed by how much damage they do to what is good. An evil that damages generations of people in the future is greater than others. So, deliberately desecrating something that is held in sacred memory is a serious evil. Silver Asiatic

KF

consequences of inadequate reasoning on subjects as subtly complex and significant as this.

Thank you and yes, agreed. I note that some of us would just want to discard concepts that they find difficult. But philosophy is a process of dealing with what is there and refining our understanding. We start with absolutes which are the foundation of rationality - building out to explore the more difficult things. It takes patience and careful analysis. Saying something like "it's all unknown" is not accurate. We know a lot. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that our true knowledge is wasted. Or saying "we can't define it perfectly so it doesn't exist" is also an unwarranted short-cut. Life is messy. We can't clean it up by just getting rid of all the mysteries we cannot fully solve. That's just destructive to life and our understanding. Instead, we take what we know and keep working on it to improve. God made life this way, so every generation would have the mysteries to solve and at the same time, make progress with knowledge about them. So, we shouldn't get frustrated and just want to kill off philosophical reasoning. As you say, there are serious consequences to doing that sort of thing. Humility towards life and towards God means we stand in awe of life and the universe and we don't demand or claim that we know everything. Silver Asiatic

"The bigger the gut reaction we get to it, the more “evil” it is." Scamp, This is just emotionalism. It doesn't equate at all to how evil something is. Andrew asauber

I agree with Jerry that evil, as a unique unambiguous entity, doesn't exist. It is a word we apply to any behaviour or thought that we, as individuals, find to be unacceptable. The bigger the gut reaction we get to it, the more "evil" it is. Scamp

Q, you write again, "You made a number of assertions about Christianity in context of “cultural myths,” but now you’re complaining that your own beliefs are somehow out of bounds?" And yet I've repeatedly explained that the statements you make (nature causing nature, multiverses, etc.) ARE NOT MY BELIEFS. I'm not saying my beliefs are out of bounds, I'm saying that you aren't correctly ascribing beliefs you think I have to me. I can't comprehend how you don't get that. Also, I have explained repeatedly in past threads that I don't think anyone knows what the metaphysical nature of reality is, so that whatever beliefs I like the most are just speculations: that is, they are also stories. I apply the same standard to my own metaphysical beliefs that I apply to others. Viola Lee

you have caught one of the ruinous — mutiny on the ship of state — consequences of inadequate reasoning on subjects as subtly complex and significant as this

This is ironic. When one cannot answer simple questions, accuse others of inadequate reasoning or “mutiny on the ship of state.” Then say it is so subtly complex, which implies no one cannot explain it in any way that’s understandable. jerry

JVL, caught my eye, 189 as inferring lying by omission. To lie is to speak, with disregard to truth, in hope that one profits by what is said or suggested being taken as true. Lying thus simply does not apply in a world where we live under natural laws and forces that give rise to tectonic movements, volcanoes, hurricanes etc. That we fail too often to take responsible precautions is our fault. Similarly, officialdom suppressing and discrediting effective treatments of relatively low cost while promoting vaccines with relatively high adverse event rates [especially affecting the cardiovascular system] is our fault. That a geostrategic vulture takes advantage of a manipulated US election leading to deep polarisation and a regime of clear geostrategic incompetence is our fault. Taking the Christian understanding of God as main focus, what part of it is appointed to man once to die then to give account, or that the last enemy to be destroyed is death, would be a willfully misleading, manipulative falsity? KF kairosfocus

PS: Note his rough, introductory statement of his defense:

Given these definitions and distinctions, we can make a preliminary statement of the Free Will Defense as follows. A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, an else being equal, than a world contain­ing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good. I said earlier that the Free Will Defender tries to fi nd a proposition that is consistent with (1) God is omniscient, omnipotent, and wholl y good and together with (l ) entails that there is evil. According to the Free Will Defense, we must find this proposition somewhere in the above story. The heart of the Free Will Defense is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral goo d as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil.

Here, the point is, logical coherence, which breaks the argument pivoting on implying incoherence in the concept of God similar to that in the concept, square circle. Notice, again, the contrast between the real argument and the strawman set up to be knocked over. Also note that the issues imply the parasitical, and relatively rare, self limiting nature of key evils. For example lying parasites on truthfulness and if it even becomes reasonably common, communication and thriving as a community of social creatures would collapse. This is of course a point in Kant's categorical imperative. KF kairosfocus

F/N: More from Plantinga, on choice:

some philosophers say that causal determinism and freedom, contrary to what we might have thought, are not really incompatible.13 But if so, then God could have created free creatures who were free, and free to do what is wrong, but nevertheless were causally determined to do only what is right. Thus He could have created creatures who were free to do what was wrong, while nevertheless preventing them from ever performing any wrong actions-simply by seeing to it that they were causally determined to do only what is right. Of course this contradicts the Free Will Defense, according to which there is inconsistency in supposing that God determines free creatures to do only what is right. But is it really possible that all of a person's actions are causally deter­ mined while some of them are free? How could that be so? According to one version of the doctrine in question, to say that George acts freely on a given occasion is to say only this: if George had chosen to do otherwise, he would have done otherwise. Now George's action A is causally determined if some event E-some event beyond his control -has already occurred, where the state of affairs consisting in E's occurrence conjoined with George's refraining from performing A, is a causally impossible state of affairs. Then one can consistently hold both that all of a man's actions are causally determined and that some of them are free in the above sense. For suppose that all of a man's actions are causally determined and that he couldn't, on any occasion, have made any choice or performed any action different from the ones he did make and perform. It could still be true that if he had chosen to do otherwise, he would have done otherwise. Granted, he couldn't have chosen to do otherwise; but this is consistent with saying that if he had, things would have gone differently. This objection to the Free Will Defense seems utterly implausible. One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased. So I shall say no more about this objection here. 14

Compatibilism is, manifestly, deeply problematic. I find it hard to differentiate it from holding that while we perceive ourselves as choosing, in fact given antecedent circumstances independent of ourselves, our actions will be determined by those antecedents. That, to my mind, boils down to reducing mind, reasoning, knowledge etc to grand delusion. Which defeats itself. Including, in arguing for compatibilism. KF kairosfocus

SA, you have caught one of the ruinous -- mutiny on the ship of state -- consequences of inadequate reasoning on subjects as subtly complex and significant as this. KF kairosfocus

Jerry, above I gave a longstanding definition in a nutshell of evil, privation etc of the good out of alignment with due end, which end of course is sometimes (but not necessarily) naturally evident. Those whose worldviews preclude ends and/or freedom to make real choice, will have serious problems defining/understanding good and evil. KF kairosfocus

VL, I excerpted to give a flavour of how Plantinga argues, enough to further demonstrate the strawmannish caricature. What you have above is accurate but skeletal and incomplete. I intend to give more. Omitted, for example, is his elaboration of steps and stages in evolving propositions, there is a reason why he reaches over twenty and has subtypes a, b, c etc. All of that provides nuances that Bradley seems to have missed. For example he takes steps to draw out what possibility/impossibility implies, what pitfalls are there in the idea of eliminating evils in trying to do good and more. He even gives a discussion drawing out possible worlds to maximal degree -- tantamount to alternative realities -- and variants on being a necessary being etc. (My use of PW's is more like world models, a weak form as usual.) And more. KF PS, your summary misses features in the original, stick to Plantinga, you are dealing with things where subtle seemingly insignificant differences of phrasing have potentially watershed import. You will note where he is going from 190, the takes time to get there, drawing out adjustments etc, it is not arbitrary:

2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.”

Contrast Bradley's caricature, "He sketches a scenario according to which God did his best to create a world without evil but had his plans thwarted by the freedom-abusing creatures he had created." Loaded and strawmannish. The scenario sketching he derides is material to understanding why things are not as simple as it may superficially seem, and why a great good can include room for evils. I am pretty sure Bradley et al value ability to reason, choose, love [so, be virtuous], those do not come without responsible, rational, morally governed significant freedom. And more. kairosfocus

Viola Lee @324,

Q writes, “let me again suggest that your own “scientific” beliefs are a “cultural myth” as well.”

You made a number of assertions about Christianity in context of "cultural myths," but now you're complaining that your own beliefs are somehow out of bounds? -Q Querius

William J Murray @321,

What does “natural” mean, in light of 100+ years of quantum physics experimental results?

Here are three definitions of naturalism, to which I was referring: https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy https://naturalism.org/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ I think 100+ years of quantum physics has pushed the concept of naturalism toward information, observation, and the so-called “holographic universe.” Unfortunately, most people who ascribe to naturalism are either blissfully unaware of QM, are in denial, or are working hard to try to show that QM somehow doesn't falsify materialistic determinism. -Q Querius

Feel free to have the last word.

Some have already been posted on the other thread. Everybody can go back to what they want to do most. jerry

I will bow out now. Feel free to have the last word. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

So everything is evil but some are more evil?

It's your view that "everything is evil", not mine. So, you have to explain it. I tried to respond to your view:

SA said: It’s like saying “there’s only one color of red – if it’s got any red in it, we have to call it red.”

So, we can't say orange, or purple, or pink - it's all red. "So everything is red except some is more red?" A question arises: How could God create anything that is not perfect? God cannot create another perfect supreme Being. He can't create another one of Himself. There are limits on what God can create. Every created Being necessarily has those limits. That's just reality. God cannot create a world with free, moral, rational agents without evil (falsehood, deprivations). It's just not logically possible - just like a square circle is not. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

You are mixing bad stuff that happens to people with your definition. So is it subjective? What may be very bad for someone may be desired by another.

I already explained, there are three kinds of evil: Physical evil, moral evil and metaphysical evil From that, we can observe degrees of evil in each category. What is bad for someone is a certain degree of evil - more or less. That someone desires something that is bad for someone is a certain degree of good, more or less. Every object has some shade of light - from 0 to 100. We don't say "it's got some light so everything is light". The same with darkness. Everything may have some dimness in lighting. We don't say "everything is dark". As for subjective: We start with metaphysical evil and recognize that Being relates to Goodness and deprivation of being is a limit in perfection, to some degree or another. It's the same with knowledge - we have degrees of what we know and there can be ideas entirely false. Just because something gives a partial understanding of the truth (privation of good) we don't say "it's entirely false". Silver Asiatic

We make distinctions and recognize the gradation

You are part way there. But still everything is the magic word So the term is still meaningless. You are mixing bad stuff that happens to people with your definition. So is it subjective? What may be very bad for someone may be desired by another. I will find a thread from last year that was used and suggest that instead. But that won’t really do because people desperately want to do discuss Bradley. Here is a long comment I made a year ago about this issue https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-evil-is-absurd/#comment-725262 I will answer your following comment on that thread. jerry

What I don't understand is if Jerry thinks so much of these discussions are fluff, trollish, and gobbledegook, why does he continues to fill up the thread with his own empty posts? Viola Lee

Jerry “But that is everything except one thing.” And what is that one thing? Vivid vividbleau

Jerry

So if everything is the magic word, what purpose is the word. It tells you nothing.

No, as I said - there are degrees. There's a hierarchy of value and degrees of perfection. It tells us quite a lot to know that there is grave, severe evil (deliberate moral evil) attacking the higher goods (like murdering hundreds of innocent children) or very minor, slight physical evils like a mosquito bite which hurts your arm. We have to make distinctions to gain understanding. Saying "everything is evil" lacks definition and makes discussion impossible. It's like saying "there's only one color of red - if it's got any red in it, we have to call it red." We make distinctions and recognize the gradation of good and evil. God is the supreme, perfect good. Everything else has less than this -- as is easy to see. Silver Asiatic

What it is not is a thing

But that is everything except one thing. Everyone point around the room or place they are and everything you point to is the magic word (using definition: privation of good.) How is that helpful? Again: we should stop all discussion of this here. It’s a complete waste of time. If those who want to discuss it, they should ask Denyse for a new thread or go to one of the hundred others from the past. But I guarantee it will go nowhere. Aside: for all those going to your dictionaries or encyclopedias, it won’t work. That’s all been tried before. jerry

Jerry “Everyone is discussing a word which they cannot define coherently” What it is not is a thing. Vivid vividbleau

I think Jerry dropped his fork on my comment? Or

No, on the whole discussion. I have been commenting on this issue for years. Everyone runs a way after awhile because they cannot define the magic word. Under your definition, everything but one thing is the magic word which everyone wants to use all the time but cannot define. So if everything is the magic word, what purpose is the word. It tells you nothing. Again this discussion should be someplace else. So any time someone uses the magic word they should sent to the “magic word” OPs. And there I guarantee it will go in circles. There are hundreds of “magic word “ OP’s over the last 15 years. jerry

I think the easier argument on the God side is, you can't experience/know the value of good, unless one also experiences evil. Of what value is good in a vacuum, if that's all you ever know/experience? It would just be an invisible, unnoticed, ubiquitous commodity. William J Murray

I think Jerry dropped his fork on my comment? Or on Bradley's? There are degrees of evil. Of course we can have some understanding of what evil is. The only thing that does not possess some "privation of good" (a term for evil) is God. There is moral evil, physical evil and metaphysical evil (deprivation of being). Silver Asiatic

I think it does

One way it is a moral evil, the other way it’s a natural evil. If it’s evil?

sorta agree with this. It’s a change-the-subject type of pivot because trolls can’t engage seriously

It’s about something that doesn’t exist. That’s the irony. jerry

"Does it matter?" Jerry, I think it does. "Aside: I’m trying to point out how absurd this discussion is." I sorta agree with this. It's a change-the-subject type of pivot because trolls can't engage seriously. Andrew asauber

Did you drop the fork intentionally? Accidentally?

Does it matter? Aside: I’m trying to point out how absurd this discussion is. Everyone is discussing a word which they cannot define coherently. But I guarantee that will not stop them. jerry

"I just dropped a fork on the floor. Explain why that’s not evil." Jerry, Did you drop the fork intentionally? Accidentally? Andrew asauber

Here's Bradley speaking for all of humanity here ...

Most of the victims of his choice would willingly sacrifice the supposed benefits of libertarian freedom in order to avoid the hellish conditions that prevail in much of the world.

That's how Marxists sell their utopia. "Just sacrifice the supposed benefits of freedom and we'll enable you to avoid the problems in your life". Actually, drugs do that for a lot of people. Sacrifice your freedom and the drug will give you bliss on earth. Silver Asiatic

Bradley would prefer the destruction of all rational human life rather than have the possibility of evil. That's what a lot of dictators and evil powers think also - better to keep people in concentration camps or just kill them outright rather than allow them free choice. That's what we end up with. Silver Asiatic

I just dropped a fork on the floor. Explain why that’s not evil. jerry

VL

That is, evil exists because there is some greater good that can’t be obtained if evil doesn’t exist.

That seems right to me. Bradley says it would be better to not have any possibility for free choice. So, everything would be determined by external factors to be whatever they are - as inanimate objects are. Silver Asiatic

Bradley says that it's logically possible for a world to have free creatures capable of moral choice without the existence of evil. He never explains how that is possible. Instead, he changes the argument to say that most people would prefer to live in a world where they didn't have free choice in order to avoid evil. Until demonstrated otherwise, it is not possible to have a world of free, rational creatures, capable of moral choice (and therefore of love relationships) without having the existence of evil. Being able to love, grown, learn, reason, discover, create -- those give life a higher quality than that of being forced to live with no free will choice possible, and no ability to choose the good. Silver Asiatic

Hmm. If what you posted is not enough to get an accurate summary, why did you post it? I wrote, "That is, evil exists because there is some greater good that can’t be obtained if evil doesn’t exist. Is that an accurate summary?" Can you answer that question? Viola Lee

VL, no there is much more, where context counts. I am excerpting from a much longer opening discussion in a book. The discussion with its nuances, is important. The referred propositions are in that more elaborate discussion. Plantinga is symbolising. KF PS, C should be G, I believe. kairosfocus

That is, evil exists because there is some greater good that can't be obtained if evil doesn't exist. Is that an accurate summary? Also, in your last sentence C, as far as I can tell, is not identified. What does C stand for? Viola Lee

CD, I am not going to go digging in a library of books to track down a trivial point where it is already obvious on the merits that it fails, and it is further obvious from the decades old switch to the inductive form of the problem, which then runs into the self referential issue of undermining our rationality and moral government. Where, Jerry is quite right to point out that a pivotal connected point is, what is the nature of evil, especially where some wish to eliminate God as ground of good. I simply noted what I observed years ago in discussion of this argument; and it showed that Mackie was a serious thinker. And if you think you can do a further sidetrack, take another think, as if necessary, I will further elaborate from Plantinga directly. Already, the strawman problem is manifest. I think Bradley does not understand that he is not dealing with a theodicy, and I suspect he does not understand the reason why Plantinga took time to draw out the issues of capability to eliminate evils. As I have noted, goods such as ability to reason or to love etc require freedom and freedom includes that one can abuse by twisting out of alignment with due end. Where, pointing to the Biblical trajectory, there is a reason it starts in a garden and ends in a city, with a massive injustice outside a city turned into the pivot of redemption and transformation by the power of God. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let me clip from God, Freedom & Evil, to give a flavour of how Plantinga actually argues in his slightly less technical work:

I believe that some recently won insights in the philosophy of logic-particularly those centering about the idea of possi­ble worlds-genuinely illumine these classical topics [ontological argument and the problem of evils] ; a moderately innovative feature of this book, therefore, is my attempt to show how these insights throw light upon these topics. . . . . Perhaps the most widely accepted and impressive piece of natural atheology has to do with the so-called problem of evil. Many philosophers believe that the existence of evil constitutes a difficulty for the theist, and many believe that the existence of evil (or at least the amount and kinds of evil we actually find) makes belief in God unreasonable or rationally unacceptable . . . . Now one reply would be to specify God's reason for permitting evil or for creating a world that contained evil. (Perhaps evil is necessary, in some way, to the existence of good.) Such an answer to Hume's question is sometimes called a theodicy . When a theist answers the question "Whence evil?" or "Why does Cod permit evil?" he is giving a theodicy. And, of course, a theist might like to have a theodicy, an answer to the question why God permits evil. He might want very badly to know why God permits evil in general or some particular evil-the death or suffering of someone close to him, or perhaps his own suffering. But suppose none of the suggested theodicies is very satisfactory. Or suppose that the theist admits he just doesn't know why God permits evil. What follows from that? Very little of interest. Why suppose that if God does have a good reason for permitting evil, the theist would be the first to know? . . . The fact that the theist doesn't know why God permits evil is, perhaps, an interesting fact about the theist, but by itself it shows little or nothing relevant to the rationality of belief in God. Much more is needed for the atheological argument even to get off the ground . . . . [Plantinga is pointing to the importance of a defense as opposed to a theodicy] To make out [his] case, therefore, the atheologian cannot rest content with asking embarrassing questions to which the theist does not know the answer. He must do more-he might try, for example, to show that it is impossible or anyhow unlikely that Cod should have a reason for permitting evil . . . . [TURNING TO OMNIPOTENCE AS PIVOTAL, BUT NOTE HE IS ALWAYS ADDRESSING THE THEISTIC SET AND WILL GO ON TO POSSIBLE WORLDS] What doe s it mean to say that a being is omnipotent? That he is all-powerful, or almighty, presumably. But are there no limits at all to the power of such a being? Could he create square circles, for example, or married bachelors? Most theologians and theistic philosophers who hold that God is omnipotent, do not hold that He can create round squares or bring it about that He both exists and doe s not exist . . . . [--> that is, there is no possible world in which such things or states of affairs obtain] what the atheologian must add to get a formally contradic­tory set is (21) If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can properly elimi­nate every evil state of affairs. [--> and we can add, compressing, but does not] Suppose we agree that the set consisting in A plus (l9c), (20), and (21) is formally contradictory. 50 if (19c), (20), and (21) are all necessarily true, then set A is implicitly contradictory. We've already conceded that (l9c) and (20) are indeed necessary. So we must take a look at (21 ). Is this proposition necessarily true? No. To see this let us ask the following question. Under what condi­tions would an omnipotent being be unable to eliminate a certain evil E without eliminating an outweighing good? Well, suppose that E is included in some good state of affairs that outweighs it. That is, suppose there is some good state of affairs G so related to E that it is impossible that C obtain or be actual and E fail to obtain.

Thus, we can see that the argument is much more sophisticated than Bradley makes out. KF kairosfocus

KF @ 311 I will give you credit, KF, for at least being honest re my post 309, that you don't have a citation for Mackie's alleged concession to Plantinga's "free will defense" despite trying to downplay it..... chuckdarwin

Q writes, "let me again suggest that your own “scientific” beliefs are a “cultural myth” as well." Q, let me repeat what I wrote at 317: " I haven’t been discussing “my scientific beliefs”. All those things you mention in your quote don’t even apply to me, so I’m not sure why you are asking me about them." Viola Lee

evil being what frustrates, perverts or distorts that end, the privation of good out of due end

The problem with this definition or any definition it that it could mean that anything is evil because any act or happenstance frustrates something or has some less than desired effect for someone. Thus, it is a meaningless or trivial term. That is one flaw of the argument. Everything could be evil. But again this it is not appropriate to discuss it here and has been discussed zillions of times elsewhere. It was just another lame attempt by one of the Whack-A-Mole commenters to disrupt with nonsense and people then jump all over it. This latter event, responding to nonsense, is the most frequent thing that happens on this blog. It’s what people like to do the most. jerry

Jerry, the problem of definition of evil is itself significant, yes. However, from his opening remarks, Bradley set up and knocked over a strawman. What becomes significant, is that we need to ask why is there an attempt to cling to this argument. The answer comes back, this is what they have, and they feel they must destroy the theistic concept of God, much less credibility of believing in his existence. Instinctively, they know that as necessity of being is core to God, they must have an impossibility in the concept of God to go where they wish. So, they have set out on rhetorically rehabilitating what failed 50 years ago. It fails again, but as Plantinga's actual presentation is complex and extended, targetting professional peers in philosophy, they don't have to address his argument as it is, as few will work their way through it with all its ramifications, secondary issues etc. I took up a skeletal form of the argument, to at least show the strawman. You are right that the perception of evil and connected branch on which we all sit sense of moral government, leads to deep challenges to the problem, as there is a need for a root of goodness to get to a sound understanding of evil, which carries us right back to what sort of root of reality is needed to have a world with creatures governed morally, without that being grand delusion destroying rationality. The best answer is, we are purposeful, and fulfillment of due purpose is good, evil being what frustrates, perverts or distorts that end, the privation of good out of due end; which means evil is a secondary, parasitical warping not something of primary being. But such is again loaded with the import that the root of reality is the inherently good and utterly wise. They are found kicking against the pricks. KF kairosfocus

Q said:

What non-cultural, non-quasi-religious scientific evidence can you present that obviates the need for an extra-natural Creator?

What does "natural" mean, in light of 100+ years of quantum physics experimental results? William J Murray

I believe EVERYTHING a ressurected person says. A historical person . We have evidences for.

Why? William J Murray

As time allows, I will work up a more lengthy and specific reply to Bradley’s argument

Save you time. It fails on definitions. At step 2 it assumes things that are not true jerry

Viola Lee @317,

Christianity is widespread because it’s associated with the dominant culture of the Western world, but that’s an historical fact that doesn”t translate to “Christianity is more true.”

By cultural invention I mean that it’s components were invented by people and at any one time played a role in the cultures in which they found.

Since you're talking about cultural invention and counter culture in the quotes above, let me again suggest that your own “scientific” beliefs are a “cultural myth” as well. But let's go back to the Roman culture after Christ. Do you know what charge was used by the Romans to convict and kill Christians? My point with knowing that there’s one “valid currency” for the origin of the universe means that there is a true story of the origin of the universe. The fact that there are many religious, quasi-scientific, and speculative ideas that supposedly account for the origin of the universe implies that all but the true one are, to use my analogy that you rejected, "counterfeit." That there are many counterfeits doesn't imply anything about the true story. -Q Querius

Q, rev315: I haven’t been discussing “my scientific beliefs”. All those things you mention in your quote don’t even apply to me, so I’m not sure why you are asking me about them. Also, those questions were in post 281 not 292, which is why your post 312 didn’t make sense. Viola Lee

As time allows, I will work up a more lengthy and specific reply to Bradley's argument. Probably won't be in time for this thread, though. But, knowing us, the topic will come up again. EDTA

Viola Lee @313,

And I didn’t see how the questions you asked me were relevant.

Why be evasive? Let me suggest that your own "scientific" beliefs are a "cultural myth" as well:

Actually, EDTA does have a strong point because science has become a religion in many respects. Do you believe that nature created nature from nothing before time began? How about the multiverse? Do you believe in a cosmic turtle named “Multiverse” who lays eggs called universes, and that Multiverse had a mother named “Multimultiverse.” It’s still turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. And all kinds of contorted logic to try to explain how the universe had a natural beginning and how life “musta” spontaneously generated itself out of non-life, and how consciousness “musta” emerged from particles, all of which which takes a MASSIVE amount of faith to believe.

What non-cultural, non-quasi-religious scientific evidence can you present that obviates the need for an extra-natural Creator? -Q Querius

Chuckdarwin @300,

EDTA engages in the age old sophistry that mere humans cannot pretend to understand God

Yep, and I agree with EDTA. This “sophistry” goes all the way back to Isaiah when he quoted the Holy One of Israel around 700 BCE as saying: (Isaiah 55:6-9)

”Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:6-9 (NIV)

Regarding the Trinity, references in the Tanakh to God, the Holy Spirit, and the Son/Messiah were also referenced in the New Testament/Covenant and amplified in Catholicism. Extrapolations, speculations, and arguments about the nature of God beyond what's recorded in the Bible are on extremely shaky ground and historically were very likely due to pressure from the earliest gnostics and their teachings.

Maybe next, you can pull something equally irrelevant out of the Qur’an, because I will admit to also being ignorant of Arabic.

No, because the points you raised weren't about the Qur'an. -Q Querius

Q, my comment about counter-culture was not a "quibble": it was in response to what I saw as a significant misunderstanding about what "culture" means. And I didn't see how the questions you asked me were relevant. Viola Lee

Viola Lee @293, Why don’t you consider responding to my questions to you in 292 rather than quibble about counter-culture being a part of culture? -Q Querius

CD, sadly typical. First, any reasonable examination of Bradley's reframing of Plantinga will immediately be seen to be a weakened caricature of Plantinga's actual argument, which pivots on clarifying then AUGMENTING "the theistic set" and thereby seeing that the result is coherent, defeating claimed incoherence of the propositions. In short, the LAST thing Plantinga did was to ignore the propositions in the set. As for Mackie, I simply pass on what I saw reported long since on the matter, it is trivial as Plantinga manifestly succeeds. What happened is a shift to inductive arguments, but those too were responsibly countered, i.e. the presence and incidence of grave evils reflects our abuse of the very powers and good gifts that make us rational, responsible and able to be creative, decisive, active and loving. One who argues against such argues self defeatingly. Beyond, the existential/pastoral problem is a matter of needing proper pastoral care, such as I have needed in the face of triple bereavement. Right now, my word of healing is to see butterflies showing beauty, bringing joy and blessing to what they touch. That you refuse to acknowledge something as manifest as that case of weakened caricature rhetorically pummelled, leads to the point that you are clinging to a strawman fallacy. This extends to your ad hominem attempt to deride the undersigned as inappropriately raising the strawman issue habitually. In short, there is evidence of cognitive dissonance and confession by projection of blame on your part. More generally, for over a decade it has become clear that a typical pattern with objectors to design theory and similar issues is the trifecta pattern: red herring distractors led away from focal issues to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating serious discussion. I could point to Dawkins' notorious ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. This very thread has been seriously diverted, but rather than go to fresh OP's, I have thought it advisable to engage underlying issues as they seem to be drivers of characteristic patterns of objection and the tone of too many objections. Meanwhile, it really is the case that there is a manifest breakdown as News highlighted. KF kairosfocus

EDTA, insofar as logic of being obtains, it is not particularly human bound. For example, we can develop an exposition of the logic of structure and quantity and by showing that core aspects are framework to any distinct possible world, the results are universal. Of course this is core mathematics. We thus see by case, that we can in at least some aspects achieve rationality that transcends being specifically human. That we, with our error proneness, are rational does not lead to rationality being a suspect notion; indeed, rationality is seen to transcend being human. Much the same objectivity obtains for a fair bit of physics etc and arguably at least as far as history. So, we are not hopelessly locked up in our humanness and culture etc, which is of course a self referential argument that threatens to undermine rationality, warrant, knowledge in general. It is in that context that we can see that rationality and objectivity are not grand, self referential delusions. Further to which, we may and do have ability to reason about being, including world root being. In which context, we can develop a responsible conception of Deity i.e. philosophical theology is not a self defeating exercise and were it deemed such on cultural or humanity limitations, the same would extend to arguments of atheism, science, mathematics [= [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity] etc, thus becoming self referentially self defeating. The ethical theistic concept of God is not meaningless self contradictory fictional nonsense. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @ 302 I'm curious as to the citation where J.L. Mackie conceded "Plantinga's point" decades ago. I've seen this claim by Christian theologians and philosophers a number of times, but I have never actually seen a citation attributable to Mackie, himself, to that effect. If you have it, I would love to see it. I also note that neither you nor EDTA address Bradley's argument substantively, i.e., point by point. You both engage in vague generalities like "Bradley misunderstood, set up and knocked down a straw man" Actually you use that hackneyed faux critique for anyone with whom you disagree. chuckdarwin

Jerry,

ChuckDarwin is either batting a thousand or zero depending on how one looks at it. Every thing he brings up is wrong.

8-) EDTA

VL, Yes, it applies to everyone who tries too hard to reason about a superior/supreme being, wherein they claim to know what God would have to do/allow/etc., based on a human understanding of his omni-* characteristics. But while that might limit Plantinga and other theists somewhat, it completely destroys every argument against God from the existence of evil and from supposed contradictions arising from a human understanding of God's omni-* characteristics. All theists need to do is argue that it is possible that God has reasons or other extenuating factors that allow for evil, avoid contradictions, etc. They don't have to specify what they are (i.e., they just have to make a defense, not a theodicy). But someone attacking the Christian God, or the idea of a supreme being, has to show that they know the contradiction is unavoidable, which requires information they cannot possess. Many theists do overreach here, but that's surely a separate discussion of particulars. But atheists' arguments of this type all fall for this cause. EDTA

I just read Bradley’s argument. It’s nonsense. It suffers from the age old problem, lack of definition. So those who believe Bradley is on to something, define evil. (I asked this hundreds of times and never got a coherent answer) We can go from there. As some will know, we love to use the term “evil” but never use consistently. Just as the term”evolution” is rarely used consistently. This is probably not the place to have this discussion since probably a hundred threads and 20,000 comments have been expended already over the last 15 years on the nature of evil. Aside: Bradley is arguing against the Judeo/Christian God, not a creator per se. Thus, it’s hardly a support for atheism. Aside2: ChuckDarwin is either batting a thousand or zero depending on how one looks at it. Every thing he brings up is wrong. So is that a thousand or zero. So those who agree with him, realize what his batting average is. jerry

EDTA, you write, "I’m the one arguing that our human perspective prevents Bradley’s (and other atheist’s) arguments from working." But doesn't that limitation also apply to Plantinga and the whole line of theologians through Aquinas and Augustine, as well as all of us here (you, me, SA, Querius, KF, etc.)? What "forms of argument" escape this limitation? Viola Lee

It sounds like we agree that we can only argue from a human perspective. That's good, then. Therefore, we should be in agreement that Bradley's argument fails, because that is one of the reasons for its failure. Consistent with this, you don't see me arguing that I understand God more fully. I'm the one arguing that our human perspective prevents Bradley's (and other atheist's) arguments from working. I don't need a higher perspective to achieve that. I just need to point out to everyone down here that our limitations prevent certain forms of argument from being successful. I don't need to be able to divide by zero to point out that none of us should divide by zero. We were supposed to get back to the main topic, though. Go Forrest Mims! EDTA

The general point that I am applauding is that we can do nothing but argue from a human perspective. That is undeniable. It makes no difference who one is, that is an insurmountable limitation. Viola Lee

VL, it was pointed out in 190 above how Bradley misunderstood, set up and knocked over a strawman. The real argument, in outline was given. Do I need to point out that Mackie conceded Plantinga's point regarding the deductive form problem of evil, decades ago? For sure, Plantinga did not ignore or side step premises, he corrected where there is a common error, then provided an augmenting term that then leads to manifest coherence. The deductive argument claims incoherence but when a correct form of a set of propositions, augmented is not incoherent, none of the members stand in mutual contradiction. And this is why this is a defence not a theodicy, it does not pivot on plausibility of premises to objectors. KF PS, I draw your attention to 295 above https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/has-anyone-else-noticed-the-blatant-political-flavor-of-many-sciencey-mags-these-days/#comment-749218 kairosfocus

This is good, from CD

I shouldn’t even have to explain this, but…. EDTA faults Bradley for “arguing from a human perspective.” But there is–and this should be as obvious as the nose on your face–no other perspective from which a human can argue. Juxtaposed with the claim that “[w]e have no idea what God’s actual capabilities are,” etc., shows that EDTA engages in the age old sophistry that mere humans cannot pretend to understand God, or in this case, the trinity, so any attempts to do so are doomed to failure. But that “barrier” applies equally to Christian philosophers, including Plantinga, the target of Bradley’s critique. The Christian philosopher doesn’t get to claim a privileged position where he or she can dismiss everyone else’s arguments as merely “human perspectives.”

[end cheerleading] Viola Lee

Querius @ 263

All EDTA claimed was that humans don’t understand God. And you find this is a contradiction of some kind?

That's not all that EDTA claimed:

EDTA @ 251 Beyond what KF et al said, it must be noted that Bradley’s argument also fails for the following reason: he is arguing from a human perspective. He thinks and argues from a human viewpoint about God’s omni-* characteristics.... (emphasis added)

I shouldn't even have to explain this, but.... EDTA faults Bradley for "arguing from a human perspective." But there is--and this should be as obvious as the nose on your face--no other perspective from which a human can argue. Juxtaposed with the claim that "[w]e have no idea what God's actual capabilities are," etc., shows that EDTA engages in the age old sophistry that mere humans cannot pretend to understand God, or in this case, the trinity, so any attempts to do so are doomed to failure. But that "barrier" applies equally to Christian philosophers, including Plantinga, the target of Bradley's critique. The Christian philosopher doesn't get to claim a privileged position where he or she can dismiss everyone else's arguments as merely "human perspectives."

I’m sorry but the nuns and priests only taught me Latin, not Hebrew…. So, you’re now paralyzed by your ignorance? If you’re sorry, you could look up the terms–I’d assume you have internet access.

I fully admitted ignorance when it comes to Hebrew. Guilty as charged. But I was talking about the trinity, a Christian concept. Maybe next, you can pull something equally irrelevant out of the Qur'an, because I will admit to also being ignorant of Arabic...... chuckdarwin

Jerry, as I noted above in the for record, the narrator is just as culturally situated as the six blind men groping around the elephant. So, we can see how the cultural relativism as disqualifying thesis becomes self referential and self defeating. In reality the argument serves as distraction toward dismissal, implying that the attempts to deride the concept of God as meaningless incoherence have little merit. KF kairosfocus

As I said above, “counter-culture” doesn’t mean something is not cultural

Using culture in this way just means that any event involving humans since the beginning of time is a cultural event. As such, it is a meaningless use of the word. Also if there is truth and someone states it and someone else says something different that is not consistent then under this interpretation either there is no truth or they are both equally truthful. As I said gobbledygook. jerry

Viola Lee Many people have said that Christianity is the one true religion. I know a lot of the arguments, and I don’t believe the conclusion. Many other people believe theirs is the one true religion also. Christianity has a long history, but it’s just as much a cultural invention as all other religions.

I believe EVERYTHING a ressurected person says. A historical person . We have evidences for. PS :I believe in everything you say if you tell me one concept that is morally superior to anything Jesus said and you will do something that is superior to ressurection. Lieutenant Commander Data

F/N: we may observe at Creation Wiki:

Mims had written some Amateur Scientist columns in Scientific American in 1990. But the Scientific American refused to hire him when they found out that he was a creationist, although they admitted that his work was “fabulous”, “great” and “first rate”,and “should be published somewhere”.[5] Mr Forrest Mims was asked in 1989 to write three trial articles for Scientific American’s ‘The Amateur Scientist’ column. Mr Mims and the staff at the magazine expected the trial articles to lead to permanent work if they were satisfactory. The three trial articles were published in June, August, and October 1990. After being asked about his opinion about the theory of evolution, Mims said he was a conservative Christian and believed in the biblical account of Genesis. At the same time, a senior editor of the magazine also asked his views on abortion. he was denied future work with the magazine.[6] Despite the magazine's editor, Jonathan Piel denied in a telephone interview that Mr. Mims had been the victim of religious discrimination, others who worked at the magazine at the time said there had been considerable debate over what to do with Mr. Mims. Mr. Appenzeller, now senior editor at The Sciences magazine, said "I was among those who felt we should have hired him".[7]

Mims has of course continued his promotion of amateur science in the decades since. We see here, a grievance that speaks discredit to the radically secularist, evolutionary materialist, scientism driven establishment. And, it easily explains what we are seeing under colour of science. KF kairosfocus

VL (attn Cd et al], you are manifestly using cultural as if it were a valid way to dismiss without assessing warrant on actual merits. This rhetorical tack of course reflects cultural relativism, which falls victim to the blind men + elephant + narrator fallacy. What you are implying is that as an entity originating in a time and place with a culture, you can presume core falsity without responsible evaluation of truth or core warrant, i.e. you presume that diversity of views can be inferred as general falsity. But that is self-referential question-begging of the worst kind, the narrator too is culturally contextual and just as suspect as any of the alleged blind men groping around the elephant. Further to the which, given the earlier issue on knowing the nature of God, it is manifestly a tangential evasion of your responsibility to reassess your dismissiveness above towards the concept and by extension, reality of God as necessary, maximally great world root being. You need to rethink, again, given duty to truth and to right reason. KF PS: For record, I note, reality and particularly our world is not self explanatory, especially our own reality as manifestly responsible, rational, significantly free, contingent creatures. That becomes significant, given

1: the causal-temporal, finite stage [years for short], thermodynamical successiveness of our world, where 2: this cannot reflect a transfinite succession, as the traversal of the transfinite is an infeasible supertask, i.e. the causal-temporal past is finite based on logic of structure and quantity. Similarly, 3: This cannot reflect circular retro-causation, as that would require the not yet to cause itself/ Nor, 4: can this reflect a world from utter non-being as non being or true nothingness has no causal power. Thus, 5: we are led to conclude on logic of being that our world is contingent (supported by big bang observations and evident fine tuning of our cosmos, the only actually observed cosmos). and 6: that it comes from necessary being as world root, i.e. we need a being that is causally independent and framework to any possible world as world and wider reality root, i.e. 7: we are discussing not cultural presumed fictional narratives but serious candidate world/reality root being and what we can know about such through in the first instance logic of being; not 8: futilely debating or evading or even begging questions on whether cultural traditions or counter culture traditions or accounts can reflect objective, responsibly warranted knowable truth on the reality at root of our world. Such, 9: is further constrained by our being responsible, rational, branch on which we all sit, conscience guarded, first duties driven, morally governed creatures as a pivotal first fact, That is 10: no account of world/reality root that cannot account adequately for this can be valid, especially if such accounts imply that we are under grand delusion as 11: that would be self referential, and absurd as self-refuting. Thus, 12: we are led to the fundamental nature of the is-ought gap as core to our morally governed nature. So, 13: our world/reality root entity must not only be finitely remote, a necessary being causally independent of other entities and framework to any possible world, but also 14: must be an adequate ground of moral government. This sets up 15: a worldview level inference to root explanation subject to comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power. Further to which, 16: given the need to successfully bridge the Is-ought gap in that root (on pain of self-referential incoherence undermining credibility of mind, reason and knowledge claims), we can freely observe 17: that, there is but one serious candidate root meeting the constraints, namely 18: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary [so, eternal] and maximally great [= supreme] being, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, 19: as this is an exercise in philosophy -- not the side track above, culturally relativised and implicitly dismissed religious traditions -- would be objectors are invited to provide an alternative ____ and to assess on comparative difficulties ________ especially showing how they avoid grand delusion and/or self referential incoherence ________. Of course, 20: this challenge has been in the background all along here at UD and the above is an inadvertent admission by evasion that no compelling alternative is on offer. Where, too, 21: The characterisation above also helps us understand the non-arbitrary nature of God and his attributes, defining generic ethical theism [as opposed to an appeal to particular theistic religious traditions], which reasoning is in fact part of philosophical and systematic theology, especially in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, including directly in foundational texts. For, 22: God is understood as inherently good, utterly wise, creator so world root necessary being and as maximally great, possessing great making attributes to maximum compossible degree. Such involves, 23: that God is eternal, independent of any external entity, is not made up from detachable independent parts [is inherently One], is good and utterly wise as to core character [implying omnibenevolence, utter trustworthiness, omniscience and ability and will to make the best possible decision etc], is thus too personal [not abstract force or a blind part of reality], is creator and eternal root of reality [thus, ultimate Father], is the supreme being who is source and sustainer of reality, being actively present every-where and every-when, etc. A familiar vision. Where, too, 24: Such a God is already clearly worthy of loyalty, love and service, indeed is reasonably addressed through sincere prayer. Which, he can be expected to answer . . . and by millions of accounts of life transforming encounter, does answer. Thence, 25: we come to the institution of the authentic prophet, thence record i.e. scripture. Such, being authenticated by speaking with the voice and power of God, e.g. knowing and predicting the strategic future, here, particularly that of messiah. Here, I note how 26: AD 55, Paul, writing to the Corinthians in context of polarised, ill-informed theological debates, confusions and moral challenges, calls to authentic, well warranted, penitent, life transforming trust in God in the face of Christ, messiah -- both meaning, anointed one -- fulfilled:

1 Cor 15: 1 Now I would remind you, brothers,1 of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: - that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures [cf. esp Isa 52:13 - 53:12], - 4 that he was buried, - that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and - that he appeared [to the 500, including 20+ who are specifically identifiable] to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [inviting eyewitness lifetime cross check, obviously successful or his ministry and mission would have collapsed in utter discredit] 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me . . . . 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope2 in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

27: This, of course, does not persuade you, but it does not bear that burden, as we are ever so prone to selective hyperskepticism. Instead, 28: it warrants confident, authentic knowledge regarding God, Christ, the gospel, the scriptures, and the stance that if someone does not speak in accord with what is authentic, there is in that speaking no light of day. So, then, 29: we may freely conclude that contrary to objections and evasions, a responsible understanding of God and his attributes is possible through analysis of the logic of being. This, 30: brings us to a powerful understanding of God, and leads us to why we can have good confidence in what has come to us through the judaeo-christian deposit. Where, too, 31: we may note that a serious candidate necessary being is either impossible of being [similar to the classic square circle] or else is actual. Those who profess to knowledge that there is no God or more evasively deny knowability of God as existing, face a serious and so far unmet burden of warrant. And no, the latest summary linked above does not meet the necessary warrant, despite enthusiastic self promotion and endorsement.

So, we can return to the substantial focus. Let us highlight the case of Forrest Mims and his expulsion from Sci Am. kairosfocus

VL,

We can’t check whether it’s the Christian God vs Allah vs Vishnu...

Not necessarily in a scientific way. One has to analyze historical claims, which is a different sort of inquiry. But still do-able. And still worth it in my opinion. EDTA

Q, you write, "Jerry’s absolutely correct in describing Christianity as historically counter-culture at it’s inception. And counter-culture means that it runs against cultural norms, falsifying your assertion." As I said above, "counter-culture" doesn't mean something is not cultural. When we look back at the 60's, clearly the counter-culture movement (of which I was part, FWIW) was part of the culture of the 60's. Cultures are not monolithic things, and they always contain parts that are in tension with each other. I don't think the argument that Christianity was "counter-cultural" doesn't change the fact that it was invented and promulgated by the beliefs and actions of people in a cultural context, and that the stories which were part of it were not ontologically true, any more than the various gods I mentioned in 291 are. Viola Lee

Viola Lee, Jerry's absolutely correct in describing Christianity as historically counter-culture at it's inception. And counter-culture means that it runs against cultural norms, falsifying your assertion. Do you know what charge was used by the Romans to convict and kill Christians? Do you know that there's one "valid currency" for the origin of the universe? Incidentally, a friend of mine spent a large part of his life in some of the remotest area of Papua New Guinea, where he brought Christianity to a tribe that had just ended the practice of head hunting, at least officially. He lived with them and after a time when they began to trust him, asked them to take him to their "man house" and tell him their stories. They related a fragmented but recognizable portion of Genesis. My friend then recited to them in their trade language the parts that were missing from their account and they were astonished, telling him something like, "You've restored everything that we've forgotten!" Check this out: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html -Q Querius

I agree that there are untestable ideas in cosmology that some people are advancing (although I'm certainly not defending them.) But yes, people get creative when it is difficult to check against reality. And my point is that there is no consensus way to check religious beliefs against reality. They are stories about aspects of reality that can't be tested, or checked. We can't check whether it's the Christian God vs Allah vs Vishnu vs the Great Spirit and Earth Mother of Native American religions that really exist. Christianity is widespread because it's associated with the dominant culture of the Western world, but that's an historical fact that doesn''t translate to "Christianity is more true." By the way Viola Lee

VL, You are correct that a good bit of the variety of religions is because there is less for us to go on, and people can invent things with no way to compare them to reality. And people get more creative when they know it will be more difficult to check something against reality. Human nature would guarantee such an outcome. Although the variety of opinions in cosmology, etc., is less varied, and there is at least some science to compare things with, the overall phenomenon of ideas multiplying beyond what is warranted is just a matter of degree (like the multiverse idea that Querius mentioned above.) I don't see how that is evidence that a particular core fact is false, only that people extrapolate too much. EDTA

My guess is that you have no idea of how Christianity started and how different it was from anything that preceded it. To say something was counter cultural means it was so different from the cultural in which it originated. As I said the culture in which it originated, rejected it. So how did it develop? It was the idea of a single person. And also it didn’t develop over time. It happened within a very short time, three years and then spread quickly to several other cultures. By the way I thought you had given up but then you repeat the same nonsense about some other religions as if that has some relevance. And I have answered your irrelevant questions. Whatever, the origin for other religions, has no relevance for Christianity. It’s a logical error to imply it. jerry

And, Jerry, how do you explain the very wide variety of religions that exist and have existed in the past? Why is there a Hindu religion, and Zoroastrianism, and native American religions, and the Australian aborigine religion, and countless small, older religions in the past and still partially alive today in South America and Africa and Asia? What is your explanation of where they came from and why they are all so different? Why won't you answer this question? All those religions are cultural inventions. Viola Lee

Jerry, "counterculture" is still part of culture. By cultural invention I mean that it's components were invented by people and at any one time played a role in the cultures in which they found. I really don't think you are understanding the word "culture" properly, but I can see that without a basic understanding what the word means in cultural anthropology, sociology, and history what I have to say will continue to be nonsense to you. Over and out. Viola Lee

The phrase “cultural invention” was used. Christianity was not a cultural invention. It was counter culture and spread to many different cultures and was adopted by some within each of these very different cultures. But definitely not all. Over time, centuries, many of the very different cultures adopted Christianity some almost universally but kept their own cultures. The British, Irish, Franks, Iberians, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians had very distinct cultures but all were Christians. It was anything but an outgrowth of any culture but did affect various cultures but only partly. So your basic proposition is nonsense. And you keep asking irrelevant questions. What explains one religion is definitely not universal so why keep repeating these irrelevancies. They have nothing to do with how Christianity originated and spread. jerry

Again, Jerry, questions which are not gobbleygook. What is your understanding of what "cultural" means? And how would you explain the wide variety of religious beliefs that exist in the world and how do you think they have come about? Are they cultural products in ways Christianity is not, and why? Viola Lee

Jerry, it is hard sometimes to respond to you because you add more after your first post. Christianity has a centuries old cultural tradition, and the spreading of it was a cultural event. I'm not sure what understanding of "cultural" you are using. Wkipedia writes,

Culture is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.

All of these are products of what people do. Christianity grew in the context of the sociological and political environment in which it was found through the actions of lots of people, and as such it was a cultural event. Viola Lee

Someone observed that some religions are cultural and makes the conclusion that all religions are cultural when it is obviously not true. Christianity is an obvious counter example. That is a logical fallacy and gobbledygook. jerry

Q, this is also not a valid analogy. We know there is one valid currency in ways that are not at all comparable to what we know about religions. Viola Lee

There are many counterfeit currencies floating around in the U.S., all of them claiming to be genuine. Can we deduce from this that all currencies are therefore counterfeit? Actually, EDTA does have a strong point because science has become a religion in many respects. Do you believe that nature created nature from nothing before time began? How about the multiverse? Do you believe in a cosmic turtle named “Multiverse” who lays eggs called universes, and that Multiverse had a mother named “Multimultiverse.” It’s still turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. And all kinds of contorted logic to try to explain how the universe had a natural beginning and how life "musta" spontaneously generated itself out of non-life, and how consciousness "musta" emerged from particles, all of which which takes a MASSIVE amount of faith to believe. -Q Querius

I don't think you are trying very hard, Jerry. What is goobledygook about "What is your explanation for the extremely wide variety of religious beliefs that exist?" Viola Lee

I said that Christianity was not a cultural development. And I get this irrelevant gobbledygook as a reply.

how do you explain the very wide range of religions, both modern and “primitive” that exist in the world? Do you think that all religions but Christianity is a cultural invention, or do you think other religions are also true in some ways, as Christianity, and are not cultural inventions. What is your explanation for the extremely wide variety of religous beliefs that exist?

Christianity originated in a specific place. It was not an outgrowth of any culture. It anything it was extremely counterculture. In fact the local culture rejected it. It spread very quickly (less than 20 years) by word of mouth to several disparate geographic areas and ethnic groups. It maintained centralized controlled by a few who were located in places different than its origin. It then grew steadily voluntarily over the next few centuries in areas over a thousand miles apart. jerry

Jerry, how do you explain the very wide range of religions, both modern and "primitive" that exist in the world? Do you think that all religions but Christianity is a cultural invention, or do you think other religions are also true in some ways, as Christianity, and are not cultural inventions. What is your explanation for the extremely wide variety of religous beliefs that exist? Viola Lee

EDTA, there is a significant difference between religion and cosmology. One is that I'm not sure there is a comparable "lot of beliefs about cosmology" by any means. The difference is that religions continue to vary widely because there is no method for working towards a consensus equivalent to the means by which we study cosmology. I don't think your comparison is very strong. Viola Lee

but it’s just as much a cultural invention as all other religions

Absolute nonsense. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. jerry

VL @ 271,

My position is that the very large variety of religious perspectives about things we don’t actual experience, and the wide variety of associated religious beliefs, traditions, ceremonies, taboos, etc. are strong evidence that all religions are cultural inventions.

If all religions where human creations, then I would expect a variety of beliefs. But I don't see that the implication has to go the other way. One belief system could be closer to the truth than the others, but their similarities don't mean they are all wrong. We have lots of beliefs about cosmology, but does that fact alone mean that cosmology is all bunk? Let me know if I haven't understood you point correctly. EDTA

Chuck @ 261,

You fault Bradley arguing “from a human perspective”...

Yes, and for good reason: it may be the biggest flaw in his argument. Since none of us here is God, we argue from a limited perspective. Nothing surprising. Nor does my statement undermine itself. But as I expected, you made no effort to buttress his argument in any way. EDTA

Many people have said that Christianity is the one true religion. I know a lot of the arguments, and I don't believe the conclusion. Many other people believe theirs is the one true religion also. Christianity has a long history, but it's just as much a cultural invention as all other religions. Viola Lee

strong evidence that all religions are cultural inventions

Certainly not true about Christianity. This was pointed out to you before but apparently you did not read or understand it. jerry

Replying to my statement that "it’s all fiction", Jerry wrote, "Translation. Because I do not espouse it, it is fiction. I have no basis for this interpretation but I hold it nevertheless." This is a total misrepresentation of my position, which possibly Jerry has paid some attention to, but maybe not. My position is that the very large variety of religious perspectives about things we don't actual experience, and the wide variety of associated religious beliefs, traditions, ceremonies, taboos, etc. are strong evidence that all religions are cultural inventions. Jerry's statement about why I consider the whole of Christian theology fiction is very wrong. Viola Lee

SA @ 265 I'm not complaining about the Catholic education I received. It was far superior to anything I would have received in public schools. I also have no complaint about nuns or priest, they were excellent teachers. In college, I spent many an evening drinking beer and discussing science, law, philosophy and theology with my Jesuit professors. Most of them had multiple doctorates. An unbelievably educated group of individuals. Some might say over educated. I can't say I ever "left" the Church because I don't think I ever belonged. Even as early as my first communion, it never resonated as remotely true to me. So, I'm not an emotionally damaged refugee from Catholicism--I simply don't buy it. Nonetheless, I delighted in the investiture of Pope Francis because he actually has a sense of openness and acceptance (he's also the first Jesuit pope) that his predecessors couldn't fathom, excepting perhaps John XXIII. I was deeply moved when I read of the incident where he told the young child of an atheist father that God would not abandon his father. Unfortunately, the American Catholic Church doesn't share those qualities which is why it is losing membership. But that does not change my fundamental skepticism of Christianity, especially the smug and self-righteous form of American evangelicalism which manifests today. chuckdarwin

The firing of Forrest Mims was inexcusable. KF kairosfocus

By the way, has anyone else noticed the blatant political flavor of many sciency mags these days?

I stopped reading them as a result. My wife also cancelled a couple of her non-sciency magazines for the same reason. -Q Querius

EDTA @251 and nod to Jerry @257,

We have no idea what God’s actual capabilities are, nor what commitments he has, nor what priorities he operates with, nor how all his superior and/or infinite characteristics interact. Bradley is like the kid who digs up a mathematical contradiction while playing with the concept of infinity, and gives up on mathematics as a result.

Exactly so! Great analogy, too. Of course, mathematics is intangible and has no one has any evidence for its material existence . . . And as previously posted, what's interesting about information is that when observed/measured, it can transform into particles and energy, and humans can cause this at a tiny scale. Silver Asiatic @252,

Ok, thanks for your opinion! We certainly won’t expect you to take the conversation any farther than that.

Heh. Reductionism ultimately ends up with nothing to say. Silver Asiatic @265, Plus, there are some great tools available that allow people to compare translations from Greek and Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (completed before Christ), and some fascinating discoveries in ancient manuscripts and archaeology. But comfortable old excuses require almost no effort, no research, no learning, and exercise only the fingers and the ego. -Q Querius

KF Wikipedia gives the earliest reference as: the earliest surviving records associating Patrick with the plant are coins depicting Patrick clutching a shamrock which were minted in the 1680's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick I thought it went back farther, but we have to accept that for the story to make it to a coin, it had to be in oral tradition for some time before that - and written records are scarce anyway prior to the 10th century. Biographies of Patrick before then don't mention the story, but it could have been anecdotal from the region or the people who witnessed it and only emerged later. Silver Asiatic

CD

I’m sorry but the nuns and priests only taught me Latin, not Hebrew….

I'll echo Querius' comment. It's important to keep learning. Latin is a great foundation and you were blessed by the men and women who devoted themselves to teaching kids (and a private school education). But I remember when they stopped teaching Latin - I was one of the last grades that had it and it became optional and almost extinct once the liturgy changed. From that, I can calculate how old you are. I also know a number of ex-Catholics your age who complain about the nuns. I find that sad and unfortunate, but I'm sympathetic because it was a difficult transition for many. (I liked and admired the nuns - still do.) But back to the main theme ... don't let the hurts of the past restrict your growth and learning for the future. Silver Asiatic

KF

St Pat’s Day is a national holiday

I would wish for that here. As it stands, they have to move the parades to the Saturday before because the 17th is a work day. So, everything is green here today. St. Bridget was added to the national holidays in Ireland just this year - so they get two patrons. I didn't know that about the islands and the Irish presence there with you - interesting. Silver Asiatic

Chuckdarwin @261, All EDTA claimed was that humans don't understand God. And you find this is a contradiction of some kind?

I’m sorry but the nuns and priests only taught me Latin, not Hebrew….

So, you're now paralyzed by your ignorance? If you're sorry, you could look up the terms--I'd assume you have internet access. -Q Querius

Kairosfocus,

Omnipotence is not contradicted by God being unable to make 2 + 3 = 6, that is a logical impossibility. Similarly, the concept of a particular rock being so massive God cannot move it is incoherent. Likewise, that God cannot lie reflects his perfection of character not a genuine breakdown of omnipotence.

This is why I don't use omni- terms. It's far too easy to commit the logic equivalent of divide-by-zero errors in applying reduction and deduction to a cartoonish caricature of God.

It is manifest to me that since the early 90s at least, magazines of some repute such as Sci Am and Nat Geog went off the rails. To the point that I basically cannot read either anymore. Pop Mech is now better than Sci Am, sad.

Same here. When Sci Am fired a long-time contributor when they found out he was (gasp) a Christian, it demonstrated their highest priority. -Q Querius

EDTA @ 251 You fault Bradley arguing "from a human perspective" only to make this statement:

We have no idea what God’s actual capabilities are, nor what commitments he has, nor what priorities he operates with, nor how all his superior and/or infinite characteristics interact.

Querius @ 249 I'm sorry but the nuns and priests only taught me Latin, not Hebrew.... chuckdarwin

JVL said:

To ‘see’ or observe things in our universe requires detecting photons which exist in our universe.

Then how do we see in dreams? Furthermore, do you think sight is produced where a photon strikes the eye? How do synesthetes see music as colors? Are music photons striking their eyes? Photons do not cause the experience of sight. Or, at least, no one has demonstrated that they do. There is a case of a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder that had an alter that was actually blind, not just "faking" it. In materialist and dualistic ontologies, there is still the hard problem of conscious experience and how any external information is translated into personal, conscious experience. William J Murray

CD

The Christian trinity is polytheism pure and simple. No amount of mental gymnastics can escape that fact.

In Dialogue 142 of the revelations to St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor of the Church), God explained to Catherine that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, perfectly united in a Trinity of persons:

Then I who exalt the humble drew to myself this soul’s love and longing and gave her knowledge in the abyss of the Trinity, myself, God eternal. I enlightened her understanding in my own the Father’s power, in the wisdom of my only-begotten Son, and in the mercy of the Holy Spirit — for we are one and the same thing.

Ok, I accept that do not believe the teaching of the Catholic Church on the revelation of the Trinity to Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. From that then, trying to understand the supernatural teaching of the Trinity using natural, "mental gymnastics" is not going to work. Analogies such as the shamrock are "directional" - they point, but are not univocal. Clearly, you know that God is not a physical body - even deism knows that. So, philosophy alone is not going to be able to analyze the teaching. To analyze the data on the Trinity - you have to start with the New Testament. That's where it's revealed. Not with Aristotle or Plato. Not with the rules of logic alone (they help but are not sufficient). You have to start with the data - and theology requires faith, otherwise your stuck with just philosophy (human knowledge). The data is Jesus' teaching from heaven. If you don't believe it is true, revealed teaching - then you can't go any farther. It's not accessible to scientific instruments. You can't evaluate the Trinity with a slide-rule or telescope. You have to accept first that Jesus is who He said He was. From that, you can begin to analyze the text and discuss the Trinity and understand it. Otherwise, you're just rejecting the quality of the data before you even can study it. The data is revealed teaching, not human knowledge. Silver Asiatic

Q, this is a case where the principle that worldviews lie behind everything comes out. Sufficient misconceptions emerge that some commentary is advisable, sadly, it is things like that that are poisoning the general atmosphere for discussion. If one side projects to the other side that they believe in blatantly incoherent nonsense, they cannot acknowledge that we can have views worth paying attention to. And then it is going to be hard to accept that they have badly misconstrued the concept of God. It is manifest to me, too, that since the early 90s at least, magazines of some repute such as Sci Am and Nat Geog went off the rails. To the point that I basically cannot read either anymore. Pop Mech is now better than Sci Am, sad. KF kairosfocus

it’s all fiction

Translation. Because I do not espouse it, it is fiction. I have no basis for this interpretation but I hold it nevertheless. jerry

SA, my best info so far is it has traceability only to C19, I would welcome earlier evidence. KF kairosfocus

VL, I pick up your:

There are all sorts of logical conflicts with this idea of an omni-everything God and his supposed role in the world

No, misconceived even as I cautioned about one single north point being superficially incoherent because we do not habitually think in terms of the surface of a spheroid. Likewise, we can note on wave-particle duality and the nature of photons, electrons etc. Sometimes, our preconceived ideas block understanding. We can note of Divine Attributes, that a core criterion is mutual compossibility. Indeed, stronger, there is a holographic-microcosm-facet principle at work, each leads to the others and indeed each contributes to the others. Omnipotence is not contradicted by God being unable to make 2 + 3 = 6, that is a logical impossibility. Similarly, the concept of a particular rock being so massive God cannot move it is incoherent. Likewise, that God cannot lie reflects his perfection of character not a genuine breakdown of omnipotence. And of course, cosmological fine tuning and the intricate design of organisims and ecosystems reflects wisdom not a deficit of divine power -- which is where Mill erred into meaninglessness, doubtless because of ignorance on divine attributes. And more. We are not asking you to agree with the understanding of God, just to recognise that it is a carefully worked through framework. No, it is not simplistic incoherent nonsense. KF kairosfocus

KF - yes, ok certainly with regards to the shamrock story. I'd say it has some ancient roots, but it may have been a literary interpretation as you said. Silver Asiatic

SA, I live in the second territory where St Pat's Day is a national holiday. Mostly and officially due to an uprising, but also some of Irish heritage celebrate it and he is patron saint. That said, there is no good reason to believe the shamrock conversation holds more actuality than some of Plato's Dialogues with Socrates. KF kairosfocus

VL says about our understandings of God, His attributes and action in the world: "it’s all fiction" Ok, that's one way to look at it. The entire body of theistic theology from the Jewish Scriptures through the Christian Fathers to Islamic philosophy through Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus through multiple volumes of contemporary theology ... It's all just fiction. Everybody just made it up. Ok, good to know. That's like entering a conversation on Renaissance art: "It's all just a bunch of paint on canvas. That's my view." Ok, thanks for your opinion! We certainly won't expect you to take the conversation any farther than that. Nice talking with you though. :) Silver Asiatic

It's noteworthy that, after KF et al replied to Chuck D's insertion of Bradley's argument,...there was no substantive reply from Chuck D defending Bradley's argument. Typical. Care to argue back in defense of his supposedly "excellent" article, Chuck? Beyond what KF et al said, it must be noted that Bradley's argument also fails for the following reason: he is arguing from a human perspective. He thinks and argues from a human viewpoint about God's omni-* characteristics, and only there finds problems. We have no idea what God's actual capabilities are, nor what commitments he has, nor what priorities he operates with, nor how all his superior and/or infinite characteristics interact. Bradley is like the kid who digs up a mathematical contradiction while playing with the concept of infinity, and gives up on mathematics as a result. Despite Bradley's posturing and bravado--two things he does excel at, his argument is not so excellent. Once again, Chuck, do you care to defend it with more than just rhetoric? EDTA

Viola Lee @248,

This is one of those “meaningless rhetoric” things I was referring to. There are all sorts of logical conflicts with this idea of an omni-everything God and his supposed role in the world, and so people go to all sorts of lengths to try to explain them away.

And continually do so regardless of the topic.

But since it’s all fiction, in my opinion, people can make-up whatever they want to try to make it make sense.

Sure. For example, some believe that nature created nature from nothing before time began. They believe in a cosmic turtle named "Multiverse" who lays eggs called universes. And Multiverse had a mother named "Multimultiverse." It's turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down. Is science fantasy better than stopping at Intelligent Design? Is science fantasy made better by mating it with political fantasy? -Q Querius

And what does all this have to do with "the blatant political flavor of many sciency magazines"?

The True Creator will never torture you forever. You can rest in His Goodness.

What shall I do with this troll? Take the bait and return to the thread where I asked my two questions, one from mathematics, the other from physics? Perhaps if we go around this circle a few more times . . .

The Christian trinity is polytheism pure and simple. No amount of mental gymnastics can escape that fact.

Shall I once again complain that unsupported assertions do not constitute irrefutable proof? And this one is based on ignorance. So, do the references in the Tanakh to the Ruach HaKodesh falsify the Shema? Or shall we somehow return to the OP? -Q Querius

This is one of those "meaningless rhetoric" things I was referring to. There are all sorts of logical conflicts with this idea of an omni-everything God and his supposed role in the world, and so people go to all sorts of lengths to try to explain them away. But since it's all fiction, in my opinion, people can make-up whatever they want to try to make it make sense. Viola Lee

SA @ 197 I would be surprised if Molinism was taught at the high school level, even in a Jesuit high school. It is an upper-level college theology topic. I am being a bit facetious when I say I didn't understand it, but it is one of those ridiculously complicated Catholic "solutions" to problems that cannot be solved. In this case, the "tension" between human free will and the sovereignty of God. While not so popular these days in Catholic intellectual circles, it is a big deal in evangelical circles, e.g., William Lane Craig has debated it a number of times, particularly with Calvinists like James White. I always look to the trinity as the paradigm case for Christianity's convoluted attempts to make things something they are not. The Christian trinity is polytheism pure and simple. No amount of mental gymnastics can escape that fact. Just look at KF's comment at 234 which completely begs the question. The "me" that is north of these various locations is just one simple "me," standing in one place, not "me" split into three "me's," in three locations,yet somehow also not a split up "me," and so on ad infinitum. It's also a trivialized use of the term "paradigm shift." chuckdarwin

KF: Ram, strawman, compounded by loaded language, and likely serving as a toxic distractor.

Not everything that you don’t have a convincing argument against is a strawman leading to a toxic distractor. Ram’s comment was discussed at length in a recent thread. I believe that it was WJM arguing the very same thing that Ram has said. I don’t believe that I commented on that thread but it was obvious that WJM had the most convincing argument. Scamp

VL

Has Q been listening to Dylan?

Far better if Mr. Zimmerman got those ideas from Querius. Silver Asiatic

KF

Pardon, he is Patrick as literary character.

But a real person - bishop, evangelizer, man of God, bringer of mercy and teaching ... He helped enact a very big change from paganism to Christianity - and he worked some powerful, public miracles among the Druids that brought them a new conviction. Getting ready for his feast day on the 17th. Silver Asiatic

JVL - @ 237 - thank you also! That was an admirable comment. Yes, "cantankerous", and I'm sorry that sometimes I get irritated with your questioning and I will doubt your sincere interest in the topic. But taking time to let thoughts about God sink in? Giving serious consideration to replies offered before writing your own? That is an awesome response - and very rare to find among anyone, believers or not. I can learn a lot from it. I'll suggest to my fellow-believers here -- please consider offering a prayer or two for JVL as he contemplates these ideas. The grace of God brings light to the mind - and by prayer we help each other find the path forward. Silver Asiatic

Ram

That’s like saying to know a particular woman you should study and learn about her. Theory is good up to a point.

It's an important point - true. It's not enough to know about God, but as you say, to experience the presence and reality of God is even more essential. Question: What do you suggest as a good way for someone to begin to experience God? Silver Asiatic

Ram The True Creator will never torture you forever. You can rest in His Goodness. –Ram

This is the theology of criminals. Lieutenant Commander Data

Ram, strawman, compounded by loaded language, and likely serving as a toxic distractor. This is a note for record as you have been directed to responses already. KF kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic: "I don’t know what ‘God’ means." This is something you should study and learn more about That's like saying to know a particular woman you should study and learn about her. Theory is good up to a point. To know a woman you need to experience her. Same with the True Creator. --Ram ram

The True Creator will never torture you forever. You can rest in His Goodness. --Ram ram

I wanted to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my cantankerous queries. Some follow-on questions came to mind but I thought perhaps I should mull over what's already been said before continuing. Somethings do take time to sink in after all. Have a nice weekend! JVL

Viola Lee @228,

Has Q been listening to Dylan?

Yes, Q once did. A lot. But in this case, Q's thought was in constructive interference with Dylan's. -Q Querius

Pardon, he is Patrick as literary character. Similarly consider the wavicles of the quantum world. kairosfocus

PPS, the triune understanding of God is not polytheism in disguise. There are no detachable bits and pieces of God, God is not assembled from prior parts. The scutum fidei may help a bit, but the story of the shamrock is able to help us clarify concepts. on being challenged, he plucked a shamrock and challenged the questioner, is this one leaf or three. It is in fact a unity a whole with aspects that are trifold. Sometimes I ask can one stand in one spot and be due north of London, Bridgetown and Kingston? At first it seems a contradiction, but on realising that Earth is a spheroid, we realise . . . go to the North Pole. Just so, this is a matter calling for paradigm shift, much as is so all over science. kairosfocus

PS, some "laws" seem to be local, making up much of physics in our going concern world. It is conceivable that other worlds with different physics are possible, hence fine tuning issues. Other laws are there by force of logic of being. No one can make 2 + 3 = 6. No one can abolish distinct identity. God, could for argument create a world that has different physics, but as necessary entities etc are framework for any world, including a core of Math, identity and its close corollaries etc, those would bind any world. Next, you seem to think laws of physics have necessary force similar to 2 + 3 = 5. But that is not so, there is no compelling reason why the author of our world, who is actively present in and enables all processes, cannot act outside of the usual pattern for good reason. Empirical generalisations cannot forbid such relatively rare exceptions. Also, I find it puzzling that some now imagine that the author of our world would be challenged to interact with it. KF kairosfocus

JVL, actually, once we look at the micro view, thermodynamics is about statistics and relative statistical weight AKA thermodynamic probability, with fluctuations a key point. So, while say a violation of entropy for a macro entity would be utterly implausible it is not logically impossible. The classical generalisations are based after the fact on stat mech, which is probabilistic. And that is specifically what I had in mind, my old profs would be disappointed if I did not instantly think in those terms. KF kairosfocus

VL, 223, I did not emptily "accuse," I showed the misfire by an admittedly significant mind, in 172. KF PS, as it is obviously needed:

JSM indulged meaningless rhetoric, finding words to dismiss what he was clearly hostile to at outset. That one has used reasonable means towards an end and duly balances constraints implicit in logic of structure and quantity or laws of world or moral balance of character etc rather than being essentially arbitrary is not a sign of weakness but of wisdom. It seems he is tempted to grossly misunderstand divine attributes, e.g. omnipotence does not imply arbitrary power but maximal power compossible with other attributes of divinity. For example God cannot be deemed weak if he cannot make 3 + 2 = 6. Similarly, the silly false dilemma that speaks of God making a stone too heavy for him to move is grossly failed and misconceived. God is author of spacetime, and material bodies inherently can change locus therein, where an actual concrete entity made of particular atoms will have finite amount of mass so cannot have infinite inertia. Likewise, balancing features and aspects of physics or the parameters of a cosmos towards fine tuning in support of cell based life, is wisdom, not failing to have arbitrary power, which would be irrational. Just so, designing a creature to balance potential conflicting requisites, e.g. the hollow bones and weight saving features and streamlining of a bird, giving due but limited strength, is wisdom not failed arbitrary power. Indeed, part of this would be that a reasonable divine purpose would be to have an intelligible world so that finite, fallible minds could discern order to guide living, culture and thought towards truth and soundness. And more.

PPS, I would suggest that the exchanges across today should not be blanket dismissed as meaningless. They don't fall into the sort of blunder JSM regrettably fell into. kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic ... immaterial entities can enable actions as we know. A thought can drive a decision then an act. Mozart composed a symphony entirely in his mind and then put it on paper. So, the immaterial thought existed first, then was actualized in reality in the music. The design of a building can come to someone in an immaterial vision – then the building is constructed according to the plan. That’s how design works – from immaterial idea to material object.

:) Very powerfull argument . Yep the universe was a symphony in God's mind then He wrote it on "paper". Sandy

Earlier today KF accused John Stuart Mill indulging in “meaningless rhetoric?’

I’ll repeat

John Stuart Mill indulged in ignorant rhetoric

It was also meaningless because it was ignorant. jerry

Q writes, "God is wonderful, loving, merciful, extremely creative, and impossible to fully understand (without your head exploding)" Dylan wrote, in "Where Are You Tonight?",

The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure, to live it you have to explode.

Has Q been listening to Dylan? Viola Lee

JVL

How does that explain how God relates to our laws of physics?

You're asking how God interacts with the physical world, or how physics can model God's being, or why God is not bound by the laws He created (you're posing that as an injustice). First, you know that God is not a physical being, created out of matter. So physics and math are not going to be able to model His infinite, incorporeal being. They're just not the right tools for the job. Secondly, immaterial entities can enable actions as we know. A thought can drive a decision then an act. Mozart composed a symphony entirely in his mind and then put it on paper. So, the immaterial thought existed first, then was actualized in reality in the music. The design of a building can come to someone in an immaterial vision - then the building is constructed according to the plan. That's how design works - from immaterial idea to material object. Finally, why God can transcend the laws He created is because He had to transcend them, since He created them for this physical universe, which at one time did not exist. So, He was always transcendent to the laws. As for natural laws, like humans need to eat and sleep to survive - God "violates" those because He does not need them, since He is not a human being, but the divine eternal being the source of all life. Finally, in regards to miracles (like the resurrection of Christ, for example) God transcends natural laws to show us that we are not entirely bound by them. We too can transcend the physical laws with the help of God - that's why we pray. Otherwise, everything would be dominated by physical forces and we would be helpless against them. But miracles happen - to show the triumph of the human spirit (and the grace of God) over determinism. Silver Asiatic

CD @ 197

I took a full semester course at Jesuit college in Molinism (where the doctrine of middle knowledge comes from) and still have no idea what it is.

I attended a high school run by Jesuits and we didn't have anything like that. But it sounds unfortunate for you, in any case. I find Jesuit spiritual exercises to be excellent and very helpful for improving prayer and meditation. And the Jesuit missionaries through the world are among my favorites to learn about. But in the case you mention, the theology sounds like it got too intellectualized. It sounds like a pre-Vatican II approach, less scriptural and more focused on technicalities. Most of that kind of wrangling has dropped away. >blockquote>It’s like “explanations” for the trinity–by the time you hack through them and realize that Christianity is really a form of polytheism, the philosophers have moved on to solving other mysteries. If philosophers conclude that Christianity is polytheism, then they haven't solved anything. In fact, if philosophers attempt to analyze and define the Trinity, then they're reaching beyond their competence - since the Trinity is not natural knowledge (for philosophy) but revealed doctrine that comes from God. It's a topic of theology, not philosophy. Theology requires the gift of Faith - which is infused at Baptism. Lacking that, it will be difficult to comprehend the teaching. But billions of Christians do embrace it - and it's not polytheism. Silver Asiatic

Lieutenant Commander Data @222,

Then you are saying God is not good.

No, I'm not saying that. How did you jump to that conclusion? God is wonderful, loving, merciful, extremely creative, and impossible to fully understand (without your head exploding). He created the universe and judged it to be "very good" according to the Bible. From what I've seen and studied, the universe and living things are totally amazing, extremely complex, and incredibly well engineered. Take your immune system for example.

Are you saying that God created this world without a specific purpose or you just don’t know it?

Again, how did you jump to any of those conclusions from what I stated? How can any human claim to understand the thoughts and motives of God unless God reveals it in part somehow? As I'm writing this, my dog is curled up near my chair. Do you think my dog is capable of judging my motives and means as I tap this message on my keyboard? Then how much less can we pretend to fully understand God's thoughts and motives? (this is a Kal v'Chomer argument)

Are you a theologian? Evil didn’t enter into this world it was allowed by the free will of Adam and Eve.

No, and theologians shouldn't pretend to understand God's thoughts and motives either. They just logically arrange the various speculations and collective ignorance of others, occasionally adding to them. My general statement about evil entering this world should be self evident, especially nowadays. My statement made no statement on how it entered. -Q Querius

Jerry @221,

Then you believe the creator of this world created an inferior world.

Inferior to what and on what basis? The Bible says that God saw the creation as "very good." It does not say "best of all possible" or "inferior." -Q Querius

Earlier today KF accused John Stuart Mill indulging in "meaningless rhetoric?' Since then there have been 50 posts of what would then be equally meaningless rhetoric. All hat, no cattle, as the saying goes. Viola Lee

Querius This world is certainly real as we experience it. But reality is fundamentally INFORMATION rather than particles and energy. I don’t don’t believe that this world is the best of all possible worlds for several reasons:

Then you are saying God is not good.

1. How do we determine what’s “best,” and what parameters does one use to evaluate “worlds”? 2. Best for whom or what?

Are you saying that God created this world without a specific purpose or you just don't know it?

3. Even theologically, the Bible never makes such a statement. For example, the text in Genesis asserts that God saw the completed creation and judged it as “very good.” It doesn’t say “best.” And even this observation was for the original creation before evil entered it.

Are you a theologian? :lol: Evil didn't enter into this world it was allowed by the free will of Adam and Eve . Lieutenant Commander Data

I don’t believe that this world is the best of all possible worlds

Then you believe the creator of this world created an inferior world. jerry

JVL @219, This world is certainly real as we experience it. But reality is fundamentally INFORMATION rather than particles and energy. I don't don't believe that this world is the best of all possible worlds for several reasons: 1. How do we determine what's "best," and what parameters does one use to evaluate "worlds"? 2. Best for whom or what? 3. Even theologically, the Bible never makes such a statement. For example, the text in Genesis asserts that God saw the completed creation and judged it as "very good." It doesn't say "best." And even this observation was for the original creation before evil entered it. -Q Silly side note: "Good" is a grade of B. Very Good is a B+ due to synergy in this case. But apparently, the stuff that was created on the second day, the atmosphere, received an "Incomplete" because no grade was given for that day. (wink) Querius

Jerry: JVL just agreed with me that this is the best of all possible worlds. He probably doesn’t realize it nor apparently does anyone else. If it's not real then it cannot be the best of all possible worlds since it's not a world at all. JVL

JVL just agreed with me that this is the best of all possible worlds. He probably doesn’t realize it nor apparently does anyone else. jerry

Querius: Perhaps “God” does “play with dice” after all. And if “God” created/is creating space-time, then “God” cannot be a subset within that space-time. But then how does God interact with space-time without having a component or power or energy that is part of that system? As a Christian, I’m comfortable with the concept of living in some sort of filtering simulation, which I believe is entirely compatible with some strange statements found in the Bible, even quotes from Jesus. Okay. So, the point of this incredibly compelling and binding simulation is . . . ? Does that not bring into question the idea of a loving and caring god? Does that not suggest a jester, manipulative deity that is just playing with us for it's own benefit? If our perceived universe is just a simulation then why should we take it seriously? Why should we respect the being that keeps us trapped in that falsehood and yet requests our devotion and respect? JVL

Kairosfocus: God would be author of the laws of physics and enabler of their operation. As statements they are simply summaries of regularities, sometimes put in a dynamical-stochastic context informed by logic of structure and quantity, they are not self explanatory nor do they give rise to a universe. For that you need to appreciate that a transfinite causal-temporal past poses the infeasible supertask of traversing a transfinite span of say years. There was a beginning and that points to something that set up the laws you point to as though they are ultimate. I understand regularities and probabilistic arguments that state that such and such is generally true or true a certain percentage of the time. But we have never observed a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Those seem to be immutable. I assume you assume that God can violate those rules at will thereby not being subject to the rules his influence on Christian thought regarding logic brought into human experience in the first place. So . . . just checking . . . God created laws or rules that human beings would be subject to and gave us reason so we could discover those and marvel at the 'logic' of the universe even though God was/is not subject to those rules. Is that right? JVL

Silver Asiatic: This is something you should study and learn more about – gain knowledge. Then you will be able to ask more informed questions. I'd be most interested in resources and publications which would address my physics-based questions. Can you recommend something? The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854 gathers together original contributions from a variety of leading philosophers to provide a timely and thought-provoking exploration of the nature and existence of God as manifested in the existence, order, and character of the natural world. Okay, that's one. But the laws are created by God, in a contingent universe. They are “regularities” created so that we can understand order. But those 'laws' are not hard-and-fast if God can override them. Are there any laws which are always and in every situation true and immutable? The law of identity – necessary and immutable. From that one law, all the others can proceed.

In logic, the law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself.

How does that explain how God relates to our laws of physics? JVL

JVL, You ask some very interesting questions. From your previous posts, I believe you're very familiar with quantum mechanics, yet like most of us, you easily fall into the "physical reality" myth. Science doesn't know how the "Laws of Physics" came into being and what determined them. They seem to fit into mathematical expressions that are generally predictive but get "fuzzy around the edges" (I'm sure you know what I mean). For example, in a conversation with some physics professors, one of them asked the question why should the inverse squared law commonly encountered have an exponent of exactly 2.0000 . . . ? Then, we consider the following (which I've mentioned several times before):

Vlatko Vedral is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College. As a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, here’s how he expresses it: "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information––and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." The key insight here is the realization that when we simply observe light, electrons, even small molecules or viruses in the famous double-slit experiment, it determines results in either a particle or a wave pattern depending on how they’re observed.

Then, when we postulate a "God" of some sort as the origin of existence out of non-existence based on INFORMATION as the fundamental reality, together with conscious observation and free-will choices of what to observe, we start drawing some hypothesis about both ourselves and this postulated "God." If my free-will choice of what I observe collapses the wavefunction resulting in particles and energy out of probability waves, then "God" must also be able to choose what NOT to observe. Perhaps "God" does "play with dice" after all. And if "God" created/is creating space-time, then "God" cannot be a subset within that space-time. And this is why supposedly a majority (~60%) of physicists believe we must be living in some sort of simulation, perhaps an "ancestor simulation." As a Christian, I'm comfortable with the concept of living in some sort of filtering simulation, which I believe is entirely compatible with some strange statements found in the Bible, even quotes from Jesus. -Q Querius

JVL, God would be author of the laws of physics and enabler of their operation. As statements they are simply summaries of regularities, sometimes put in a dynamical-stochastic context informed by logic of structure and quantity, they are not self explanatory nor do they give rise to a universe. For that you need to appreciate that a transfinite causal-temporal past poses the infeasible supertask of traversing a transfinite span of say years. There was a beginning and that points to something that set up the laws you point to as though they are ultimate. In that context, you are looking at necessary, world root reality that escapes trying to get reality from utter non being. And much more, the matter is a worldviews matter not a physical one. KF kairosfocus

SA, regrettably, Summa will be very stiff reading for most today. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Here is Grudem doing a points notes outline on God's attributes: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/attributes-of-god and this is an even simpler outline on key attributes: https://www.equip.org/article/the-attributes-of-god-what-are-the-attributes-of-god/ On God as redeemer (thus warranting the gospel and the scriptures that teach it), start here: includes a 1 hr vid, and in that light, you may proceed to for example here on the specifically Christian, scripture guided triune understanding of God. BTW, this is one place where Wiki gives a helpful introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity . There is much, much more out there that can be helpful, even for one who disagrees but wishes to do so with responsible, accurate understanding. That said, UD is not the place for a full orbed exploration, which is already highly tangential to the OP above. KF kairosfocus

JVL

what are the real ‘laws’ of the universe?

We have to start with the first principles of reason. KF references these frequently. The law of identity - necessary and immutable. From that one law, all the others can proceed.

If Christianity is a basic motivation for the development of science but the deity violates all the laws discovered by the endeavours of science then is it all just a scam?

Christianity does not hold that a law must be absolute and unbreakable to be a law - although the First Principles I mentioned are such. But the laws are created by God, in a contingent universe. They are "regularities" created so that we can understand order. Silver Asiatic

JVL is trollin' large today. Andrew asauber

KF

I am again pointing out that for topics like this, you need to go to panels of genuine experts, a blog combox is not going to be able to take the matter up in full depth.

I'd suggest also for JVL: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology https://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854 ... gathers together original contributions from a variety of leading philosophers to provide a timely and thought-provoking exploration of the nature and existence of God as manifested in the existence, order, and character of the natural world. Silver Asiatic

Jerry @180,

The best of all possible worlds scenario would imply that Darwinian processes would never generate superior characteristics because that would destroy ecologies. That is exactly what we see.

Excellent point! I once wrote an ecology simulation and discovered what I later learned was a very common problem. The simulations are notoriously unstable, tending toward increasingly wild swings that quickly result in the degradation of the carrying capacity of the ecosystem and the extinction of the ecological web. -Q Querius

JVL

I don’t know what ‘God’ means.

This is something you should study and learn more about - gain knowledge. Then you will be able to ask more informed questions. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: Ok, thanks. You think God has a physical body – maybe it came from evolution? I didn't say that, I'm asking how it all works. You seem to think that God has a physical body. It’s important for us to understand what you mean by the term “God” and I’m getting a good idea now. I don't know what 'God' means. But I think some of you imply that your version of 'God' has certain capabilities and I'm wondering how those abilities and powers fit in with our known and verified laws of physics. And if they don't fit in with those then are they really laws at all? If it's possible to violate or override those laws then they are only of limited applicability, i.e. they aren't 'laws' at all. So what are the real 'laws' of the universe? Are there any real 'laws' at all? If Christianity is a basic motivation for the development of science but the deity violates all the laws discovered by the endeavours of science then is it all just a scam? JVL

KF

JVL, you sound like you need a good survey on idea of God ...

That is essential. Summa Theologica First Part, questions 2-26 That's just a basic review. Every educated person should be familiar with it. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm Silver Asiatic

Kairosfocus: you sound like you need a good survey on idea of God and/or Systematic Theology, with focus on attributes of God. I would just like someone to explain how all the things attributed to God work based on our understood and verified laws of physics. And I would like some of the of quoted properties of God explained and defined. How can you detect and observe events in time and space and be outside of time and place? Just pontificating on some kind of being existing doesn't explain how it interacts and intervenes in our physical universe. JVL

JVL

How do you ‘see’ things without detecting photons?

Ok, thanks. You think God has a physical body - maybe it came from evolution? He's got two eyes also. I wonder if He lost some capability over an infinite time span and got some glasses to help. Bifocals? Or does He go with contact lenses? Tough questions, yes - sorry about that.

How do you detect photons without some kind of detector?

In your idea of God, yes true. God would need some good scientific equipment in order to view things. Where would God purchase that equipment? I think that would be a very good follow-up question for you. It's important for us to understand what you mean by the term "God" and I'm getting a good idea now. Silver Asiatic

CD, pardon your hyperskepticism is showing and is also exposing gaps in phil. KF kairosfocus

JVL, you sound like you need a good survey on idea of God and/or Systematic Theology, with focus on attributes of God. I suggest Grudem as a useful introduction https://archive.org/details/WayneGrudemSystematicTheology As for the concept that God enables, he is creator-sustainer of worlds, without his presence and active providence, no entity x in any world W would exist, nor would x go through any process, activity, etc. God is not part of the universe, he is its necessary ground of being and creator. That's why c 50 AD in Athens, Paul told the Areopagites that some of their thinkers had caught a glimmer of truth: we are his offspring, in him we live, move and have our being. Much more can be said, however the sufficiently disinclined, suspicious and hostile will find it very hard to understand or appreciate and in recent decades some took up the blunder of positivism and thought they wrote God off as meaningless, only to be exposed as self referentially incoherent. Note, by referring you to an introductory work, I am again pointing out that for topics like this, you need to go to panels of genuine experts, a blog combox is not going to be able to take the matter up in full depth. KF kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic: Spaceless, timeless, infinite being – we know these things by analogy. How do you know a) if they're possible or b) how that works? Do you think God has a physical body? That he sees things with two eyes? That he uses a telescope to see things that are very far away? Does He need a microscope to see what is happening in cellular life? How do you 'see' things without detecting photons? How do you detect photons without some kind of detector? You don't really know how it all works do you? You assume it does, somehow, but you can't say how. You can't rectify the laws of physics we know with what you think a deity does. It's okay if you just 'believe'. But at least have the honesty to say so. JVL

KF

“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.]

That is a good summary. We cannot learn, love, discover, create or have any rational discourse. Reason requires that "error exists" - error being a form of evil. It is logically necessary for evil to exist as long at the great benefit of value is given to morally conscious creatures. Bradley never explains how a moral world with free creatures could exist - he doesn't give an example. Instead, he says:

Most of the victims of his choice would willingly sacrifice the supposed benefits of libertarian freedom in order to avoid the hellish conditions that prevail in much of the world.

One of the benefits of libertarian freedom is the reward of eternal bliss in a loving relationship with God. So, to sacrifice free-choice is to sacrifice happiness itself. And like many atheists, he weighs only the pain of temporal existence and does not factor in eternal recompense. Silver Asiatic

JVL @ 186 You've hit on one of those intractable problems with Christianity, right up there with the problems of the trinity and evil. That's why the Jesuits came up with the truly bizarre and incomprehensible notion of "middle knowledge." Here's a definition from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

[Middle knowledge] is best characterized as God’s prevolitional (sic) knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Clear as mud, no? I took a full semester course at Jesuit college in Molinism (where the doctrine of middle knowledge comes from) and still have no idea what it is. It's like "explanations" for the trinity--by the time you hack through them and realize that Christianity is really a form of polytheism, the philosophers have moved on to solving other mysteries. chuckdarwin

JVL

If God experiences our universe then s/he must be able to perceive events and objects and such.

Do you think God has a physical body? That he sees things with two eyes? That he uses a telescope to see things that are very far away? Does He need a microscope to see what is happening in cellular life? Silver Asiatic

JVL

But if you are in our universe, detecting photons, then how can you be outside of it at the same time?

Spaceless, timeless, infinite being - we know these things by analogy. Silver Asiatic

Kairosfocus: poetic phrasing of omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence. If x is in reality anywhere in any world W, God is present in W at x and is aware of and enables it. HOW does that work? What does 'enable' mean? Allow? Can you 'allow' something when you perceive all of space and time? If you are aware of everything that has and will happen then are you enabling or allowing anything? Allowing or enabling implies making a decision at a particular moment in time which means intervening at that moment in time which means being able to influence physical/chemical/electrical reactions at that moment in time which means you have to be able to exerting physical/chemical/electrical forces at that particular moment in time which means you have to be able to wield those forces and how can you do that if you aren't part of the universe? And if you're part of the universe then how can you be outside of it as well? How does that work? JVL

JVL, poetic phrasing of omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence. If x is in reality anywhere in any world W, God is present in W at x and is aware of and enables it. KF kairosfocus

PS, So, CD, do you and Mr Ramsey have sufficient freedom to reason and have reliable results of reason including warrant for knowledge claims? Is such reason valuable and good? Or, are you in the boat Haldane highlighted:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the funcionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

If you are, then your case collapses as reason is delusion. But if reason is delusion, so are its products including evolutionary materialistic scientism, hyperskepticism, atheism, agnosticism, deism etc. There is no reason, mind is dead. If however, reason is real, it needs to be accounted for as a powerful good, precisely the sort of thing that opens up a world of good not accessible to creatures that do not have that capability. So, contrary to being a refutation of God, the attempted resurrection of the logical problem of evil is an incoherent argument that undermines reason itself and can be safely set aside. kairosfocus

Silver Asiatic: There’s no outside or inside for God. What does that mean? If God experiences our universe then s/he must be able to perceive events and objects and such. To do that you must be able to detect photons, see events play out in time. Especially if you're going to judge people 'in the future'; you have to be able to see their actions in context. But if you are in our universe, detecting photons, then how can you be outside of it at the same time? How does the inside and outside part communicate? If you don't know how that can work how can you be sure it can work? JVL

D, right at outset, a strawman which seems to pivot on misunderstanding differences between defence and theodicy, as well as misunderstanding the difference freedom brings . . . inter alia the possibility of love thus of virtue and the possibility of actual reason:

Plantinga, however, ignores clauses (a) and (c), and targets only clause (b), that involving God’s omnipotence. He sketches a scenario according to which God did his best to create a world without evil but had his plans thwarted by the freedom-abusing creatures he had created. “Given these conditions,” he argues, God could not have created a world free of evil. This “despite” his omnipotence. True, moral and natural evil exists. But that’s up to us, and Satan, respectively. It isn’t “up to God.” So Plantinga claims.

Nope. Here is a summary, note, an outline:

Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction: 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil [--> Notice, NOT ignored, that is false, and in context willfully misleading] To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. [--> again, not ignored] Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist. However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:

2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos.

[--> Notice, the issue of misunderstanding] Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses. Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. [--> if p1, p2 . . . pn are alleged to be inconsistent but if augmented by e become clearly consistent, p1 through pn are necessarily consistent already] The essence of that defense is:

“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.]

So, the attempted dismissal fails. The deductive or logical form problem of evil fails, and with the goods of reason, love, virtue and redemption etc, the inductive form is countered. The existential form is a matter of counselling, not logic. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus: Do I need to point out that it being impossible for God to lie or do wrong is not a sign of weakness but shows the due balance of divine attributes that leads to the holographic/microcosm result that each attribute leads to the others? If God knows that a major natural disaster is coming and doesn't tell devote Christians who are likely to be killed by it is that lying by omission? Knowing that having people killed will be devastating to their friends and family? And if God doesn't see major natural disasters coming is s/he all seeing and all knowing? JVL

JVL

How can a being be outside of space and time but still observe things in space and time?

There's no outside or inside for God. Silver Asiatic

Jerry: An ecology requires that a characteristic not be optimal. Otherwise it would destroy the ecology and all the species in it. Depends on your definition of optimal. Optimal could mean: best suited to utilise a given environment whilst allowing it to continue. JVL

William J Murray: From God’s perspective, He already sees the decisions we made throughout our lives. God isn’t imposing those decisions on anyone, but from His vantage point outside of space-time he can see them all, and what the end result is. To 'see' or observe things in our universe requires detecting photons which exist in our universe. And if you're in our universe then you cannot see all of time at once. So, how does God do it? How can a being be outside of space and time but still observe things in space and time? JVL

CD @183 Bradley wonders: What are the laws of logic that prevent God from creating a world with free-creatures capable of moral goodness? Answer: The Law of Identity Bradley's argument fails. Silver Asiatic

JVL asks:

But surely free will implies that even God doesn’t know, for sure, what we will decide to do? Otherwise, how could it be free will?

I think the answer under the theological perspective here would be something along these lines: that it is a matter of perspective. From God's perspective, He already sees the decisions we made throughout our lives. God isn't imposing those decisions on anyone, but from His vantage point outside of space-time he can see them all, and what the end result is. From our position, we can make any choice we want. Seeing those decisions before we make them is not, in any way, influencing us to make those choices. That view is kind of undermined by quantum theory; if we are all under "under" or "within" God's observational status, then God making those observations would, basically, be His opening the box with the cat - us - in it. God would then be determining what choices we make just by looking. William J Murray

KF @ 174 I found this an interesting aside:

So, in an era with the Plantinga free will defence — as opposed to theodicy — on the table, what can be offered that makes God a suspect notion? ________

I think claims that Plantinga defeated the logical problem of evil are wildly exaggerated, if not downright wrong. For an excellent discussion of this, Raymond Bradley's article is a must: The Free Will Defense Refuted and God’s Existence Disproved https://infidels.org/library/modern/raymond-bradley-fwd-refuted/ chuckdarwin

181 "not relevant' Silver Asiatic

Sev

What is ID’s view of John Stuart Mill’s argument that design implies limitation not omnipotence?

ID is not a religious or theological teaching. Whether the designer is omnipotent or limited is not irrelevant. After that, from a classical theistic view or Christian view, there's Mill's idea can be refuted in many ways. Silver Asiatic

The best of all possible worlds scenario would imply that Darwinian processes would never generate superior characteristics because that would destroy ecologies. That is exactly what we see. Darwinian processes are extremely limiting. So those who look to Darwinian processes are looking at something that is self refuting in terms of Evolution. It’s great science but only for genetics. jerry

JSM indulged meaningless rhetoric

No , It was

JSM indulged ignorant rhetoric

Even the great minds are befuddled some times. I have a question:

If something is ignorant is it also meaningless?

In this case, I believe it is. jerry

In response to Sev's quote of Mill, KF writes, "JSM indulged meaningless rhetoric ..." Lol. Viola Lee

What is ID’s view of John Stuart Mill’s argument that design implies limitation not omnipotence

You have been answered several times. Why do you keep repeating this inane question? An ecology requires that a characteristic not be optimal. Otherwise it would destroy the ecology and all the species in it. The best of all possible worlds would require an endless list of imperfects offsetting each other. It’s called trade-offs. Only an Omni-potent mind and Omni-powerful creator could accomplish it. So Mills while a smart guy didn’t understand this. But I bet if this was pointed out to him, he would have understood immediately. Now why can’t you? jerry

PPS, Do I need to point out that it being impossible for God to lie or do wrong is not a sign of weakness but shows the due balance of divine attributes that leads to the holographic/microcosm result that each attribute leads to the others? That is, we are looking at an inherently unified whole, each facet drawing on and contributing to all others? Where, this is also telling us God is not an assemblage of pre existing, detachable parts, which in turn is a characteristic of necessary being? kairosfocus

Q, insomnia power at work, let's try to go back to sleep. KF kairosfocus

PS, notice, my approach is that of exploring the logic of being implied in the idea of God, i.e. an application of ontology. We can go further, to note that inherent finitude also extends to the causal temporal past and as non being has no causal power we need necessary being at root of reality. Where, as we are responsibly, rationally free and thus morally governed creatures we need a being at that root bridging the is ought gap. We thus confront a bill of requisites for an adequate cause of reality and necessary being with inherent goodness and utter wisdom. Where, once a NB candidate is possible, it is actual as possible implies existence in at least one possible world and necessity of being implies framework to any world. To see this try to imagine a distinct world without two-ness, duality, or where such begins or can cease. But already duality is framework to a distinct possible world, i.e. particular W implies another possible world W' distinct from it, duality is a two way street, and yes we are seeing a branch on which we all sit first principle. A consequence of this is, those who imagine they know God is not or that they can dismiss God as a dubious notion imply a claim that God is impossible of being. Indeed, it is evident JSM, in his failed argument, was toying with that idea. So, in an era with the Plantinga free will defence -- as opposed to theodicy -- on the table, what can be offered that makes God a suspect notion? ________ kairosfocus

Seversky,

What is ID’s view of John Stuart Mill’s argument that design implies limitation not omnipotence?

To any engineer, architect, or other creative person, this statement is obvious. Engineering/Design is always about optimizing parameters to performance specifications, limitations (time, materials, quality, cost, etc.), and priorities. This is part of the ID paradigm. As an example, consider the energy expended by plants into leaves. Deciduous trees "manufacture" cheap throwaway leaves while evergreen leaves are far more expensive in terms of the energy expended in waxy coatings, insect repellents, and other elements designed for longevity. Which design is BEST? The answer as usual is "it depends" on the environment (or adaptability) for which it's designed. Omnipotence might be ascribed to some engineers, but generally assigned to God as one of several superlatives in comparison to humans. But people get in logical trouble when using these terms in an absolute sense. For example Yes or no. Can God create a stone so large that He cannot lift it? -Q P.S. Honestly, I didn't see Kairosfocus' post that beat me to the punch by a few minutes. Querius

Sev, JSM indulged meaningless rhetoric, finding words to dismiss what he was clearly hostile to at outset. That one has used reasonable means towards an end and duly balances constraints implicit in logic of structure and quantity or laws of world or moral balance of character etc rather than being essentially arbitrary is not a sign of weakness but of wisdom. It seems he is tempted to grossly misunderstand divine attributes, e.g. omnipotence does not imply arbitrary power but maximal power compossible with other attributes of divinity. For example God cannot be deemed weak if he cannot make 3 + 2 = 6. Similarly, the silly false dilemma that speaks of God making a stone too heavy for him to move is grossly failed and misconceived. God is author of spacetime, and material bodies inherently can change locus therein, where an actual concrete entity made of particular atoms will have finite amount of mass so cannot have infinite inertia. Likewise, balancing features and aspects of physics or the parameters of a cosmos towards fine tuning in support of cell based life, is wisdom, not failing to have arbitrary power, which would be irrational. Just so, designing a creature to balance potential conflicting requisites, e.g. the hollow bones and weight saving features and streamlining of a bird, giving due but limited strength, is wisdom not failed arbitrary power. Indeed, part of this would be that a reasonable divine purpose would be to have an intelligible world so that finite, fallible minds could discern order to guide living, culture and thought towards truth and soundness. And more. KF kairosfocus

What is ID's view of John Stuart Mill's argument that design implies limitation not omnipotence?

It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

Seversky

Supposedly the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior states that "In a carefully controlled environment, animals behave as they jolly well please." I don't know how true this is or to what degree among various animals, but I do believe that there's no fundamental property of material particles that convey a tiny degree of consciousness or free will in a certain arrangement, in sufficient quantity, and under the right "vibrations." I would speculate that God can CHOOSE to know something in our future or choose not to know. There are several places in the Bible that seem to indicate this is the case. It seems that we really and truly have consciousness and free will regardless of whether or not we can describe it philosophically or measure it scientifically. Again, how God operates inside and outside of space and time is completely unknown to me and I have no doubt to all others. And even if we did know, why should we assume that we could understand it? Back to the OP, what do you get when you mix . . . Science and politics? Science and religion? Politics and religion? -Q Querius

KF - agreed. God created randomness as part of His design. Things look random to us - to teach us something. We have to model evolution with random variables - mutations, environmental conditions, fitness factors - they're random (from our perspective). That's why if evolutionists think that artificial selection is virtually the same as natural selection are wrong - because of the randomness of the latter. But from God's perspective, He created things that appear random to us - but nothing is hidden from God, nothing is unknown to Him. "Even the very hairs of your head are all numbered"- that's one way of saying that there's nothing random or unknown to God. But he uses randomness and secondary causes (gravity, mass, weight, chemical bonds) to create things from law-like orderly processes. The rock rolls down the hill. The exact path is difficult to predict, but we could if we had omniscience. The raindrop falls to earth - the wind moves it, gravity pulls it - where exactly it lands, we say "it's random" but God knows all of those factors. Yes, just because God knows all does not mean that He has forced us to do things (except we cannot add one day to our life after the time appointed for us to meet Him at the end). We have free choice - and that's not determined by evolution or forces, and it's also not random since we use our reason to make intelligent decisions. Silver Asiatic

SA, there is no reason why God cannot use the randomness in quantum states as a part of his design. And as God is present and aware at every where and when, knowing what happens does not imply causally forcing it. That extends to our freedom also. KF kairosfocus

JVL “But surely free will implies that even God doesn’t know, for sure, what we will decide to do? Otherwise, how could it be free will?” How do you define free will ? Here is mine stolen from RC Sproul, the ability to choose what I MOST want to choose given the options available to me at the time the choice is made. Vivid vividbleau

Jerry @164, I agree with many of your observations. I'd also point out that while ID is highly pragmatic and consistently results in facilitating the progress of science, there are also those who reject ID on theological grounds--namely, they object to the existence of God in any form, typically as articulated in various Christian theologies. So of necessity, they feel they have to reject ID as well. I think a strong position of "I don't know" is very legitimate both in science and in theology: - Traditional Christian theology makes a lot of assertions about God that aren't explicitly found in the Bible. Good luck with that. - Scientists make a lot of bold assertions about things they don't understand. So-called "junk" DNA immediately comes to mind as well as the 100+ so-called "vestigial" organs including ductless glands such as the thyroid. Good luck with that as well. Maybe God does indeed play with dice and knows exactly what the probability distribution is but chooses not to move forward in time to see the outcome. I don't have any idea what existence outside of time would be like. There seems to be a limit to knowability in physics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and conjugate variables come to mind. Why should that be? To build a merged worldview based on the poorly understood quantum physics and the poorly understood genius creator of astounding complexity seems to be a fool's errand. And there are plenty of fools who volunteer. I think a more humble view has the best outcomes and is the most pragmatic in science, and in theology . . . not to mention politics. So, what do you get when you mix . . . Science and politics? Science and religion? Politics and religion? What conclusion can one easily draw? -Q Querius

Jerry @ 164 - agreed. Once we started talking about TE, then it's different because TE is a religious idea. As you stated, ID does not require specific religious concepts about God like that. Plus, TE starts with the assertion that God exists. But where's the evidence that supports their assertion? I actually heard a TE give evidence of God's existence that was basically an ID argument. So, very often they haven't sorted things out and a lot of them just want to stay on friendly terms with their bosses or faculty so they'll never say anything against Darwin or even against materialism, even though they reject materialism itself. Silver Asiatic

There is a mixture of religion and ID going on. From ID’s perspective there is no understanding of the way the creator operates except what evidence and logic tells us. People immediately jumped in and added Christian theology to the understanding of ID. But that is not ID. It’s Christian theology. This will give the impression that ID is an adjunct of Christian theology which it certainly isn’t. Ironically, most Christians reject ID. They do so for specious reasons. But they will maintain rightly that ID has nothing with Christian theology. These theological assumptions may be true but they don’t come from ID. What ID is, is proof of the absurdity of atheism. It does not however, point to any specific creator or reason for creation. We can make some conclusions about the creator. For example, the creation/universe is very finely tuned. That would seem to point to a purpose and that choices were made for this specific universe. We can also point to the natural law and life. The intelligence behind life and complex life seemed to build in certain inherent tendencies that lead to certain preferred behaviors based on these tendencies. Based on this certain motives of the designer of life may be speculated as likely. For example, people for years have speculated on the purpose of Stonehenge and recently there was a paper claiming to know why. Namely, it was a 365 day calendar. Are they right. Without interviewing the builders it would be impossible to know for sure. jerry

"God created all the natural laws and forces and processes – they were all intelligently designed (and actually are evidence of having been designed since laws require a law-maker)." SA, Agreed. Thanks for the clarification. Andrew asauber

Silver Asiatic: There can be no randomness for God. God knows all events thoroughly. If there were chance events for God, that would mean God was ignorant. Something would surprise Him. But that’s not possible. But surely free will implies that even God doesn't know, for sure, what we will decide to do? Otherwise, how could it be free will? JVL

Andrew

I would think natural processes aren’t intelligent processes, as such.

Right, but in an ultimate sense they had to come from somewhere. God created all the natural laws and forces and processes - they were all intelligently designed (and actually are evidence of having been designed since laws require a law-maker). Silver Asiatic

KF

SA, that God is aware of the trajectory of a particular molecule in a body of gas, does not imply that he has particularly determined its outcomes, but that he would have set up a world of law where such molecules obey a particular molecular statistics.

You're speaking from a human perspective. From our perspective, randomness exists Random mutations, random weather patterns, random snowfalls, random wind, random throws of the dice. But it's impossible for any created thing to exist or move on its own power for one millisecond. God is the energy that moves all molecules. They did not create their own energy or their own matter. If God removed His providential power from anything, it would cease to exist. There can be no randomness for God. God knows all events thoroughly. If there were chance events for God, that would mean God was ignorant. Something would surprise Him. But that's not possible. On the question of whether everything is "determined" in that way - in other words, directly decided by God - some things are (miracles). But most other things are determined by the long chain of historical factors - the result of sin versus virtue. The rewards or decrements from human life since Adam and Eve. Those are not random, although they appear so to us. They're also not unsupervised by God - they're a necessary part of mercy and justice which governs the world. By prayer we can change the course of events. ... just adding on your comment, that God created a world of law - that's another way to say that things happen by providence, not by chance. Silver Asiatic

Jerry

Who is arguing against intervention?

That idea of intervention assumes that the Intelligence was absent for a while, then came in an intervened, and then went away and waited for the next opportunity. That's a theological argument. Can God go away from creation? Can the world be sustained on its own power without the constant presence of God (God is omnipresent - how can he "go away" from the universe and then come back and "intervene"). The classical understanding is that God is always present and the power of God is absolutely necessary for everything to hold together. If God stopped supporting the universe with His Being, it would disappear. So, the idea that God comes out of heaven, intervenes and then goes away doesn't work in classical theism. But a person can believe in a God like that. To me it doesn't make sense but it doesn't affect ID at all. ID doesn't forbid or require intervention. It says nothing about it. Silver Asiatic

KF, Thank you. That helps. Andrew asauber

SA, that God is aware of the trajectory of a particular molecule in a body of gas, does not imply that he has particularly determined its outcomes, but that he would have set up a world of law where such molecules obey a particular molecular statistics. KF kairosfocus

VL

That sure looks like intervention to me.

Exactly. From the human perspective - from what you or I can see - it looks like intervention. We had natural processes that do all sorts of things. But then we see some things that cannot be explained by those processes. So it looks like intelligence intervened. However, that's from our perspective. From God's perspective, there's no intervention. God is present in all things. Additionally, we think we know how natural laws are supposed to operate, but do we really? There could be additional dimensions to the regular laws that we're not aware of.

But, if we are looking at this from a “pervasive intelligence” point of view, and not a materialistic point of view, that means that the pervasive intelligence in natural processes is not enough, so the designer/design force has to do more than the regularly embedded pervasive intelligence can do.

Or another way to look at it is that the designer exhibits some signature of the design. As you say, everything is designed, but some things are easier to see as "designed aspects". It's not an intervention, but it's just the artist showing some of the brushstrokes so we know it's a painting and not a photo. That sort of thing. The artist reveals some clues - so we can pursue and understand. It's the same thing with randomness. The designer created randomness so we could understand the beauty of order. It's a contrast.

That implies that events outside the regular flow of natural (and intelligently pervaded) processes have had to happen to lead to some special kinds of events..

That's an assumption on how the designer had to work. We think the designer created a regular flow, then there are special events (interventions). But they can all be designed in a continuum - with some events purposely showing designed elements and others appearing as if they were created by blind, material causes. In any case, if there's a pervasive intelligence that designed anything at all - that's ID. Silver Asiatic

As, the natural processes reflect signs of intelligence, they are not the cause of the intelligence. KF kairosfocus

"pervasive intelligence in natural processes" Not to butt in, but I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. I would think natural processes aren't intelligent processes, as such. Andrew asauber

That sure looks like intervention to me.

Who is arguing against intervention? ID implies that an intelligence intervened at least a couple times in the history of the world, probably more. Otherwise how did life and complex life get designed and appeared. Some intelligence intervened is the likely answer since no natural processes seem capable of it. Neither of these interventions have to be the creator of the universe which is certainly some type of intervention. Richard Dawkins thought that would be a likely explanation if there were any evidence that such an intelligence existed. But he begged the question on that intelligence by requiring it had to arise naturally by gradual processes. Some extremely unusual extremely low probable origins: 1) fine tuning of the universe 2) life 3) complex life 4) consciousness 5) earth ID accepts that natural processes produce 99.9999% of what we see in the universe but some things are so unlikely that an intelligence becomes the likely answer for its origin. jerry

SA, There are some good comments there, but I think this sentence brings up a key issue: “Nowhere in ID theory does it say “God intervenes” – nor does any intelligence “intervene”” OK, let’s leave the Christian God and TE out of it. The definition of ID given in the Resources says, “The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” But that definition is aimed at materialism, and I’m not discussing materialism. I am discussing the idea that accepting that intelligence can be seen as pervading the universe, which you seem to agree is a valid perspective, some things can be scientifically shown to have been designed. If I understand correctly, that means those things could not have happened through natural processes alone. But, if we are looking at this from a “pervasive intelligence” point of view, and not a materialistic point of view, that means that the pervasive intelligence in natural processes is not enough, so the designer/design force has to do more than the regularly embedded pervasive intelligence can do. That implies that events outside the regular flow of natural (and intelligently pervaded) processes have had to happen to lead to some special kinds of events.. That sure looks like intervention to me. Viola Lee

KF

I would point to quantum oriented statistical thermodynamics as a place where arguably chance is real and substantial, feeding into the macro picture.

It's a theological question. Sure, you could believe that chance is real, based on your understanding of God. To say that chance is real, at the quantum level, is to say "God does not know what would happen - He has to wait and see". But that cuts against omnipotence and omniscience. God created quantum effects as well as every molecule and the rules by which they exist, move and interact. In classic, Christian theism, there is not one possible thing in the created universe that could be outside of the knowledge of God. There can be no chance in God's perspective. He is outside of time - He knows all of the past and all of the future. Some people disagree with that (Ken Miller for one, proponents of Open Theology like John Haught for another). They think that God didn't know what would happen with random events. Miller says that God didn't know that evolution would create humans. That's consistent with Theistic Evolution since it claims that Darwinism is correct. Random things happen and God doesn't intervene. So, some of them think that God lacks knowledge about what is happening in the universe and then He is surprised by it - like someone who wins a lottery. In my view (traditional Catholic) that's beyond absurd - but that's a theological debate and for the sake of ID, I accept that people have all sorts of religious views, but all they have to do is accept that there is evidence of design in nature. How that design got there is a different question. Silver Asiatic

VL

Surely the fact that atomic structure and covalent bonds and the creation of the elements in stars, etc. exist and work as they do point to an intelligent foundation for our universe.

Exactly. That's an ID argument of sorts. We observe this order, structure and function. Chemicals have properties that came from somewhere. They bind in certain ways. The periodic table shows the order and precision. They create substances like salt which has amazing properties for the support of life. So, this is evidence of intelligence governing the world. The difference with TE is that it is a religious argument. ID is a scientific argument. With TE, you have to start with: "God exists, and therefore ..." So, TE says "God exists and God created everything, so everything is designed". But does that argument refute atheism? An atheist is just going to accept the assertion "God exists and therefore all is created"? Obviously not - but TE relies on religion. You have to already believe in God to use TE. ID does not require belief in God. It's a scientific argument. Anybody, no matter what religion, can use it. We observe intelligence exists. Intelligence can do certain things - we call that Design. We observe things in nature that could only be created by intelligent design. What you think about God is irrelevant. We know of intelligence - human, animal, insect, plant. Does this exhaust all the possibilities of intelligence acting in the world? That's an inference - no, it's a good conclusion to suggest that there are other intelligences and therefore a supreme intelligence as designer (although biological ID can accept even alien intelligence).

Yes: as I said earlier, Christian ID posits a God who intervenes. Someone else said, no, ID does not, but Jerry seems to think it does.

Right. The big problem for TE believers is the word "intervenes". This is how they misunderstand ID. Nowhere in ID theory does it say "God intervenes" - nor does any intelligence "intervene". That's irrelevant to the theory. What God does, or what the designing intelligence does is not part of the theory. We observe things that appear to have been designed by intelligence - that's it. The problem with the word "intervenes" is as the TE's say it. They think it means that God is in heaven, having nothing at all to do with the world. The world is operating under blind, mindless, mechanical processes. Then all of a sudden, there's 'puncutated deism' as you called it. God enters into the world, does a few things, and then goes back to heaven. Maybe some IDists think this - but that's a theological/religious issue. There's nothing in ID that says "God intervenes". In classic orthodox Christian doctrine, God doesn't "intervene" but instead He is "involved" in every aspect of every molecule of life. It's like the word "random". There are two contexts for that word: God's perspective of random and Our perspective of random. From God's perspective (which is not our own, obviously), there is no random. He knows everything. From our perspective, random exists. Why? Because God made it that way. God created the notion of random chaos to teach us about order and to show us what randomness (life without order) would be like, and how randomness cannot produce order. We call it "blind, mindless forces" because that's what atheists think created the world. We all know what "blind, mindless" things are. We know what chance is. People learn that at Las Vegas, sadly, all the time. Chance exists - from our perspective. From God's perspective, there's no chance or randomness. God allows "blind" material processes to do things that look like chance. It's the same with "intervening". From God's perspective, He's not far removed from His world and then comes in for a while to do things. He is fully in the world and sustains it constantly. There is nothing outside of His knowledge and power. But from our perspective, there is "intervening" actions. It means we can observe things outside of the normal order. When the Israelites saw the Red Sea part - we think of that as an "intervention". When Jesus calmed the waves of a storm with just His word - that's an "intervention". But it doesn't mean that God was absent for a while, and then came into the world. That's where TE gets it wrong.

Is there some part of nature that does not point to the intelligent foundation of the physical world as created by God?

No, not at all. Every molecule, every movement, every leaf on a tree, every star, every natural force or regularity - all of that shows God. ID is not saying "some things are not designed". It's just saying "we have scientific evidence that some things cannot be produced by blind, material (random) forces as atheists assert - so they show evidence of design (as the only known source for such things)." That's the other problem with TE. ID says "some things give the appearance of design". TE misinterprets that to mean "ID thinks that some things are not designed". That's false. ID is science - not religious. It just analyzes what is observed and makes inferences on the origin, based on what we know about intelligence. No religion or theology is required. Silver Asiatic

SA, I would point to quantum oriented statistical thermodynamics as a place where arguably chance is real and substantial, feeding into the macro picture. That is, statistical distributions are innate in the quantum part and the issue of statistical distributions of molecules etc is material, leading to for instance temperature as an index of avg randomly distributed energy per degree of freedom for relevant micro entities, with gas molecules as the usual start point. KF kairosfocus

Jerry @147, ID is even less specific than assuming a Creator God of some kind. For example, not a few scientists have postulated that we're in some sort of computerized "ancestor simulation." It's still an intelligent design paradigm but assumes some non-theistic origin. As a Christian, I'm perfectly comfortable with leaving ID without any attempt at syncretism. In my opinion, the presumption of design is sufficient based on pragmatic results alone. -Q Querius

There is Christianity/other religions and there is ID. They are different. All accept a creator but could be different on the nature of the creator. So at that level there is acceptance of design. But that’s it There is no need to conflate the two. jerry

Yes, but to Christians, it is the same intelligence, and it is Christian ID that is contrasted to TE, which is a Christian theology. Viola Lee

I did not say the creator of the universe is the same intelligence that created life and complex life. It could be but that belief has nothing to do with ID. All ID says is that life and its progression is the result of an intelligence. Not who that intelligence is. —————— TE’s and deists are very different from each other. TE’s are Christians and deists are certainly not. Nearly ever Christian till the last 150 years believed God created all life but they then got defensive because of Darwin’s ideas and many then accepted naturalized evolution rather than appear backward. Many then said the building blocks for life were in the original creation. Thus, they could accept what they thought was good science and God too. The irony is that the science was bad. But they now defend the science. Most believe the lies told about ID and that they are all YECs. But they are not They desperately do not want to be seen as YECs. jerry

Jerry writes, "They say without any proof that these were set up in the original design of the universe." I think you continue to think that TE is the same as deism. It's not. Jerry writes, "Thus, there most likely was an intervention by some intelligence in the creation of life." Yes: as I said earlier, Christian ID posits a God who intervenes. Someone else said, no, ID does not, but Jerry seems to think it does. Viola Lee

TE’s support ID. They believe the universe was created/designed by God. Their form of ID does not acknowledge the problems of OOL and macro evolution. They say without any proof that these were set up in the original design of the universe. Other forms of ID point out there is no mechanism for this in nature. Thus, there most likely was an intervention by some intelligence in the creation of life and then advanced complex life. jerry

Does the scientific fact that sodium and chlorine combine to make table salt support the idea that God is evident in nature? Surely the fact that atomic structure and covalent bonds and the creation of the elements in stars, etc. exist and work as they do point to an intelligent foundation for our universe. Is there some part of nature that does not point to the intelligent foundation of the physical world as created by God? Viola Lee

VL Good questions and commentary on this. First, I should add on your statement:

the intelligence of God is evident everyplace, from the formation of a star spewing out new atoms to a rainbow to the progression of life form

I fully agree with that. I also agree as you said that statement is consistent with orthodox Christianity - yes, true. So, I am an IDist and I fully accept that TE statement. The only difference between the two is in the science. ID says that the science supports the idea that God is evident in nature. TE disagrees with that. Silver Asiatic

My question is why do people here reject TE so strongly? You write, "Both ideas are saying that a supreme intelligence is evident." So where is the conflict??? Viola Lee

VL Consider this ... ID proposes: Some aspects of nature give observed, evidence of having been designed by intelligence. You say: TE believes that the intelligence of God is evident everyplace ... Both ideas are saying that a supreme intelligence is evident. Where do you think there is a problem or conflict between the two ideas? Silver Asiatic

Well, I've mostly been discussing my understanding of TE to show, as I said above, that the design/materialism dichotomy is not the only game in town. Lots of educated, thoughtful people, including some theologians, believe that TE is more theologically and scientifically sound than design. That's not a popular idea here, but it might do you folks some good to try to understand it better. TE believes that the intelligence of God is evident everyplace, from the formation of a star spewing out new atoms to a rainbow to the progression of life forms, so they are, in my opinion, more in line with orthodox Christianity than is ID. But that's all for me for now, I think. Viola Lee

VL

It seems to me you’ve just made the argument for TE!

See asauber's response @136

Design is “just a measure of our ignorance of causes”

No. Randomness or chance is aligned with ignorance of cause. Design is aligned with intelligence as in purposeful cause. We know of things that have been designed by intelligence. We see things in nature that appear to have been developed by that same cause. It's not a measure of our ignorance, but rather, an inference based on what we already know. We then apply our knowledge, not ignorance, to what we observe. "Biology is the study of things that appear to have been designed for a purpose." -- R. Dawkins The TE approach to this is incoherent. Silver Asiatic

"the implication to me is that the designed/ not designed distinction is meaningless." Does Not Follow Non sequitur Stretch Andrew asauber

SA writes, "From God’s perspective, of course there is no chance. Chance is just a measure of our ignorance of causes. But God created every molecule of the universe and God’s providence is involved in every action, reaction, force, decision and movement of things that could ever exist. That’s what it is to be omnipotent, omniscient and creator of all things." Well said, and the implication to me is that the designed/ not designed distinction is meaningless. Design is "just a measure of our ignorance of causes", and, applied to evolution, genetic changes involved in the slow progression of changes in organisms is as God wills: "God’s providence is involved in every action, reaction, force, decision and movement of things that could ever exist." It seems to me you've just made the argument for TE! Viola Lee

JVL

What? I’m confused.

Someone else said something about theistic evolution and how they view God's relationship with creation. I can help explain the quote you posted:

Right, but we also have the concept of “chance” which God created so that we would know what design looks like.

Actually, I can't get very far unless you have a good understanding of what is meant by the term "God" in theistic terms. That's what this is referring to. This is not a theology blog so I can't explain that concept very deeply. But you have to start with the attributes of God that we derive from reason alone. Once you get that, then you have to determine how God interacts with creation. After that, then you have the existence of what we call "chance". That's what I'm talking about. Chance is a concept that has meaning because it is related to order or design. If there was no order or design, there would be no chance.

Are you saying that nothing happens via chance, that everything is predetermined by God?

From God's perspective, of course there is no chance. Chance is just a measure of our ignorance of causes. But God created every molecule of the universe and God's providence is involved in every action, reaction, force, decision and movement of things that could ever exist. That's what it is to be omnipotent, omniscient and creator of all things. But God created the concept of chance for us so that we could learn the value of design and order, and so we could bring order from chaos - things like that. I didn't use the term "predetermined" - that's something you introduced. God does not determine (like a physical force determines the movement of things) the action of His free creatures. We have some limited freedom so we have responsibility for our actions. We make decisions - not by chance, but through reason. We observe things in nature that look like random chance. Thus, we can test to see if designed objects could come from chance. But God is not dependent on material reality, since He is the creator of material reality -- that reality is dependent on Him, not the other way around. So, God cannot be ignorant of the cause of anything. There can't be any chance for an omnipotent creator. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: Right, but we also have the concept of “chance” which God created so that we would know what design looks like. What? I'm confused. Are you saying that nothing happens via chance, that everything is predetermined by God? What would be the point of that? JVL

Andrew: This is wrong. A person’s worldview contributes a lot towards how they view ID.

Isn’t this a chicken and egg thing? I would argue that there are thousands of things that I use to inform my worldview. My views on ID being one of them. And, as my worldview changes over time as new information becomes available, my modified worldview might result in my view of some of the components that comprise it changing. A person’s worldview cannot be summed up in a single label. Any more that a person’s socio-political views can be summed up in a single word. Any more than a person’s moral values can be summed up by the labels Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Scamp

SA: He’s attacking ID but won’t reveal what he thinks is the alternative.

Where have I attacked ID? To the best of my knowledge the closest I came to talking about ID was in a response to a comment about sub-optimal design. I believe I said something along the lines that some IDists don’t believe that there is sub-optimal designs and others believe that they are due to the Judeo-Christian fall of man. That is hardly an attack. Just a statement of fact. Disagreements amongst tbose who support a theory is common and, in fact, healthy. That is how theories develop. Scamp

Jerry

They too would flee any open discussion on the science behind OOL and macro evolution

Yes - true. I've argued with TE's (I consider many of them friends) for years. They run away from the science, and then turn around and claim that ID is theological. When asked to provide references in ID literature for how supposedly ID teaches that "God is interventionist" ... well, there's yet another reason to run from the discussion. They return to their Christian websites where they can attack ID in safety, without the threat of being challenged. Silver Asiatic

VL, Theology is a particularly difficulty issue to discuss controversially without a panel of solid experts. For many reasons. Amateurs without true independent depth flailing around in the shallows is not a way to get to soundness, similar to many other disciplines. However, it is a very good way to drag things off on tangents towards toxic atmosphere clouding distractions. This is why I have pointed people, again and again, to the existence of sites with such specialists, starting with Craig's Reasonable Faith. Basics -- basics! -- of phil are by comparison easy, I recall a historic debate that pivoted on the grammatical and semantic difference in Greek posed by an iota, and which ended up feeding into the ruin of the Roman Empire. When such come up here, I may give a 101, with often more of phil/worldview considerations than strict theology. That is for record, the implication is, go to the places where there are experts for detailed exploration, note, a short introductory Sys Theol is 1200 pp long, Enc size, 4 - 10,000 pp is more like it for serious works. I note that when for example serious debates have been linked, it is evident that often there has been no serious attempt to see what genuine experts have to say. KF kairosfocus

TE is not the same as deism, as you mistakenly claim. However, I think many might agree with the substance of your second sentence (but not the judgmental aspects) that ID implies that God is an interventionist, which they take to be bad theology

Not my understanding or implication. They are traditional Christians. For example, many main stream Christians accept a natural explanation for OOL and then Darwinian evolution after that. Nearly all Christian universities teach Darwinian evolution. There’s been long discussions here several years ago with TE’s who commented here. So that’s where my understanding comes from. They too would flee any open discussion on the science behind OOL and macro evolution. I assume they knew they would lose. Instead they sniped at ID from their Christian websites. They just said the evidence was overwhelming. Essentially they begged the question. TE’s are definitely Christians as far as I’m concerned but it’s easy to see how it could apply to other religious views. It’s always interesting to read the misinformation out there on ID. If the ones who espouse the nonsense they print on ID ever came here, they would lose the arguments on evidence and logic. But they don’t and if they do they either flee or evade discussion immediately. It’s the greatest proof there is that ID is on to something. Aside: comments are quick and imperfect summations of people’s beliefs so often are not completely accurate. They provide 20 minutes here to correct or explain a comment but often something is left out. As is this one now. jerry

Jerry writes, “We are all out of our depth here. This is not the place to discuss Christian theology.” We are all out of our depth here, to various degrees, on many of the subjects discussed here: quantum physics, philosophy of math and science, metaphysics, biochemistry, etc., and that doesn’t seem to stop us. We are all laypersons on almost everything we get involved in discussing. Jerry writes, “For example, my understanding of TE’s is that their God would have no need to intervene because He set in motion the dominos to lead to life and its major changes. And that ID is creationism and believes in an inferior God who couldn’t get it right and had to constantly tinker.” No, TE is not the same as deism, as you mistakenly claim. However, I think many might agree with the substance of your second sentence (but not the judgmental aspects) that ID implies that God is an interventionist, which they take to be bad theology. Viola Lee

I have a very interesting twitter thread which all should read but not comment here. I’ll post it a couple places and maybe a discussion will get started. It’s not religious or political but explains a lot.

In 40 tweets I’ll explain 40 useful concepts you should know. Reading time: ~7 minutes. Value: potentially a lifetime!

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1492255231169679365.html By the way, the guy is anti ID as you will see in one of the tweets. jerry

asauber

They weren’t informed in a way that sticks in their thinking about how humans have tried and are trying to answer the Big Questions. Current culture is geared so that people think about anything but these things.

Yes, agreed. Even some of the good apologetics sites do not get into the bigger questions and there's a lot of confusion about evolution and creation and origins, etc. There are quite a lot of Catholics active in the DI so I think they can bring some good changes for people. Silver Asiatic

Jerry 122 Exactly. They throw very attacks and insults as if they're smarter than everyone else. They think they speak for "science". But when questioned about their own views, they run and hide. Silver Asiatic

Scamp

I always stand by my values. As, I suspect, most people do.

On this blog you have to prove it, not just say it. You're a guy who won't reveal what your values are - then you say you always stand by them. Having integrity means engaging a discussion so that others can challenge you - and therefore you can grow, or they can learn from you. So, you're claiming you stand by your values -- are you an atheistic-nihilist? That's pretty easy to stand by values when there are none. The same for a materialist - subjective values which are meaningless. That's the problem with anti-ID materialism. Silver Asiatic

won’t reveal what he thinks is the alternative

That’s how it is with everyone who is anti ID. They cannot defend their beliefs while believers in ID constantly do so. They come here believing we are bumpkins and find out they cannot refute us. The Ultimate Irony. jerry

A person’s worldview contributes a lot towards how they view ID.

My worldview depends on truth. I originally believed in Darwin’s ideas but after careful study changed my mind. My religious beliefs changed nada. Is “Truth” an overriding worldview? If it’s not, then it should be. jerry

"A person’s view on ID only contributes a minuscule towards a person’s worldview." This is wrong. A person's worldview contributes a lot towards how they view ID. Andrew asauber

Jerry

He has commented on ID and science.

He's attacking ID but won't reveal what he thinks is the alternative. That ends up with a very low-quality discussion. Silver Asiatic

SA: This blog is about Intelligent Design theory – which is a topic involving worldviews.

No, it is a topic about science. A person’s view on ID only contributes a minuscule towards a person’s worldview.

To be anti-ID is to express a worldview.

No, it is to express a scientific opinion. Besides, I have not commented yet about ID.

You’re talking about a topic now that requires an understanding of your worldview.

No. It requires an understanding of evidence and logic. That is what arguments are based on. Whether or not I sacrifice chickens to appease the gods does not say anything about the merits of any argument I make.

Again, “good faith” is required in serious conversations. People who want to get reactions but who lack sincerity in their posts are time-wasters.

When I enter a discussion with someone I always assume that they are doing so in good faith. And, most of the time, they are. Even if we disagree. How does knowing their religion, political leanings or their worldview affect this?

You have to make a commitment – stand for your values.

I always stand by my values. As, I suspect, most people do. Disagreements often arise because of differences in personal values.

That’s a fundamental part of having integrity as a person, showing character, showing yourself as being worth the time to discuss things with.

Agreed. But I don’t have to wear a sign around my neck broadcasting my religion, political leanings or worldview to have integrity.

As it stands, your fear of revealing your philosophical foundation makes me question already if it’s worth taking the time to respond to you.

And your insistence on knowing everything about me before addressing my arguments makes me question your good faith. I guess we are at an impass.

You don’t want to share what you believe about life and origins, on a site that is dedicated to the study of life and origins. I’m sure you can see the problem with this.

No. I don’t want to share what my religion, political leanings and worldview. If I am making arguments about theology then you can ask about my religious affiliation, because then they would be relevant. If I was making comments about right-wing nut-jobs or left-wing woke progressives then you could ask me about my political leanings then they would be relevant. But asking me about them when they have no impact on the arguments I am making can only be motivated by an attempt to apply an all-encompassing label to me so as to justify dismissing my arguments. I prefer to address a person’s comments based on the individual arguments they make rather than whether I agree with their “worldview”.

It means the person is acting in an ignoble manner and we shouldn’t give that person time or attention.

Yet when I brought up the ignoble behaviour of one of the main Ottawa protest organizers I was told that his behaviour didn’t impact the merits of the cause he was arguing for. You can’t have it both ways. Scamp

"A lot of my fellow Catholic believers (probably most) are anti-ID for this reason. But I argue that they do not understand ID." True. I'm a Catholic ID'er too, and most of my Catholic friends aren't prepared to discuss things like ID, Evolution, and/or things regularly explored on UD. They weren't informed in a way that sticks in their thinking about how humans have tried and are trying to answer the Big Questions. Current culture is geared so that people think about anything but these things. Andrew asauber

VL

Yes, that is the point I’m making. What looks like luck and chance to us is not luck and chance to God.

Right, but we also have the concept of "chance" which God created so that we would know what design looks like. Science has to accept that "chance exists" - even though by theology we would say it's all known in the mind of God. We have to accept that mutations are random from a human perspective - then test them as if they are just blind and mindless, as natural processes. That's where TE gets a little strange. They'll say that "it looks random but is really designed". But that means we can't tell the difference between a random occurrence and that which has been designed by intelligence. Silver Asiatic

We are all out of our depth here. This is not the place to discuss Christian theology. For example, my understanding of TE’s is that their God would have no need to intervene because He set in motion the dominos to lead to life and its major changes. And that ID is creationism and believes in an inferior God who couldn’t get it right and had to constantly tinker. All Christians believe in free will, thus the events we witness are contingent on those choices. So there are two forces operating, the forces of nature/physical world and the free will of others. But there are other forces operating due to intervention of the creator. But is this really the place for such a discussion. For example, I have commented several times, if the world acknowledges ID, then the real food fight begins. Right now I dealing with nature. It’s trash and recycling day here in our town in New Hampshire and high winds are creating havoc with everyone’s trash. Is that God saying something to me and my neighbors? jerry

SA writes, "Ultimately, it’s not “luck” as if things happen outside of God’s providence." Yes, that is the point I'm making. What looks like luck and chance to us is not luck and chance to God. Viola Lee

VL

I remember one person describing ID as “punctuated deism”: God stands back and just lets thing take their course except when he decides to step in. This is an unacceptable theological position for those who believe in God’s continual presence in all that happens.

That's right. A lot of my fellow Catholic believers (probably most) are anti-ID for this reason. But I argue that they do not understand ID. ID does not say that God is not doing anything except in "designed moments". That's a misunderstanding of ID. What ID is saying is "we observe certain features of nature that appear to be designed by intelligence - as compared to others that we can explain by natural, material forces". ID does not say that natural forces are not designed by God - but only that some things appear that only an intelligent agent could produce them. ID does not claim that God is only involved in those things that appear intelligently designed to us - but only that some things appear moreso that way than others. Is the pattern of every raindrop that hits the ground intelligently designed by God? Sure, you could say that. You could say that God guides every raindrop individually. But ID is about the science, not theology. We know how raindrops fall from humidity and gravity and atmosphere. Science does not need more than that. But something like the origin of first life? - that cannot be explained by gravity, chemistry or atmosphere. It's an example of intelligent design - but it doesn't mean that God just stepped in and did that but then was not active in nature even by supporting natural processes. (God is the source of all energy and natural laws and order in the universe - so He is present everywhere). Silver Asiatic

VL

Is it a legitimate Christian perspective to believe that even though it lucked like luck to us, it was not luck to God, but rather a manifestation of God’s presence to support his desire and plan that the man not die on this day?

It's a matter of discerning the presence of God, the grace of God and the messages that God communicates in a variety of different ways. Some of the sources to discern would be reading the Bible (a passage may explain the event or affirm or deny what you're thinking), talking with other believers (to try to figure out what God is saying in the event) and God communicating certain signals within the soul about what the event meant (certain light-in-the-mind, an experience of joy or peace that is unexplained). Trying to figure out the meaning is putting all of those together - and it's not always 100% clear. Quite a lot of people experience things where they were saved by a lucky coincidence, and they decide that their life has meaning at that moment and then they live in a different way afterwards. A lot of guys in military situations - seeing all of their buddies get killed but they survive, ask God why they are living - then they go on to use that in their life (to help veterans, or become spiritual leaders to help others, etc.) Ultimately, it's not "luck" as if things happen outside of God's providence. Some Christians believe in luck like that- like the Darwinist Ken Miller who thinks that God didn't know what evolution would produce. But that's just a problem for theistic evolution. You'd have a God limited by material forces and that doesn't make a lot of sense (since God created the material forces). Silver Asiatic

Jerry writes, "TE’s who postulate no intervention in physical events but ironically believe in prayer and miracles." This is the theological crux of the matter. TE's believe that "intervention" in the sense of a miraculous overriding of the course of natural events is not necessary because God is already, continually, present in the course of natural events. I remember one person describing ID as "punctuated deism": God stands back and just lets thing take their course except when he decides to step in. This is an unacceptable theological position for those who believe in God’s continual presence in all that happens. Viola Lee

I’ll guess you’re here for the political discussions alone

He has commented on ID and science. jerry

I believe most Christians believe that God can and will influence some events but free choice is also involved. This obviously influences subsequent situations/events available to others for their choices. Christians believe heavily in prayer which acknowledges this belief that God intervenes in some way. At the risk of getting off track and theological this is a major difference with TE’s who postulate no intervention in physical events except at the beginning but ironically believe in prayer and miracles. Again it is speculation as to what was is in the mind of God. We can only follow evidence and use reason. jerry

Scamp

But I have never stated my worldview. It is irrelevant to any argument I am making

This blog is about Intelligent Design theory - which is a topic involving worldviews. To be anti-ID is to express a worldview. To say that worldviews are irrelevant to your arguments here, says that you've never discussed ID, Darwinism, Materialism, Design or anything related to the purpose of this blog. I'll guess you're here for the political discussions alone. True?

Not bringing personal worldview, religion or political leaning into discussions that have nothing to do with them is not been dishonest. It is just being pragmatic.

Asauber responded @ 85. One's worldview affects every serious discussion since it is the reason why you believe things and explains your position. When we talk about the nature and reason for discussions - that requires a worldview. You're talking about a topic now that requires an understanding of your worldview.

For example, my motive for making the arguments I do could be to trigger reactions from those I know are opposed to them (that is not my motivation, btw).

It's called trolling and usually ends with people getting kicked out of the discussion. Again, "good faith" is required in serious conversations. People who want to get reactions but who lack sincerity in their posts are time-wasters. You have to make a commitment - stand for your values. That's a fundamental part of having integrity as a person, showing character, showing yourself as being worth the time to discuss things with. As it stands, your fear of revealing your philosophical foundation makes me question already if it's worth taking the time to respond to you. You don't want to share what you believe about life and origins, on a site that is dedicated to the study of life and origins. I'm sure you can see the problem with this.

But just because a person’s motivation is not “noble” doesn’t mean that their arguments don’t have merit.

It means the person is acting in an ignoble manner and we shouldn't give that person time or attention. Silver Asiatic

Jerry writes, "To say God was involved makes a nice story but one we will never know the truth about in this world." I personally agree, but that's not the point I want to make. The point is that many Christians will believe (on faith, not because we can know) that indeed it was part of God's plan that you and your wife got together. More philosophically, even though yes indeed the world is full, every moment, of events which lead the course of subsequent events down paths they might not otherwise have taken, behind the scenes, so to speak, things are proceeding exactly as God wills. God is omnipresent and omniscient at the most minute level of what happens in the physical world, so there is no theological reason to believe that he can't, and doesn't, affect the physical world comprehensively at every moment. As to KF's point, our free will behaviors take place in the context of the massive amount of non-free will events going on that influence our lives, and influence the course of physical events. Viola Lee

KF: VL, we are obviously back on the push to embroil UD in off topic, in- absence- of- panel- of- good- theologians amateur debates:

UD gets embroiled in plenty of off-topic debates. COVID. Treatments, trucker protests and the war in Ukraine come immediately to mind. Scamp

Was the alarm clock not going off luck

A lot of alarm clocks don’t go off. Each person affected will experience different life experiences. A lot of other similar delaying events happen every day. Some will interpret it differently. About 20 forks in the road led me to meeting my wife at a certain time and place. The odds were incredibly low. To say God was involved makes a nice story but one we will never know the truth about in this world. What about the girl next door? This is all nice speculation but just that, speculation. jerry

re 98: KF, you are responding to the aspect of the issue involving free will and human behavior. That does NOT address the non-human aspect of the manifestation of God's will. In my post at 89, I wrote,

A man’s alarm clock fails to go over, he misses his plane, the plane crashes and everyone onboard is killed. His friend says, “Boy, you sure were lucky”. The man, a Christian, says, “No, God meant for me to live. It was not part of his plan for me to die to today. It was God’s will, not luck, that I wasn’t on that plane.”

Was the alarm clock not going off luck, or God's will? Is it a legitimate Christian perspective to believe that even though it lucked like luck to us, it was not luck to God, but rather a manifestation of God's presence to support his desire and plan that the man not die on this day? Viola Lee

What the heck does that refer to

I’m sure we will find out.

Why didn’t you chastise him

It seems every thread here is like Darwin’s Tree of Life. Branching out in different directions. Everyone has their preferred mutations. It’s by design. jerry

KF writes, "VL, we are obviously back on the push to embroil UD in off topic, in- absence- of- panel- of- good- theologians amateur debates:" BA wrote, back on post 66, "Christians who believe in human evolution, i.e. Theistic Evolutionists, are, to put it mildly, confused in their Theology and science." Why didn't you chastise him then for "pushing to embroil UD in off topic , in- absence- of- panel- of- good- theologians amateur debates." ??? Viola Lee

KF writes, "VL, kindly ponder, fellow traveller." What the heck does that refer to? Viola Lee

Jerry: While such a thing may happen, it is presumptuous to believe God ordained it for some reason. The irony. I would back up a level and say that it's presumptuous to speak for the Creator, which you seem to be doing. Are you a prophet? I'm betting... not. --Ram ram

PS, dressing up a blatantly inadequate claimed mechanism of origin of life and body plans -- blind chance and/or mechanical necessity -- in clerical robes, fails. It remains so that the cell uses complex alphanumeric code [ language] to state algorithms [goals] exploiting subtleties of AA sequence chemistry [deep knowledge], which features are only empirically warranted on intelligently directed configuration. kairosfocus

VL, we are obviously back on the push to embroil UD in off topic, in- absence- of- panel- of- good- theologians amateur debates:

Is ultimately all that happens God’s will, or is most of it NOT God’s will, except for when he specifically intervenes.

The answer is actually a form of Plantinga's free will defence. First, by creating significantly free, thus morally governed creatures capable of reason towards truth and love towards virtue, a whole new dimension of good is opened up, creatures who in significant numbers turn from wrong and folly toward truth in love, creating positive civilisation sufficiently robust to overcome chaos forces and form good community. In directly theological terms, the Scriptural trajectory starts in a garden and ends in a heavenly city, with the strange pivotal moment being at a cross outside a city wall with heading in the three foundational languages of our civilisation: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. So, rational, responsible freedom capable of truthing it in love works to create an order of the good that would not otherwise obtain. If you use that freedom to object to freedom and/or construct narratives of origin that are challenged to account for it, you are self referentially incoherent and self defeating. This happens in many ways. Next, we know from Plantinga's work 50+ years ago, that the deductive problem of evil is defeated by the free will defence [as opposed to theodicy]. So long as it is a logically possible state of affairs that God could have a good reason for a world in which freedom exists, evils do not constitute a valid objection to the God of ethical theism. Where, the loving counsels of God and his servants help us when evils threaten to suck us down in a vortex. And, the redemptive frame just outlined tames the inductive form, WE are responsible for our willful, destructive abuse of freedom. And yes, the arguments you outline incline towards this dead issue. Going further, God's sovereign power creates and providentially sustains a world involving rational, responsible freedom. So, we then see that the will of God is a highly ambiguous term: what God creates and sustains everywhere and "every-when" to enable a world in which freedom enables truthing it in love, permits freedom. Freedom involves the soul test: is vs ought, which do we choose to open up as is with consequences, the good, wise, truthful, loving, or what is otherwise. So, the question is ill-framed and fallaciously complex. What God wills and permits by implication of freedom, is not necessarily what ought to be but it is also subject to redemptive action and will end in a heavenly city. Meanwhile, our duty is to walk by truth in love, purity and holy power. A different atmosphere than we are wont to in this time and stage of our struggling, declining civilisation. KF kairosfocus

VL, kindly ponder, fellow traveller. KF kairosfocus

I'm not arguing for TE. I'm trying to explain the broader theological perspective of which TE is a part: the idea that God is immanently present in every moment of existence, sustaining and continually creating all that happens. Christians often refer to this when they say things like "God has a plan for my life" or "it was God's will that such-and-such happened." We experience a world of lawful, orderly nature because that is how God's will manifests to us. From this perspective evolution is just like any other sequence of events, manifesting the outflow of God's presence. TE is a bad name because it implies that evolution is the focus of this outlook, but it's not: the outlook applies to the daily life of individuals as much as it does the history of the world over millions of years. Clearly, I don't believe this because I'm not a theist. But I think you guys don't understand the theology I'm describing (and which is in the mainstream of Christian theology), and misrepresent it, because it is a alternate perspective between the ID you are attached to and the materialism against which ID is defined. Your distaste for TE is a reflection, I think, of the threat it poses to your declaring that the dichotomy between ID and materialism is the only game in town. Viola Lee

"you didn’t respond to my question, which is not about evolution." So now you claim that you were NOT arguing for Theistic Evolution in post 81? Well Okie Dokie then, that does it for me. bornagain77

But BA, you didn't respond to my question, which is not about evolution. Is ultimately all that happens God's will, or is most of it NOT God's will, except for when he specifically intervenes. Leave evolution out of it: what are your theological beliefs about God's immanent presence in the world? Viola Lee

Jerry, I've personally experienced some "amazing grace" situations--miracles--and I've also been through some really rough times. As a Christian, I believe the Bible when it says that God causes "the rain to fall on the just and the unjust." It also promises that God will make "all things work together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose." These principles are not contradictory, but merciful. And then in the end everyone dies physically, some sooner and some later. The Bible asserts that humanity was originally created for immortality, but the intrusion of evil ended God's original design, but God also created a voluntary plan for forgiveness and resurrection. I believe this based on several experiential and logical "pillars." But what do I take from my faith into science? - Reverence for the incredible genius of God. - Humility with regards to assuming things I don't understand are not "junk" but have a purpose. - Respect, care, and and love for nature, which God designed. What don't I take into science? - Assuming that my interpretation of the Bible necessarily determines a scientific truth. - Trying to force-fit the Bible into science or vice versa. - Believing that the Bible is a science textbook. For example, for many years some people criticized the Bible for seemingly indicating that stars came into existence after light, arguing "How can light exist without any stars." Currently, the majority of scientists believe exactly that--that at the Big Bang, light was present but space was opaque for a while, then after space became transparent, stars began to form. But this doesn't mean that at some point in the future, a static universe might once again take over as the consensus opinion from the Big Bang. Science is always changing, but the Bible doesn't change, so it's foolish to say that science "proves" or "disproves" the Bible. So, back to to the OP on the political flavor of "sciency" popular magazines. To me, they are as repulsive as religious doctrines being merged into science articles, and for similar reasons. Think eugenics and phrenology as notorious examples. Racism under the guise of Darwinism is another example. -Q Querius

Is this a legitimate Christian perspective?

No. While such a thing may happen, it is presumptuous to believe God ordained it for some reason. I have a very good friend whose daughter worked for Cantor Fitzgerald in 2001. On September 10, 2001 she was told to clean out her desk and not come back. She went home dejected. The next day her brother saw the building collapse and thought his sister had died. Only much later that day did he find out what happened. The girl, now a mature mother of four, became a teacher and loves her new life. (For those who don't know, Cantor Fitzgerald occupied the top floors of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan. Everyone that worked for them that day died.) jerry

You stated that argument before, which is why I quoted Stephen Meyer in full. "any proponent of theistic evolution who affirms that God is directing the evolutionary mechanism, and who also rejects intelligent design, implicitly contradicts himself." Contradictions in logic are fatal to arguments. It's not rocket science. bornagain77

Meant "fails to go off" in the first line. Probably an obvious mistake on my part. So is the extra "to" in the second paragraph. I don't proofread very well. Viola Lee

A man's alarm clock fails to go over, he misses his plane, the plane crashes and everyone onboard is killed. His friend says, "Boy, you sure were lucky". The man, a Christian, says, "No, God meant for me to live. It was not part of his plan for me to die to today. It was God's will, not luck, that I wasn't on that plane." Is this a legitimate Christian perspective? Viola Lee

VL, I was going to reply, but Jerry summed it up succinctly. i.e. "I have never seen any coherent arguments. If you believe there are, then present them. Otherwise we will have to assume they do not exist." bornagain77

You may think TE’s are confused, but I don’t, and I’m sure they don’t either.

They are most definitely confused. They have no basis for their beliefs. That certainly qualifies as confusion.

the arguments being made against his, and yours, views.

There are no arguments. I have never seen any coherent arguments. If you believe there are, then present them. Otherwise we will have to assume they do not exist. Meyer's comment as provided by BA77 is amazingly cogent. There can be no objection to it. jerry

"but those applications are not amenable to good discussions" Scamp, So why does UD make for a good discussion, as you are implying? Andrew asauber

"If my worldview, religion or political leaning have nothing to do with what I am discussion, why muddy the waters with raising them." Scamp, They have everything to do with why you are here to begin with, what you decide to type in a comment and when, and how. It's painfully obvious that you are evading disclosing important information. Andrew asauber

I'm sure you can find quotes that agree with you. Argument by accumulation of quotes is not a very strong method. Meyer is making the same mistakes you are. Merely quoting him saying the same things you do doesn't actually address the arguments being made against his, and yours, views. Viola Lee

VL, to quote Dr. Meyer in full:

A Logically Contradictory View In the first place, some formulations of theistic evolution that affirm the third meaning of evolution result in logical contradictions. For example, if the theistic evolutionist means to affirm the standard neo-Darwinian view of the natural selection/mutation mechanism as an undirected process while simultaneously affirming that God is still causally responsible for the origin of new forms of life, then the theistic evolutionist implies that God somehow guided or directed an unguided and undirected process. Logically, no intelligent being — not even God — can direct an undirected process. As soon as he directs it, the “undirected” process would no longer be undirected. On the other hand, a proponent of theistic evolution may conceive of the natural selection/mutation mechanism as a directed process (with God perhaps directing specific mutations). This view represents a decidedly non-Darwinian conception of the evolutionary mechanism. It also constitutes a version of the theory of intelligent design — one that affirms that God intelligently designed organisms by actively directing mutations (or other processes) toward functional endpoints during the history of life. Yet, if living organisms are the result of a directed process, then it follows that the appearance of design in living organisms is real, not merely apparent or illusory. Nevertheless, chief proponents of theistic evolution reject the theory of intelligent design with its claim that the appearance of design in living organisms is real. Thus, any proponent of theistic evolution who affirms that God is directing the evolutionary mechanism, and who also rejects intelligent design, implicitly contradicts himself. (Of course, there is no contradiction in affirming both a God-guided mechanism of evolution and intelligent design, though few theistic evolutionists have publicly taken this view — see Ratzsch, Nature, Design, and Science for a notable exception.17 ) https://www.discovery.org/a/defining-theistic-evolution/

bornagain77

Andrew: So one example of what I am commenting about is, almost invariably, opposition to ID is motivated by hostility to Christianity. I suspect Scamp is in this camp.

And what do you base this assumption on? My opposition to the tactics used by the trucker protest? How is that anti-ID or anti-Christian?

But, we’ll never know because he won’t be honest about it.

Not bringing personal worldview, religion or political leaning into discussions that have nothing to do with them is not been dishonest. It is just being pragmatic. If my worldview, religion or political leaning have nothing to do with what I am discussion, why muddy the waters with raising them.

Why argue about protests at UD of all places?

Because UD dedicated several OPs to them.

Aren’t there larger “better” venues for Scamp to impart his wisdom?

Yes. I also post on Twitter and Facebook, but those applications are not amenable to good discussions. Scamp

BA, you write, "Well, if holding that God can direct an undirected process is not to be considered logically ‘confused’ then nothing else is to be considered logically ‘confused’ either." Of course, TE's don't believe the metaphysical interpretation of materialism, but I think all Christians believe that what looks like luck to us can be actually directed by God's will. For instance, someone will by chance miss a plane that crashes and kills everyone, and that person will say that "God didn't mean for me to die right now." So TE's are not confused: their theological metaphysics is such that they understand that what we see from our point of view is quite limited, but they believe that all that happens is as God wills, even though how that happens is beyond our comprehension. Viola Lee

Andrew: No, but I would have to know if someone is applying arguments consistently, and why and when they argue them the way they do. This requires the next level of info.

Why do you need to know why they are arguing for something? The person's motivation for arguing what they do is not important. For example, my motive for making the arguments I do could be to trigger reactions from those I know are opposed to them (that is not my motivation, btw). But just because a person's motivation is not "noble" doesn't mean that their arguments don't have merit. Scamp

VL at 70: "Your view (that human evolution is false) is in a distinct minority, BA, but you can have it if you want." So what? Science is not a popularity contest.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period." - Michael Crichton

And again, as far as the scientific evidence itself is actually concerned, human evolution is NOT true.

Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 November 2021 – Human evolution? – the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245 November 2021 – Human exceptionalism refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why “I”, as an individual person within the human species, should even come into existence as a person.,, As an “I” with a unique subjective, conscious, experience. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568

After appealing to consensus science, VL goes on, "You may think TE’s are confused, but I don’t, and I’m sure they don’t either." Well, if holding that God can direct an undirected process is not to be considered logically 'confused' then nothing else is to be considered logically 'confused' either.

Defining Theistic Evolution An Introduction to the book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique Stephen Meyer - Feb. 1, 2019 Excerpt: A Logically Contradictory View In the first place, some formulations of theistic evolution that affirm the third meaning of evolution result in logical contradictions. For example, if the theistic evolutionist means to affirm the standard neo-Darwinian view of the natural selection/mutation mechanism as an undirected process while simultaneously affirming that God is still causally responsible for the origin of new forms of life, then the theistic evolutionist implies that God somehow guided or directed an unguided and undirected process. Logically, no intelligent being — not even God — can direct an undirected process. As soon as he directs it, the “undirected” process would no longer be undirected. https://www.discovery.org/a/defining-theistic-evolution/

And that is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the confusion of TEs (and Darwinists). Most Theistic Evolutionists, such as S. Joshua Swamidass, toe the fallacious 'methodological naturalism' party line for 'doing science' that Darwinists have erroneously 'drawn in the sand'.

Why Methodological Naturalism? Science does not search for all sorts of Truth. Rather, science is limited effort to explain the world on its own terms, without invoking God. S. Joshua Swamidass Mainstream science seeks “our best explanation of the world, without considering God.” This limiting clause,“without considering God,” is the rule of Methodological Naturalism (MN). https://peacefulscience.org/articles/methodological-naturalism/

Yet forcing science into a 'methodological naturalism' straitjacket forces science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure. First off, and before I get into that, (far from science being based on the fallacious rule of methodological naturalism), science itself was born out of, and is still crucially dependent upon, essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions. Stephen Meyer, (Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge), in his recent book, “Return of the God hypothesis”, lists the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.

“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bocon’s inductive methodology) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

Science simply can't be done without presupposing Theism to be true. As Paul Davies stated, "even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

Directly contrary to what Darwinists and Theistic evolutionists falsely believe, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on Judeo-Christian presuppositions of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the superfluous presupposition of methodological naturalism.

Moreover, from the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

Moreover, and again, forcing science into a 'methodological naturalism' straitjacket, (as both Darwinists and Theistic Evolutionists are intent on doing), forces science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist. and/or Theistic Evolutionists, (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, A worldview without any true beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life? What an absolutely sad and depressing worldview to have to endure! No wonder Nietzsche's mental health deteriorated from clinical depression to dementia.

It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

bornagain77

"UD has a lot of commenters who are very informed on the truth in lots of areas." Jerry, I agree with you on this. I've been hanging out here all these years because there are few other places these long days that cover truthfully the things that UD covers and comments on. Andrew asauber

Why argue about protests at UD of all places

I assume that they think this site is occupied by ignorant rubes and an easy place to show them up. It’s what they are told in the outside world. Just the opposite is true. UD has a lot of commenters who are very informed on the truth in lots of areas. So the people coming here who hold anti ID beliefs are actually the people whose ignorance is easy to expose. jerry

So one example of what I am commenting about is, almost invariably, opposition to ID is motivated by hostility to Christianity. I suspect Scamp is in this camp. But, we'll never know because he won't be honest about it. Why argue about protests at UD of all places? Aren't there larger "better" venues for Scamp to impart his wisdom? Andrew asauber

some here assign labels to people who disagree with them

Most of the time, anti ID is enough. When someone is anti ID, they are using false arguments so that is probably an indication of their honesty in other areas. Usually when one sees the use of false or inane arguments, it indicates a lack on honesty so claims in other area are thus suspect. Now, a lot of what the average person assumes is untrue but has little affect on their lives. For example believing in naturalistic means for Evolution does little harm to everyday life. But to persist in these beliefs when shown how false they are is illuminating jerry

EDTA made the argument that fundamental principles make a difference, and gave abortion as an example. The political subjects here, such it justified to disrupt traffic for extended times in protest of government policies, for instance, is a different matter: I don't see how fundamental principle are very pertinent there. I'll also point out, again, that people have different fundamental principles, and we still live in society together, so we have to have, it seems to me, ways to discuss issues even when we are coming from different perspectives. And EDTA, I don't think it is correct to say I "bailed" on Waters argument. I am fairly mathematically literate and spend some time on it, and at some point I just couldn't understand his argument, which I think I said at the time (maybe I just quit the discussion, though - I can't remember.) This is definitely not a topic I want to bring up here, again, though! Viola Lee

"Do you dismiss a persons argument based on their worldview rather than on the merits of the argument?" Scamp, No, but I would have to know if someone is applying arguments consistently, and why and when they argue them the way they do. This requires the next level of info. Andrew asauber

Andrew: You don’t want the people you oppose to know why you oppose them. It’s very relevant, and you want to hide it, because it would likely make you look bad if it became known.

Why? Do you dismiss a persons argument based on their worldview rather than on the merits of the argument? Thank you for supporting my claim that some here assign labels to people who disagree with them to justify dismissing their argument rather than addressing it. Scamp

"But I have never stated my worldview. It is irrelevant to any argument I am making" Scamp, You don't want the people you oppose to know why you oppose them. It's very relevant, and you want to hide it, because it would likely make you look bad if it became known. Andrew asauber

Your view is in a distinct minority, BA, but you can have it if you want. And I don't accept the "no true Scotsman argument." You may think TE's are confused, but I don't, and I'm sure they don't either. Not much more to be said about either of these issues. Viola Lee

VS @ 49

But some of us have “followed you there”, and we have fundamental and unresolvable differences. What do we do then? Just not talk at all with each other about specific issues?

Correct. We should continue delving into the details of the fundamental and as-of-yet-unresolved issues. It is a waste of precious time to continue hashing over high-level issues. As SA points out above, we will just be talking past each other. (Which is 99.9999% of the internet...) As far as claiming that you have followed us there already, I must point out that we had a short conversation a while back about the matter of the finitude (or not) of the past. I was leading you through an explanation of Ben Water's argument for that. But you bailed out and we never finished. I think if we had finished, you would have been compelled to accept that time is finite going into the past. That is but one small piece of my cosmological understanding of things, but we could have built on that, and perhaps one of us would have changed a fundamental position at some point down the road based on it. That is how we can proceed here. EDTA

SA: A person who is inconsistent with his own stated worldview is either dishonest or misinformed.

But I have never stated my worldview. It is irrelevant to any argument I am making, unless it is an argument about my worldview.

I asked you to do so but you refused to define your position. Do you think God exists or not? This is important on any question of origins.

When I make any arguments about origin, then you can ask me if I believe in God. Until then, it has no bearing on any arguments that I have made. Scamp

VL, false in one, false in all, the context is, there is pervasive bias that comes through in explaining the pattern of employment that turns College into an independent mind killing zone. If you think an institution with breakdown of integrity on hiring will have integrity on grading, entertaining what is not in lockstep or is not a fellow traveller or will fairly assess grad students and colleagues -- some notorious cases come to mind [Bergman has a book full], think again. KF PS, while UD is not a theology blog with a panel of experts on tap, a note or two are in order. So, my comment is first that Biblical literalism is not the issue. cell based life has in it complex coded [so linguistic] algorithmic [so, goal directed] information, pointing to the only empirically known source of such, intelligently directed configuration. the pushing in of a theory that cannot account for the root of the tree of life, the cell, by imposed a priori materialism as Lewontin admitted, is itself exceedingly intellectually bankrupt. Proceeding to assert that it holds established authority to explain body plans, is further indefensible. And yet beyond doubt that is the state of the academy, so you are in effect admitting the ideological censorship of anthropology. Turning to sensus literalis, that means, take the weight of the words informed by ordinary objective principles, and there are serious scholars who argue for old vs young earth and/or cosmos. I dare to say any fundy who believes in six day creation 6kya, is in far better standing than one who imposes a blind mechanism without a foundation and demands that unless one goes along, one is to be put in the back of the academic bus. At least the 6kya thinker is sound enough to recognise what manifestly needs intelligently directed configuration to account for its origin. PPS, it looks like we are going to need to point out that anything beyond the span of record, i.e. history, is a speculative model of the past, beyond observation. We ought not to teach students and the general public to imagine that it is solid history, practically fact. kairosfocus

VL, the belief that Humans gradually evolved from some chimp-like ancestor is a scientifically false claim whether you are a Darwinian materialist or not. Christians who believe in human evolution, i.e. Theistic Evolutionists, are, to put it mildly, confused in their Theology and science.

Book Review: Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique Edited by J. P. Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Christopher Shaw, Ann K. Gauger, and Wayne Grudem - June 14, 2018 https://apologetics315.com/2018/06/book-review-theistic-evolution-a-scientific-philosophical-and-theological-critique-edited-by-j-p-moreland-stephen-c-meyer-christopher-shaw-ann-k-gauger-and-wayne-grudem/#more-7807

bornagain77

Wrong again, BA. First, as usual I think you are conflating a materialistic interpretation with other interpretations. I know of many Christians, many personally, who accept the theory of evolution from a non-materialistic viewpoint. Also, I said Biblical literalists, which only includes a portion of Christians. I wouldn't want to be on dig of native American sites that are 10,000 years old and have a colleague who believes the earth is 6,000 years old, for instance. And I don't think it would be "discriminating", in the prejudicial sense, to not want to hire someone for an anthropology position who denied such a fundamental notion as the age of the earth. Viola Lee

VL at 59: "I would think being a Biblical literalist would be a poor quality if one were looking to hire an anthropologist." So VL is basically admitting that she believes human evolution to be true and would discriminate against Christians because of her bias in believing human evolution to be true. FWIW VL, as far as the science itself is actually concerned, human evolution is NOT true.

Jan. 2022 Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245 November 2021 - Human exceptionalism refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why "I", as an individual person within the human species, should even come into existence as a person.,, As an "I" with a unique subjective, conscious, experience. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568

bornagain77

WJM

i think what you might mean is that my agreement that you’ve shown it may depend on my honesty, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve shown it. It doesn’t affect the validity of the argument itself one iota.

Right - my point is not merely that one is making syllogisms in a vacuum or in their own mind, but rather that we're discussing things here. Certainly, a person can make great arguments and never say them to anyone. But we discuss things to get feedback. We also want to help others learn and grow (and we want to do the same). If someone corrects me, I should accept it and change my view. Otherwise, we're going to waste a lot of time with me refusing to accept an obvious correction. This kills the discussion.

Not necessarily. They may erroneously be using the wrong tool to evaluate something, but that does not indicate dishonesty.

Fair enough. They're either dishonest, misinformed or incapable of understanding. We can't always determine which one it is. But if we try with solid arguments, and no refutation of them comes back, and the person just runs away, then returns with exactly the same, previously refuted arguments, then we can suspect dishonesty. It could be still that they have a mental block. But they should admit it. "I really can't see what you're saying". If they insist, however, that they're right without acknowledging or responding to the refutation, this violates the norms of discussion. We talk about arguing "in good faith". That's a statement about honesty. Silver Asiatic

SA, see 59. Viola Lee

KF @57 You posted the same reference to Yancey before I did - thanks. Yes, I think it's important for VL to acknowledge the evidence given and walk-back from the claim of fake news. Silver Asiatic

Scamp

Yet, I was repeatedly labeled as being a fascist or an authoritarian or a left wing progressive, purely for the purpose of applying a label so that they can dismiss based on the label.

You're making a rash, unfounded (and incorrect) judgement in the phrase "purely for the purpose". You're judging the motives of why people are trying to identify your worldview. Consistency is a component of honesty. A person who is inconsistent with his own stated worldview is either dishonest or misinformed. For example, a person says "I'm not an anti-semite", but then later is seen attending Nazi rallies and demanding that Jews be killed. Obviously, there is a lack of consistency. The person is either dishonest when he says "I'm not an anti-semite" or he's misinformed (he doesn't know what the term means). A person who says "I'm an atheist" cannot later say "I believe God gave us equal rights". That's logically inconsistent. Again, it's either dishonest or misinformed.

I always defend my position.

I asked you to do so but you refused to define your position. Do you think God exists or not? This is important on any question of origins. If you think God exists, then God has some role (or you have to explain why God doesn't do anything). If you are an atheist, you have to give evidence to support that view.

With regard to whether my argument goes against my personal belief system, how would you be able to tell if this was the case?

I explained above but here's another example. The person says "I'm a materialist atheist". Then the person says "I think everyone should behave ethically, and if they don't they should be punished." This is logically inconsistent. It's a conflict. Materialism makes no ethical demands. Nihilism is tolerant and neural on any or every human behavior - as evolution must be.

For example, my mother still goes to church every Sunday but supports a woman’s right to have an abortion and same sex marriage, two views that many would consider contrary to Christianity. But they in no way run counter to her personal belief system.

Right. But the term "Christianity" can mean many things. If she stands up in Church and says "I believe that abortion is a sin and should never be permitted by law" but then goes and votes for candidates that want tax-payer supported free abortions, then she's got a conflict with her personal views. One or the other is incorrect. A person recites the Nicean Creed: "I believe ..." They stand up and state this in public, in the Church. "I believe Jesus rose from the dead". So, they make a public statement of faith. Then, you talk to them after the service and they say "I don't really believe in the resurrection - I think it's just a story or myth". They're contradicting themselves. Silver Asiatic

The original statement by SA, which I doubted, didn't mention the specific context about hiring: it just said, "discriminate against Evangelical Christians." And here's a relevant question: what percent of Evangelical Christians are Biblical literalists? As EDTA is pointing out, lots starts with our fundamental assumptions, and I would think being a Biblical literalist would be a poor quality if one were looking to hire an anthropologist. Viola Lee

SA said:

Well, you have to have a high degree of honesty to use that formula.

No, you don't. Just like I don't have to have a high degree of honesty to test any formula.

First, you have to have a commitment to the truth. If I show you that A, B and C does not give Z – you have to accept it.

It doesn't matter if I accept it or not. If you show it, you show it. It doesn't matter what I say about whether or not I think you've shown it. i think what you might mean is that my agreement that you've shown it may depend on my honesty, but that doesn't change the fact that you've shown it. It doesn't affect the validity of the argument itself one iota.

But if you’re dishonest, you won’t.

This explains why people jump to the conclusion that people who disagree with them are doing so because they are dishonest. They may be, or they may not understand the argument, or they may be cognitively blind to it; etc. For example, if I make the logical case that the only kind of reality we can functionally experience is mental, I don't assume those who disagree with the validity of that conclusion are being dishonest. You can't have a proper or productive debate or even a discussion if you assume disagreements indicate dishonesty. It's called the principle of charity. Thinking people are being dishonest in their interactions totally poisons every discussion, and also insulates the person making their argument from the possibility that they themselves are wrong.

When we start talking about God, for example, we have to be much more honest. We have to accept that we’re only going to come closer to understanding, but always be incapable of fully grasping God.

Much more honest than being honest?

A person, for example, who uses materialist science to analyze theology is dishonest.

Not necessarily. They may erroneously be using the wrong tool to evaluate something, but that does not indicate dishonesty.

A person who claims that materialism does not conflict with immaterial entities like rationality or logic is also dishonest.

See above. Also, being incapable of understanding the logic involved does not mean one is being dishonest. William J Murray

VL, did you duly acknowledge the research findings published by Yancey? Do you acknowledge that they are a bit more than ill founded fakery and conspiracy theorising? KF kairosfocus

Scamp: How does knowing my religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation, gender, voting history, favourite TV show or views on abortion affect this? SA: It tells us what kind of honesty, or lack thereof, you bring to the discussion.

Nonsense. In a previous thread I was arguing against the tactics used by the protesters because their intentions were to harass and cause suffering to innocent people. This view is held by many liberals, many conservatives, many Religious people and many atheists. Yet, I was repeatedly labeled as being a fascist or an authoritarian or a left wing progressive, purely for the purpose of applying a label so that they can dismiss based on the label.

If you’re only willing to attack, but not defend your own position – or if you’re going to take contradictory positions against your own personal belief system, this argues against your good faith presence here.

I always defend my position. With regard to whether my argument goes against my personal belief system, how would you be able to tell if this was the case? It is a personal belief system. For example, my mother still goes to church every Sunday but supports a woman’s right to have an abortion and same sex marriage, two views that many would consider contrary to Christianity. But they in no way run counter to her personal belief system. Scamp

SA, we are back to the first duties of reason, the branch on which we all sit first principles that govern our rationality:

1st – to truth, 2nd – to right reason, 3rd – to prudence [including <a href = "">warrant], 4th – to sound conscience, 5th – to neighbour; so also, 6th – to fairness and 7th – to justice [ . . .] xth – etc.

KF PS: WJM and others were found objecting when these were put on the table, but clearly cannot even object without appealing to them. Pervasive first principles cannot be objected to without appealing to them, and attempted proofs also are found to already use them, so they are antecedent to proof, as the tin says on the label, self evident first principles. kairosfocus

SA, you write, "I keep in mind, you are adamant that you are not a materialist. If philosophical foundations were not important, you wouldn’t be concerned about such a thing, but you are concerned and don’t want to be considered a materialist because it’s important. " I'm not "adamant" about not being a materialist. However I've had to explain my beliefs multiple times because I'm accused of being a materialist (which to many of you is a severe accusation). Viola Lee

WJM

If I argue : IF A, and B, and C, THEN Z, what difference does it make if I’m honest or not?

Well, you have to have a high degree of honesty to use that formula. First, you have to have a commitment to the truth. If I show you that A, B and C does not give Z - you have to accept it. But if you're dishonest, you won't. Secondly, you have to accept that somethings are not reducible to logic alone - why should all of reality be fit into syllogisms? That's a big question that transcends logic itself. Logic is the tool that we agree upon and we, by means of being honest, will say "yes, we want conclusions to be logical". But there are some matters that can be illogical depending on context. When we start talking about God, for example, we have to be much more honest. We have to accept that we're only going to come closer to understanding, but always be incapable of fully grasping God. A person, for example, who uses materialist science to analyze theology is dishonest. A person who claims that materialism does not conflict with immaterial entities like rationality or logic is also dishonest.

What does it matter if I’m credible or not, atheist or theist, a professor or a layman or a lunatic? The logic is the logic. The facts are the facts. Implications are valid or not. Conclusions are sound or not, given what precedes them.

Well we're trying to have a meaningful discussion and if a person contradicts themselves in the middle of a discussion, then it's a waste of time. You have to be consistent. When or if you're proven wrong, a good discussion requires that the person admit it and accept the changes in his view that it requires. That makes growth possible. A person who is corrected continually on the same point, but refuses to accept the correction or admit that he's wrong is being dishonest. Silver Asiatic

VL

On the one hand, I understand that ultimately many issues fall back on first principles and values.

That is good - yes. Scamp has denied this and he needs to rethink it. I keep in mind, you are adamant that you are not a materialist. If philosophical foundations were not important, you wouldn't be concerned about such a thing, but you are concerned and don't want to be considered a materialist because it's important. ID is a theory of origins. Obviously, how you view origins is a philosophical position and ID either supports it or conflicts with your view. A failure to discuss or defend your philosophy or religion just makes discussion irrelevant. ID is an argument against materialism. If you believe that God exists, you'll be much closer to the ID position.

But some of us have “followed you there”, and we have fundamental and unresolvable differences. What do we do then? Just not talk at all with each other about specific issues?

It's a good question. For myself, I'd just hope you'd be able to more and more clarify and refine your philosophical foundations. Because failing that, we're going to talk past each other. When we say that "all things that come into existence have a cause for their existence" - that's a foundation. If you deny that, then things can happen without a cause. Then we're just talking nonsense and a fantasy world. That might be ok for, example, a blog for poetry or fantasy-fiction writers. They don't have to be consistent or make sense. They're creating imaginary worlds. But ID is about the real world and real science. ID is condemned as "believing in magic" but it's not magic to say that design comes from intelligence. What is magic is to say "some immaterial force is out there and it came from nowhere but it might do things in nature or the world, but we can't know anything about it". That's much more of a fantasy viewpoint - just mythological storytelling, than theistic belief is (which is based on knowable concepts and philosophical structures). So, that's why we discuss worldviews and philosophy. A person who insists on materialist, atheistic scientism = has to defend that from all the absurdities and problems contained therein. Scamp doesn't want to go there. Maybe he can't do it. Right now, we don't know and we can't help him until he opens up. Thankfully, you VL - have defined your ideas to the extent that you can, so at least we know where you're coming from. If you're willing to rethink your worldview, then we do not have irreconcilable differences. Silver Asiatic

SA said:

It tells us what kind of honesty, or lack thereof, you bring to the discussion.

If I argue : IF A, and B, and C, THEN Z, what difference does it make if I'm honest or not? What does it matter if I'm credible or not, atheist or theist, a professor or a layman or a lunatic? The logic is the logic. The facts are the facts. Implications are valid or not. Conclusions are sound or not, given what precedes them. William J Murray

VL

I can’t believe that “60% of anthropologists said they would discriminate against Evangelical Christians” . It would be interesting to see what the evidence for that is.

Compromising Scholarship, a 2011 book by sociologist George Yancey https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor

Professors are even less tolerant of evangelicals, whom they associate with social conservatism. Nearly 60% of anthropologists ...

would discriminate against evangelicals in hiring practices.

I think that quote is “fake news” – a bogus “fact”. If it’s “not surprising” to you, SA, then I think you have some unrealistic stereotypes.

Not fake news. I'm not surprised except only that the percent should be much higher than 60 - I think survey respondents didn't reveal their opposition to Christianity as much, probably through embarrassment. My experience with professional scientists would put the number higher. The fact that you don't or wouldn't discriminate against people on this basis is a tribute to your sense of fairness and is very good to see. Silver Asiatic

On the one hand, I understand that ultimately many issues fall back on first principles and values. On the other hand, what you say means that such philosophical and religious discussions is all we can ever have, which doesn't seem practical. Also, you say "Sadly, some won’t follow us there…which does serve to insulate their beliefs from examination, but also prevents us from reaching common ground." But some of us have "followed you there", and we have fundamental and unresolvable differences. What do we do then? Just not talk at all with each other about specific issues? Viola Lee

Scamp

How does knowing my religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation, gender, voting history, favourite TV show or views on abortion affect this?

It tells us what kind of honesty, or lack thereof, you bring to the discussion. If you're only willing to attack, but not defend your own position - or if you're going to take contradictory positions against your own personal belief system, this argues against your good faith presence here. A failure to admit your commitment to religious or philosophical ideas is like the guy who is a member of the Nazi (or Communist) party who won't tell that to anyone when asked. You're here arguing for a position. You won't admit what that actually is. That's a very big problem in any open discussion - why are you covering-up your own commitments? Are you embarrassed by them? Ashamed to admit? Or perhaps you know how vulnerable you are because of them? Those are all of the problems. You have to stand by your position and defend it rationally. Silver Asiatic

Maybe I can make my earlier statement even clearer: If we disagree on abortion (for instance), that's probably because we disagree on the value of life, whether encroaching on life from one end will make it easier to encroach on life from other directions, etc. So we should be talking about those things before we discuss abortion specifically. But we won't agree on the value of life if we don't agree on whether we have a creator. And we won't agree on that if we don't agree on the nature of evidence, epistemics, etc. By having high-level arguments over specific issues of the day and neglecting the weightier matters of fundamentals, we will never make any progress in understanding each other. This is why we so often take arguments to lower levels. Sadly, some won't follow us there...which does serve to insulate their beliefs from examination, but also prevents us from reaching common ground. EDTA

VL, you clearly didn't reckon with what else Yancey, a sociologist who studies the academy, found (see 44); which is what Shapiro roughly cited and SA commented on. He specifically found propensity to discriminate at hiring and the cumulative pattern of ideological affiliation in the Academy over the past generation is quite clear. We also have pretty convincing evidence of what Bergmann called the slaughter of the dissidents. I held this back, but commend a look-see to you: https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor KF kairosfocus

KF writes, "Over half of non-Evangelical university professors say they hold unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians, a new study showed." Having an unfavorable view of someone is vastly different than discriminating against them. Surely that distinction is clear. And I'll remind you that we've had long discussions about having unfavorable views of people who think others are going to be eternally damned to torment because they don't have the right beliefs. I worked with many good people who were Christians, and not only did I not discriminate against them, and I enjoyed them and warmly saw them as colleagues. But I did an unfavorable views about some of their beliefs. And I didn't "let the cat out of the bag" about "coordination". The conversation I mentioned was openly discussed. Of course there are people here who have similar views and support each other, but that doesn't mean that there is some nefarious behind-the-scenes coordination and conspiracy (although people who think there are behind-the-scenes conspiracies everywhere might think so.) Some verses from Dylan's "Talkin' John Birch Society Paranoid Blues" (Substitute the bogeyman of your choice for Communists, although they seem to have come back in fashion)

Well, I woos looking everywhere for them gol-darned Reds I got up in the morning and looked under my bed Looked in the sink, behind the door Looked in the glove compartment of my car Couldn’t find them I woos looking high and low for them Reds everywhere I woos looking in the sink and underneath the chair I looked way up my chimney hole I even looked deep down inside my toilet bowl They got away Well, I woos sitting home alone and started to sweat Figured they woos in my T.V. set Peeked behind the picture frame Got a shock from my feet, hitting right up in the brain Them Reds caused it! I know they did them hard-core ones Well, I quit my job so I could work all alone Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes Followed some clues from my detective bag And discovered they was red stripes on the American flag! That old Betsy Ross Well, I investigated all the books in the library Ninety percent of them gotta be burned away I investigated all the people that I know Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go The other two percent are fellow Birchers just like me Well, I finally started thinking straight When I run out of things to investigate Couldn’t imagine doing anything else So now I’m sitting home investigating myself! Hope I don’t find out nothing, good God!

Viola Lee

PS: Wintery Knight gives us context, Yancey's continued research:

Conservatives can be spotted in the sciences and in economics, but they are virtually an endangered species in fields like anthropology, sociology, history and literature. One study found that only 2 percent of English professors are Republicans (although a large share are independents). In contrast, some 18 percent of social scientists say they are Marxist. So it’s easier to find a Marxist in some disciplines than a Republican. […]The scarcity of conservatives seems driven in part by discrimination. One peer-reviewed study found that one-third of social psychologists admitted that if choosing between two equally qualified job candidates, they would be inclined to discriminate against the more conservative candidate. Yancey, the black sociologist, who now teaches at the University of North Texas,conducted a survey in which up to 30 percent of academics said that they would be less likely to support a job seeker if they knew that the person was a Republican. The discrimination becomes worse if the applicant is an evangelical Christian. According to Yancey’s study, 59 percent of anthropologists and 53 percent of English professors would be less likely to hire someone they found out was an evangelical. “Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses,” notes Jonathan L. Walton, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard. Walton, a black evangelical, adds that the condescension toward evangelicals echoes the patronizing attitude toward racial minorities: “The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.”

Food for thought. kairosfocus

F/N: A backgrounder: https://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-suggests-university-faculty-bias-against-evangelicals.html

Over half of non-Evangelical university professors say they hold unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians, a new study showed. This group of believers was the only major religious denomination to elicit highly negative responses from faculty. According to research by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research (IJCR), only 30 percent of non-Evangelical university faculty says they hold positive views of Evangelicals while 56 percent of faculty in social sciences and humanities departments holds unfavorable views. Overall, 53 percent of non-Evangelical university faculty have unfavorable views. "This survey shows a disturbing level of prejudice or intolerance among U.S. faculty towards tens of millions of Evangelical Christians," said Gary Tobin, president of IJCR, in the report. "What's odd is that while a good number of faculty believe in a close, personal relationship with God and believe religion is essential to a child's upbringing, many of those same people feel deeply unfavorable toward of Evangelicals." Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, told The Washington Post that the poll does not reflect a form of religious bias, but rather "a political and cultural resistance" probably caused by "the particular kind of Republican Party activism that some Evangelicals have engaged in over the years, as well as what faculty perceive as the opposition to scientific objectivity among some Evangelicals." [--> cognitive dissonance and projection?] According to the study, 71 percent of all faculty agreed: "This country would be better off if Christian fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics." The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America's pre-eminent Evangelical leaders, argued, "The fact that such bias exists is significant in its own right, considering the fact that a majority of Americans at least claim to be Evangelical Christians," he wrote in his weblog on Tuesday. "The ideological chasm that increasingly divides the academic elite from the larger culture is in full view here. Many academics, by their own admission, look down upon Evangelical students, evangelical churches, and Evangelical citizens." The IJCR survey also found that faculty's views of Evangelicals is likely linked to personal religiosity and political affiliation. Only 20 percent of those who say religion is very important to them and only 16 percent of Republicans have unfavorable views of Evangelicals. Among those who say religion is not important to them and among Democrats, 75 percent and 65 percent, respectively, hold unfavorable views.

Perhaps, over twenty years after Lewontin wrote, the problem he inadvertently exposed has only got worse? KF kairosfocus

VL, Lewontin's inadvertent admission lets us see that it would be unsurprising for academic staff in unis to discriminate against those the cultural elites have scapegoated, leading to a classic climate of hostility prone to chilling effect, censorship, marginalisation and of course abusive grading. The only surprise is that so many may actually have admitted it in a survey. KF kairosfocus

VL, thanks for letting the cat out of the bag on there being cynical coordination behind too much of habitual objecting commentary here at UD. KF kairosfocus

PS, as a reminder, Lewontin:

. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads

[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]

and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

kairosfocus

Sc, the challenge is to move towards objectivity in a highly polarised, ideologically dominated era where censorship and marginalisation are on the march. Ironically, where your prioritisation of "religion" and broadening to include "worldviews" fails, is precisely on the validity of VL at 11, there is inevitable influence and error is a hazard of the finite, fallible, morally struggling [and morally governed], too often ill-willed. To first principles including first duties we must ever go, starting with duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, duly recognising that half truths and ideologically loaded distortions dressed up in lab coats are errors, being false or even deceitful. Sadly, the ongoing pandemic is a case study. And, such matters are core worldview considerations, inextricably intertwined in all of our reasoning, deciding and acting. The issue is not worldviews but sound first principles, first duties and first plausibles in our views and reasoning. KF kairosfocus

SA, thanks for a solid intervention. KF kairosfocus

VL, now that I am up for the moment, I responded to you earlier due to awareness of immediate and wider context informed by the cultural moment. The issue, as ever, is objectivity rooted in sound warrant and informed by solid observations in the face of a deeply ingrained radical relativist mindset. Where, when this came up recently here at UD, there was a wave of attempts to argue against warrant, objectivity, etc. Now, given our civilisation's stage of decline, hardly anyone needs to say we have biases and political power games are involved in essentially any issue etc. To say that without due balance then comes across as endorsement/enabling of a radically self referential, self refuting notion that claims objectivity while effectively denying it for everything and everyone [else . . . the implicit, self refuting self exception suggestion]. In such a moment and with even Science on the table [much less Science Mags], it is entirely appropriate to point to one of the very first observations on record regarding levers of persuasion and argument. Science is being taken under Babylonian Captivity to power agendas, cynical manipulation, ideologies dressed up in lab coats, celebrities in lab coats posing as The Voice of Science, marginalisation of serious dissent, censorship, abuse of courts and parliaments through lawfare and administrative power plays etc, and this has been experienced by ID for 20+ years. That gives us some hard won experience to comment on how the same tactics used to abusively marginalise us are now metastasised into a juggernaut threatening global disaster, e.g. with mismanagement of pandemic and a long train of abuses and usurpations by officialdom pointing to indoctrination replacing education, cultural marxist agit prop replacing sound policy discussion, censorship and scapegoating replacing sound policy discussion, and the general rise of mutineers and looters on the ship of state. So, setting aside emotive appeals, demystifying authority, to the evidence and argument on fact and logic we must go. KF kairosfocus

Our high-level beliefs have to be based on lower-level beliefs. So discussing what those low-level beliefs consist of, and whether they stand up to scrutiny has to be part of all these discussions. We try to get down to those lower-level beliefs for that very reason. Someone's position on abortion for instance has to stand on something, and that something would be a lower-level belief. Saying that a particular belief stands on "logic" doesn't make any sense without specifying what concepts/ideas/beliefs that "logic" will make use of. EDTA

VL: Therefore, for many topics, one’s religious beliefs are not pertinent, any more than some of the other things you mention.

Actually, I would go further than this. One’s religious beliefs, or any other worldviews, are not pertinent to any argument being made. They are only perceived to be pertinent to those opposed to the argument being made,, not due to logical reasons, but because it gives people false justifications to dismiss them. For example, if I make an argument for pro-choice, or same sex marriage, or universal health care, some here will label me as an atheist, or anti-Christian, or a leftist-progressive, and feel justified in dismissing my argument regardless of the logic of the argument actually being made. The logic of the argument either stands on its own, or it doesn’t. That is why I refuse to answer questions about my religious beliefs or my my political leanings. Scamp

Good, Scamp. One argument in this thread is that our beliefs (and not just science) should be based on true facts and good logic as much as possible, and not be driven by political (or any other kind of) bias, and that we should try to keep tangential and perhaps irrelevant considerations to a minimum. Therefore, for many topics, one's religious beliefs are not pertinent, any more than some of the other things you mention. Viola Lee

SA: I asked you if you were an atheist because that is relevant to the kinds of discussions we have here. I don’t think you answered that.

And I won’t. Because either my arguments stand on their own, or they don’t. How does knowing my religion, lack of religion, sexual orientation, gender, voting history, favourite TV show or views on abortion affect this? Other than to apply a label to me that you can feel justified to use to accept or dismiss my arguments. Scamp

I hear you, BA, and will think about how ashamed I should be. I certainly could have made my point without mimicking the headline, which I agree is not a pleasant tactic. Viola Lee

VL at 4. Shameful use of a Tu Quoque fallacy. I’ve never seen you use it before. Don’t make it worse by saying, “It worked.” Belfast

I can't believe that "60% of anthropologists said they would discriminate against Evangelical Christians” . It would be interesting to see what the evidence for that is. For what it's worth, I have an anthropology (although am not a working anthropologist) and, although I might disagree with some Evangelical Christians about some things (but not others), and not for anthropological reasons, I can't even think of ways that I might discriminate against them. I think that quote is "fake news" - a bogus "fact". If it's "not surprising" to you, SA, then I think you have some unrealistic stereotypes. Viola Lee

Querius @ 23 Good point. Supposedly, religion corrupts the purity of objective science. "Just the facts". But then they come along and will demote scientists who publish politically unacceptable research (or warp their own research for political ends). So, it's not so "pure, objective science" after all. They're using science as a weapon in the culture war. The whole LGBT trans-rights thing is an obvious example of that. Silver Asiatic

Scamp

he decided that I was a leftist, fascist, Darwinist, materialist (pick a label)

I asked you if you were an atheist because that is relevant to the kinds of discussions we have here. I don't think you answered that. Silver Asiatic

VL I believe KF was drawing your attention to the fact that mainstream science covers-over its predominant agenda. It's hidden at the foundation. So there's a game of manipulation going on. I just read a superb overview of the politicization of science in Ben Shapiro's "The Authoritarian Moment" chapter 4 "How Science(TM) Defeated Actual Science" Instead of "The Science Elite" as some call it, he uses the term "Science (TM)" - like it's a trademarked product of some professionals. He goes through the Left-Wing bias found in science publications and programs and then refers to the Ultracrepidarian Problem - that is, scientists speaking outside their area of expertise. "academic science leaders have adopted wholesale the language of dominance and oppression previously restricted to 'cultural studies' journals to guide their disciplines, to censor dissenting views, to remove faculty from leadership positions if their research is claimed by opponents to support systemic oppression." -- Lawrence Krauss. The Ideological Corruption of Science. So, there's Lawrence Krauss, complaining that people get removed from leadership for their research? All of a sudden this is a problem for him when it happens to one of his own. But in any case, scientism will do that. Here he's talking about how science is being used as a driver of social change. So scientists are supposedly experts in "human flourishing" (as Steven Pinker claims). Instead of just observing physical reality, experimenting and testing and then publishing results - they're going to tell society what is best for them and try to shape humanity. When there's no religion or philosophy, then what else can you do but asks the scientists to tell you how to live? And just a stray quote from the book ... "60% of anthropologists said they would discriminate against Evangelical Christians" ... Not surprising to me. Silver Asiatic

VL: It’s like he doesn’t respond to real people, but rather to stereotyped caricatures that he carries around right on the surface of his mind all the time.

I have noticed that as well. Most recently I got on his bad side because I said that the tactics used by the Ottawa trucker protest were illegal and counter-productive. Because I disagreed with him on something he decided that I was a leftist, fascist, Darwinist, materialist (pick a label) and therefore not worthy of trying to understand my arguments. Scamp

re 22: That may be a key point (although I don't think scientism is nearly as common as you all think), but my point was that it had nothing to do with what I wrote. However, if KF starts a post by addressing me, ("VL, ...") then I would like to think he is actually responding to me, and perhaps might be interested in discussing with me. If not, leave my name, and thus me, out of it. Viola Lee

to SA. Let us not confuse science with human beings who are scientists. Scientists, with some much more than others, will always bring other aspects of their humanity (politics, morals, psychology, philosophy, etc,) into their application of science to human situations. It is a mistake to say "If science carries its own religious and political agenda...", as if science were an entity that can have an agenda. Let us not reify science. See Sev's first paragraph at 17. Viola Lee

Silver Asiatic nailed it. Isn't it ironic that the very same people who express horror at the thought of religious influence in science are perfectly fine with political influence (as long as if it favors the current narrative)? -Q Querius

The "evolutionary materialistic scientism" that KF referred to is an ideological overlay. It's a very common view among mainstream science. I think that's the key point. Silver Asiatic

re Scamp at 18: Of course, I have! I remember one thread long ago where some people were having a contest to see who could get the longest reply from KF in response to the fewest number of words. This works even better with BA. :-) But seriously, it does irritate me that KF finds it so easy to respond to me (and others) in ways that are so far removed from what we have said. It's like he doesn't respond to real people, but rather to stereotyped caricatures that he carries around right on the surface of his mind all the time. Tilting at windmills is the phrase that comes to mind, not necessarily because his concerns (if hypered-down) might not have some validity, but because he so single-mindedly and hyperbolically targets people with ideological dogmatism rather than being able to have a genuine conversation. Viola Lee

Sev If science carries its own religious and political agenda, then it becomes embattled. There's an expectation that science is supposed to be objective, just measuring from observations and repeatable tests. But when speculative science is used to advance a certain worldview (as it is in too many cases) then a lot of effort goes into trying to cover that up - hiding the agenda from the believing public. That's where ID becomes an enemy. In fact, ID exists in part because of the (not so) hidden religious agenda in mainstream science.

but also being honest about what science has achieved and the methods that have led to those achievements

I don't think evolutionary scientists do much of that for reasons that are obvious to me. Silver Asiatic

re Sev at 17: Yes, indeed! [end cheerleading!] Viola Lee

VL: KF, then why did you address me at 11?

Surely you have figured out KF’s approach by now. Scamp

Science is a human enterprise practiced by people who cannot help but be influenced by the social, cultural and political norms of the society in which they live. The best they can do to rise above those influences is to try to live up to the ideals of the science they have chosen as their vocation. This means being honest about the limits of what science can say and do at any given time but also being honest about what science has achieved and the methods that have led to those achievements and not be shy about defending them, especially against those who try to undermine public confidence in science to further their various religious and political agendas. Seversky

KF, then why did you address me at 11? I merely made the fairly unexceptional observation that in addition to politics, many other aspect of our humanity enter into most situations. It seems like almost any thing triggers some of your set points, no matter how tangential they might be. My remark had absolutely nothing to do with, among other things, "evolutionary materialistic scientism". You should have left the "VL" off of your post, and just made your post without addressing me. You might think about this in the future. Viola Lee

Science writer Matt Ridley thinks science is reverting to a cult.

It does seem that way. Like a Gnostic religion with its own vocabulary and doctrine and select criteria for entry. Once you're part of the cult, the theory doesn't matter any more. It's all about being "experts" - the science elite. That's how they can build power and impose their opinions on the public. It would be a good book. Silver Asiatic

KF

Where, ideological imposition such as Lewontin let the cat out of the bag on, is a root failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism.

It even goes farther than that now where social justice notions will inhibit true science in the name of equity. Silver Asiatic

BTW, my above is a commentary on Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Bk I Ch 2. kairosfocus

Lol. Viola Lee

VL, pathos, ethos, logos. Emotional intensity does not decide an issue . . . that's socio-psych, agit prop and spin doctoring etc at one go. No expert, lab coat, authority, witness or official is any better than his facts, logic and controlling assumptions. So, we come to facts and logic and reasonable start-points leading to warrant and objectivity. Where, ideological imposition such as Lewontin let the cat out of the bag on, is a root failure of evolutionary materialistic scientism. KF kairosfocus

Almost all issues have some combination of political, psychological, sociological, economic, historical, and ethical factors. Issues don't come divided up into nice little disparate categories. Viola Lee

ID has been subjected to unjust political bias on more than one occasion, so it's important to see parallels. ID also has a cultural impact - as does evolution. Keep in mind, a civil law judge made a legislative ruling against ID - so politics is a big part of our society. This is true even in science, which is supposed to be pure search for facts and understanding based on observation. But criteria for hiring, research and publishing now is affected by social justice concerns. This is very true in professional scientific circles. Silver Asiatic

I was referring to the long emphasis on the situation in Canada, which has dominated the comments here lately, and now the US trucker's convoy. Viola Lee

Viola Lee: Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "blatantly political flavor". If the corruption of science by political ideology is being "blatantly political," then "blatantly political" we are. That liberalism destroys all it touches is, at this point, an objective fact. That it is now destroying science is "blatantly" obvious. But, please, do explain your position. PaV

All media has biases. Some, like Fox News and Rebel News are just more blatant and proud about it. Scamp

VL @ 4 Touche! Not to mention Evolution News and Mind Matters.......... chuckdarwin

Has anyone noticed the blatantly political flavor of this website lately? :-) Viola Lee

Been going on for decades. Turned me off two of my former favourites, Sci Am and Nat Geog. kairosfocus

@Fasteddious; Yes, it would be nice. Even the aggregator websites like PNAS are clearly biased, but they do sometimes carry unorthodox pieces. Mostly I let Academia.edu feed me interesting items. They seem to find obscure stuff that actually fits my desires. (Admittedly they got my subscription money by tracking 'mentions' and 'reads' of my own authored and coauthored papers! Massaging egos is a great advertising method.) polistra

I have belatedly allowed my Scientific American subscription to expire. In recent issues I have taken a pen to mark up references to left, progressive, even woke, politics and ideologies. There seems to be almost no topic on which they will not accuse Trump of something bad, praise Darwin, flog the "climate crisis", or inject the word "evolution" somehow or other, even when the topic has nothing to do with any of those. Any public policy mention is now deconstructed regarding "equity", "diversity", or "inclusion". One has to read a bit at a time to avoid nausea or spiked blood pressure. I have searched for an alternative, serious science magazine and settled on Science News. We'll see how that works out. Fasteddious