Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Problem With Most Theological Doctrines and the Theological Argument for Mental Reality

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In most theologies, it is said that God created the material world. It is also said that God is (1) omnipresent, (2) omnipotent, and (3) omniscient; that God knows the future and the past. It is also said that God is an unchanging, eternal, immaterial being and the root of all existence.

Unless God is itself subject to linear time, the idea that God “created” anything is absurd. The idea of “creating” something necessarily implies that there was a time before that thing was created. From the “perspective” (I’ll explain the scare quotes below) of being everywhere and everywhen in one’s “now,” nothing is ever created. It always exists, has always existence, and will always exist, from God’s perspective, because all those things would exist to God as “now.”

“Matter” cannot exist if God is an immaterial being because God “is” everything from a theological perspective. There is no place or state “outside of God” or “unlike God,” because there is nowhere else to exist, and nothing else to comprise anything that is said to exist. If God is fundamentally immaterial being, then everything is fundamentally immaterial. Matter cannot exist in that situation.

All spiritual or religious doctrines extend from the perspective of assigning “not-God” characteristics and perspective to God. IOW, they are characterizations of God and the assigning of attributes to God that inimical to the logical ramifications of the attributes assigned to God by those same metaphysical perspectives.

The idea that God “chose” to create this specific world and limit the experiential capacity of all sentient beings to, basically, a single architecture out of infinite possibilities is absurd because God cannot have a “perspective.” “Perspective” requires a point of view. God cannot have a point of view.

Furthermore, God cannot “make a decision.” A decision requires context, organized sequential experiences, and a perspective – none of which God can logically experience, at least not from the state of “being God”

Even if we ignore all that, let’s say God instantaneously examines all possible experiential architectures “before” he “chooses” one – let’s say the Christian architecture – to limit sentient beings to. The problem with this is that a Godly “examination” of all possible experiential pathways would necessarily mean instantly knowing all possible experiences in every possible architecture – IOW, experiencing every possible life of every possible person in every possible architecture. That’s what omnipresence and omniscience would necessarily entail.

But God exists in a complete state of omniscient, eternal “now-ness, always experiencing all of those other possibilities as those beings in those other possible reality architectures. That’s what eternal omniscience and omnipresence necessarily means. God cannot then decide to “unexist” those other individual experiences in other architectures – they eternally exist as beings experiencing other architectures. Other realities. In the only place and as the only thing any such reality can ever exist – in the mind of God.

If the “perspective” of God is “all possible perspectives at the same time all the time,” then God (from the “God perspective) doesn’t have a perspective. If the nature of your being is “always fully experiencing all possible experiences all the time from every possible perspective,” no experiential decisions can be made; they are all fully being made eternally. There are no “others” to make experiential parameters for; all possible decisions from every individual perspective always fully exist eternally AS those individual beings in the mind of God – the only way anything ever exists as “real.”

Every possible experience, every possible experiential pathway in every possible experiential architecture always and eternally exists as real as any other. As individual consciousnesses, we can only be observational aspects of God, “exploring” an ocean of fully real possibilities, only limited by what is possible in the mind of God.

IOW, no four-sided triangles or 1+1=3 experiences or the like. But that’s the only kind of limitation to what is available to experience. As observational aspects of God, everything is ultimately “within” us. All possibilities. All other aspects conscious aspects of God – other people with individual perspectives, are in this sense “within” us.

Comments
KF, You didn't actually answer my question at 150, but I gather you agree that the integers extend without limit in both directions, because there is also a next integer: that is what without limit means. And since every such integer is finite, because it is just one more than the last integer, the sequence is without finite limit: there is no largest or smallest integer. It seems that we agree about that. However, you say, "Do you see the key factor that keeps getting skipped? ... PS: It is fairly obvious that there is a paradigm gap here." No, I don't see what key factor is getting skipped? I know you are mathematically literate: can you explain what is being skipped in mathematical terms.Viola Lee
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
DS, enough has already been pointed out. The general evasiveness tells us the real balance on merits. KFkairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution cannot be modelled. It must not be real...ET
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
KF and Viola Lee,
DS, you full well know what is being discussed in what context. Lay aside the tangents. KF
I guess Viola Lee was right, as I thought my post addressed exactly the issue you raised. The positive integers or "mileposts in R", when read left to right, comprise a sequence that has no finite limit. What additional points do you wish to make about sequences that have no finite limit? What is this "key factor that keeps getting skipped" you allude to in #155? I honestly don't know where you're going with that. It would be helpful if you simply posted the answers to these questions. :-)daveS
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
KF, I'm going to paste your comment at 157 in the new thread I created and respond to it there. I'm going to police that thread better to stay on track. This thread is irretrievable. No worries.William J Murray
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus:
JVL, the mathematics is telling us something about the structure of reality that then becomes highly significant in a causal-temporal, thermodynamic [energy dynamics constrained] world such as we inhabit.
No, it does not UNLESS you choose to try and apply the math to that situation. Which I do not think is sound but I have to say I'm not sure exactly what physical state or situation you are trying to apply the math to.
Physics is inextricably intertwined with such structural, quantitative aspects of the logic of being.
Again, you may CHOOSE to try and apply the math but it doesn't mean the model holds.
A simple mathematical point can have most profound physical significance as say key conservation laws bring out. Laws of that order pivot on x1 +y1 . . . z1 = x2 + y2 . . . z2, utterly simple algebra but powerful physical import. And, you full well know or should know this.
What does that even mean; "Laws of that order pivot on . . . "? You just set up an equation with six variables and some ellipsis on either side for some reason. If your pattern is x then y then z would follow and you should just write "x1 + y1 + z1 = x2 + y2 + z2". You are conflating math with an application of it. If you want to talk about your application of the math that's fine but the math exists independent of its application. Just state simply and clearly what physical situation or state or phenomena you want to model, what math you are using and how the math maps to your situation and then we'll see. You can't say: because the math says this reality must follow. That's crazy. All models are wrong but some are useful - generally attributed to George Box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrongJVL
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
PS: JVL, the mathematics is telling us something about the structure of reality that then becomes highly significant in a causal-temporal, thermodynamic [energy dynamics constrained] world such as we inhabit. Physics is inextricably intertwined with such structural, quantitative aspects of the logic of being. A simple mathematical point can have most profound physical significance as say key conservation laws bring out. Laws of that order pivot on x1 +y1 . . . z1 = x2 + y2 . . . z2, utterly simple algebra but powerful physical import. And, you full well know or should know this.kairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
JVL, the context of ellipses of transfinite extension as opposed to finite has been quite clear all along. At one point in the debate I used four dots to emphasise the contrast. That is not generally used but can be if it becomes necessary. KFkairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, on the contrary, the ellipsis brings in the force of infinity. It depends on how they are used: You can define the set of all positive integers less than 100 as {1, 2, 3 . . . 99} The ellipsis only means: follow the pattern. Yes, they are frequent used to indicate continue on indefinitely but, again, the notation is strictly shorthand, a faster way of writing "continue on in the same fashion". Do not mistake notation for concept(s). what is the implication of, that for every specific natural counting number we can count to or represent k and its additive inverse k’, we can recognise that there is onward extension WITHOUT LIMIT, one that can be matched 1 to 1 with 0, 1, 2 . . . again without limit? Symbolised, by the ellipsis? (Do you see the key factor that keeps getting skipped? The same in “succession of mileposts WITHOUT ANY FINITE LIMIT.”) So? It's just a countably infinite set. What is the big deal? It's not mystical or symbolic or anything like that. It's just a countably infinite set. The really interesting part is when you start realising that some infinite sets have more elements than some other infinite sets. That's the real "WOW" moment. This is all well established and non-controversial (dare I say) undergraduate level mathematics. You want to use the mathematics to draw some other conclusion, you want to apply the mathematics to some situation, you're saying the mathematics models (or should model) something else. Fine. You may or may not be right. But you're not saying anything mathematically profound or note worthy.JVL
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
WJM, In a sense, I regret that a seeming side issue has come up, though it is significant because it shows that a temporal causal successive finite stage domain is structurally limited in the past, establishing that a different, eternal order is root to reality. Which is of course very hard to swallow if you come from some fairly dominant current perspectives. (That comes from recognising that true nothing, non-being, has no causal capability. So were there ever such, it would forever obtain; as a world is, something has always been, something of utterly independent, necessary being character. By contrast, circular retro-cause where the not yet somehow reaches back in order to become is again world out of non-being. And, infinite past chain runs into the implicit challenge of traversal of the transfinite in steps, the point that lurks in the secondary exchange.) That said, I wish to again put on the table what appears at 138:
. . . through the window of consciousness we experience a palpably independent world manifestly different from dream-worlds, day by day. We have good reason to accept it went on before we were born or even before there were any humans, and when we go to a funeral we accept that it goes on after we die. Not to mention, many of us acknowledge the distinction between our inner selves and our outer bodies that is severed at death, leading to the disintegration of the latter. It seems to me there is very good reason to see both minds and bodies, in a world that our bodies are definitely part of. Using distinct identity, required characteristics of mind are distinct from brains as computational substrates but the two interact; we are back at the Smith, two-tier controller cybernetic model, with perhaps a quantum influence interface. I think we come close to grand delusion if we try to deny one or the other; that which makes grand delusion probable so undermines credibility of reasoning that it becomes self-referentially absurd. The balanced middle way is to accept both, while using comparative difficulties to understand that in every view there will be difficulties.
KFkairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
DS, you full well know what is being discussed in what context. Lay aside the tangents. KFkairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
VL, what is the implication of, that for every specific natural counting number we can count to or represent k and its additive inverse k', we can recognise that there is onward extension WITHOUT LIMIT, one that can be matched 1 to 1 with 0, 1, 2 . . . again without limit? Symbolised, by the ellipsis? (Do you see the key factor that keeps getting skipped? The same in "succession of mileposts WITHOUT ANY FINITE LIMIT.") KF PS: It is fairly obvious that there is a paradigm gap here.kairosfocus
October 23, 2020
October
10
Oct
23
23
2020
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
JVL, on the contrary, the ellipsis brings in the force of infinity. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Dave, I appreciate it that KF asked a basic question. Sometimes it's good to establish what people agree on first. I'm hoping KF comes back and tells me whether what I wrote at 150 is accurate.Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: ponder, please, the ellipsis as a structural feature of the reals mileposted by Z, as was already pointed out. The ellipsis is NOT a structural feature. The ellipsis just means 'and so on in the same pattern'. What is that telling us on what goes on beyond some large k or its additive inverse k’. The ellipsis is not telling us anything. It's just shorthand for continuing on in the same pattern. That is where the problem is, there is no k that is not exceeded by transfinitely many further naturals mileposting R+. So? There are infinitely many reals between any two integers. In fact, there are infinitely many reals between any two given reals. You keep flinging jargon around as if you are saying something profound when you are just restating the obvious. What comes out is the reals inherently point beyond themselves. That is nonsensical. It seems to me that you are seeing R* as radically different and a needless imposition, rather than a highly relevant wider context within which R is embraced. No, that is NOT what anyone is saying. You should stop trying to ascribe greater meaning or weight to very small or very large numbers. You don't want to consider the possibility of there being an infinite past. Fine, you do that. But don't try and create a could of mathematical jargon in some attempt to justify your belief. My point is once we face the import of the ellipsis, a claimed infinite past of successive stages that are causally-temporally connected requires spanning the full import of the ellipsis. That is, implicit transfinite traversal, stepwise, which is a futile supertask. This has everything to do with your beliefs and nothing to do with mathematics. I don't know if there was anything before the Big Bang. But whether there was or not has nothing to do with mathematics. Stop trying to pretend it does.JVL
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
KF, I suppose the sequence a_n = (-1)^n for n in N defines a sequence with no finite limit. But you might be talking about sequences which are unbounded, for example a_n = n^2 for n in N. This one has the property that given any integer M, no matter how large, there exists n in N such than a_n > M. Of course a_n = n for all n in N has the same property. Edit: I'm not sure what the point of these elementary questions is. Clearly we are all familiar with sequences with no finite limit?daveS
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Good. I think taking arguments one proposition or concept at a time is good. It means, as I have stated above, that in the set of real numbers, every integer has a successor and a predecessor. Or a bit more formally, if k is an integer, both the integers k + 1 and k - 1 exist. Does that seem accurate to you?Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
VL, what does succession of mileposts WITHOUT ANY FINITE LIMIT mean? KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Here's an example to illustrate what's going on. I'm sure all three of us are familiar with the development and structure of imaginary and complex numbers. Statement 1: In the real number system, every positive number has two square roots and every negative number has no square roots. This is a basic fact taught in Algebra I, and earlier. Statement 2: In the complex number system, every number has two square roots (except zero). Suppose person A make statement 1. Person B says no, that's wrong, and offers statement 2. Person A says, "But I'm not talking about complex numbers." Person B says, "But if you were", you would be wrong! Person A: "OK, if I were talking about something that I am not in fact talking about, I would be wrong." :-) Seems pretty silly to me.Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Back to the magical ellipses, eh? :-) KF, all three of us understand the set of integers well enough, including standard notation such as ellipses.daveS
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
In reference to the reals (the integers, really), the ellipsis is just a piece of notation to represent the basic postulate that every number has a successor and a predecessor. That's all.Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
VL, ponder, please, the ellipsis as a structural feature of the reals mileposted by Z, as was already pointed out. What is that telling us on what goes on beyond some large k or its additive inverse k'. That is where the problem is, there is no k that is not exceeded by transfinitely many further naturals mileposting R+. The hyperreals frame all of this allowing us to zoom back and see that wider context; if you want the surreals also allow this, and are in effect isomorphic to the hyperreals in relevant form. What comes out is the reals inherently point beyond themselves. It seems to me that you are seeing R* as radically different and a needless imposition, rather than a highly relevant wider context within which R is embraced. In some ways this reminds me of debated over C. My point is once we face the import of the ellipsis, a claimed infinite past of successive stages that are causally-temporally connected requires spanning the full import of the ellipsis. That is, implicit transfinite traversal, stepwise, which is a futile supertask. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Viola Lee,
“If you consider the hyperreals, I am right.” My response is, “And if you don’t, you are wrong.” KF can only be right if he includes the hyperreals, so that is what he must do.
Yes, that's about the size of it.daveS
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Hi Dave. You quote KF as writing, "Embracing the span in a hyperreal envelope simply makes it clearer, that there is an implicit transfinite span of antecedent stages for every finitely remote k’ in the model." But there is nothing "clearer" or "implicit" about any this. The hyperreals, by definition are numbers that are larger than any real number. Therefore, they establish what KF wants to be true by, as you say, changing the conditions of the topics. All his long-winded explanations are unnecessary, and don't establish anything. His argument is, "If you consider the hyperreals, I am right." My response is, "And if you don't, you are wrong." KF can only be right if he includes the hyperreals, so that is what he must do. This has been instructive: Thanks for cluing me in on how what I thought might be an interesting discussion was likely to go, as it did.Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
VL, explicit address and implications of the context of discussion are quite different things. What you clipped off in your attempted summary is the reason why I point to that issue. DS Yes, we have had exchanges. I am not committing chicanery (that is an utterly unwarranted personality), but it is clear that absent major developments there will be no agreement. I note that my very point is that there is the implicit transfinite in the discussion on reals, so it is reasonable to point to the wider context that allows us to see the issues more clearly. On logic of dealing with issues and paradigms, can I point out that the rise of modern physics could never have happened if there was a constriction of discussion to terms used in C19 classical physics? this example should suffice to show that imposed datum lines can frustrate discussion. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
KF, I've addressed each of these points many times, so I don't think there's much point in going over it all again. I'll focus just on this:
Embracing the span in a hyperreal envelope simply makes it clearer, that there is an implicit transfinite span of antecedent stages for every finitely remote k’ in the model.
If you have a critique of hypothesis X, then you must refer only to entities which exist in X. When you bring in infinite numbers, you are no longer talking about X, but Y. Sometimes I wonder if you just think we're exceptionally dim and won't notice this chicanery. This is sort of like the dishonest mechanic who squirts oil on your shocks in order to convince you that you need new ones. Nothing personal, but I try not to engage in any underhanded debating tactics and would appreciate some reciprocity.daveS
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
KF's answers, in shorter form: "KF, are you willing to talk about this topic [the nature of the past] in reference to the real number line only?" KF: "No" "Or will you only discuss this topic when it includes the hyperreals?" KF: "Yes" When Querius asked the original question, he made it clear later that he was not talking about the hyperreals. I don't think any of the traditional mainstream proponents of the "no infinite past" argument were talking about hyperreals, especially since hyperreals were just conceived about 60 years ago. Therefore, I'll move on and consider the discussion closed as far as I'm concerned.Viola Lee
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
WJM, A few more meta-questions: 1. If MRT is correct, then why are the majority of its occupants (algorithms) misled by it's very nature to accept a false (and more complex) picture of what MRT is? 2. Does #1 affect the probability that MRT is correct? (Does it at least lower it?) 3. In what other areas of philosophical inquiry has MRT misled the majority of its occupants?EDTA
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
WJM, that's strange, through the window of consciousness we experience a palpably independent world manifestly different from dream-worlds, day by day. We have good reason to accept it went on before we were born or even before there were any humans, and when we go to a funeral we accept that it goes on after we die. Not to mention, many of us acknowledge the distinction between our inner selves and our outer bodies that is severed at death, leading to the disintegration of the latter. It seems to me there is very good reason to see both minds and bodies, in a world that our bodies are definitely part of. Using distinct identity, required characteristics of mind are distinct from brains as computational substrates but the two interact; we are back at the Smith, two-tier controller cybernetic model, with perhaps a quantum influence interface. I think we come close to grand delusion if we try to deny one or the other; that which makes grand delusion probable so undermines credibility of reasoning that it becomes self-referentially absurd. The balanced middle way is to accept both, while using comparative difficulties to understand that in every view there will be difficulties. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
VL, why do you wish to impose as a prior, that we confine discussion of what an infinite actual past means, to a particular structured set R mileposted by its subset Z that -- per 4 years of discussion now -- is likely to be conducive to misunderstanding? My eventual recognition of the import of R* in general
(those arrow-heads on graph axes from 2nd form on and integrals from infinity to infinity from 4th form, as well as pondering why in College, first calculus level Physics, dx, dt etc were treated as fractions, so that some r becomes *r*, a number with an infinitesimally altered cloud around it were start-points)
. . . starts from discomfort with how we treated what turns out to be a subtle but pivotal structure, the ellipsis of limitless or transfinite or immeasurable or unbounded extension, . . . etc. There is nothing wrong, suspicious, deceptive, misleading or confused and dubious with considering a set in its wider, acknowledged, reasonable, wider context, here, the hyperreals. My point has been that there is a lot hiding in the ellipses or arrow points on axes etc, which turn out to be a key part of the filling in the details on the import of R mileposted by Z. And in particular, the result of counting up to some k then going on k--> k+0 [to see its import], k+1, k+2 . . . such that this clear subset can be placed in one to one match with 0,1,2 . . . implies the inherently transfinite span lying in both ellipses so that we cannot specify a final positive integer or natural counting number. Where, the use of additive inverses immediately extends to Z, with k' + k = 0 defining k' as -1 * k. In that light, . . . , k'-1, k', k'+1 . . . -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . will draw in the same structure of transfinite extension as we saw for k. Every particular integer we count to, construct or symbolise, k or k' is bound by onward values R-ward or L-ward as appropriate, values that extend beyond any onward finite case we similarly put up. By referring to R* (or more or less isomorphically the surreals, let's label S*) we can draw on wider thought so we can think more clearly. There is nothing pernicious in that, so I have no reason to take your stipulation as reasonable. What that span allows is then thinking of H', additive inverse duly extended to the transfinite hyperreal, H. So, we go (with n for now) in a model timeline counted by causal-temporal, successive, cumulative stages: . . . H'-1, H', H'+1 . . . [ --//-- ] . . . k'-1, k', k'+1 . . . -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . n . . . --> Notice, I added a structure showing a transfinite span, showing that from H' we cannot count up in steps to k'. 1/H' of course is h', a number closer to 0 than any 1/k' on the L-ward side. That reverts to the full structure R*. As well, say H is even, H'/2 is in the ellipsis after H'+1 but still we cannot bridge into a stepwise count up to k'. Transfinite traverse, explicitly shown, is impossible. The problem is subtler, the ellipsis L-ward from k'-1 is standing in for the transfinite span also. That it is implicit does not make it any less real. And that is my core objection to the idea of transfinitely many stages antecedent to k', all only finitely remote from 0. The insertion of finitely remote, for any k' whatsoever, implies the onward structure, which is transfinite in span. Where no causal temporal stepwise succession will span the transfinite. Thus, my conclusion that we can only properly discuss a finite causal-temporal past of finite stages, years for convenience. The observed causal-temporal order and its quasi-temporal antecedents if any are inherently finite in the past, per the logic and quantitative structure of such succession of stages. This of course embeds the temporal in the eternal, whatever such turns out to be structurally. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2020
October
10
Oct
22
22
2020
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
1 9 10 11 12 13 16

Leave a Reply