Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Jerry,
But arguing over the number of numbers there are between any two entities is nothing more than a mental gyration and similar to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
But there are right and wrong answers to some of these questions. The subset (0, 1) of the real numbers has the same number of elements as the power set of N. The set (0, 1) does not have the same number of elements as N itself. And one can make arguments and provide evidence to support these statements. It's not just idle speculation. That assumes one accepts some "ordinary" mathematics, which I believe most of us do.daveS
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Any so called line connecting any disjoint positions is nothing but a series of discontinuous specks of some material (including pixels on a computer screen). Our mind tricks us into thinking they are connected but everyone reading this knows they are not connected and the specks are finite. Of course all of these specks when viewed through some magnification process will then appear very jagged to the mind. Any continuous entity is an illusion and only exists in our minds not in reality. But for practical purposes we can assume there is such a thing as a line and it is continuous and our lives are much better because we do. But arguing over the number of numbers there are between any two entities is nothing more than a mental gyration and similar to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The number of numbers will always be finite.jerry
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Q, in addition to physical models and axiomatised logic models, there are embedded structures and quantities bound up in the logic of being of any possible world. Basic quantities are involved, starting with N and its close related structures. Such is a key reason why mathematics is so powerful. KFkairosfocus
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
ET: How many points are there between two points 6 inches apart? As many as you want.JVL
November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
ET, a good question, to which on continuum framework the answer is c, continuum magnitude. One can draw a Line" in a second or less, and of course the continuum brings in the Zeno effects and convergent transfinite series completed in finite time as successive partial sums converge, KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
daves:
If you disagree, describe the sequence of infinitely many tasks accomplished in a finite time interval.
How many points are there between two points 6" apart? How long does it take to draw a line connecting the two points?ET
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
Sandy, The little point wasp and her sister are mathematical manifestations of physics fantasies right along with massless elephants sliding around on frictionless ice. As Sabine Hossenfelder and many others have pointed out, mathematics is a set of logical systems that can be applied to the cause-effect relationships in physics, but they provide no guarantee that they're anything more than useful tools. Every equation is at risk of being replaced with a new equation or a new mathematics when additional data emerges. And there are many different types mathematical systems that are incompatible with each other. So, when trying to apply infinities, topologies, calculus, or linear algebra, pragmatism rather than extrapolation is the only measure of success. But if the math doesn't hold up or is inordinately complex, it's quickly discarded for a different mathematical approach. In this case, the question is whether the infinities of a number line can be applied to space-time. I think it works only within relatively narrow boundary conditions. -QQuerius
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Sandy writes, "1. In reality motion is fluid while in maths is displayed as many static images that’s why so many “paradoxes” involving motion." Hmmm. Do you know calculus, Sandy?Viola Lee
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT
@ViolaLee Funny you didn't have a complaint to: 1. In reality motion is fluid while in maths is displayed as many static images that's why so many "paradoxes" involving motion ;) 2. Interchangeable use(in a deceitful way) of 2 different referential frameworks :the macroscopic framework (eye level ) and the microscopic one even if an undetectable margin of error in macro repressent more than whole micro framework .Maths doesn't have "problems" with infinite "zoom in /out" or "margins of error" . 3. Wasp would need an infinite amount of energy to do an infinite number of trips. 4.Point wasps don't exist. 5.Wasp would be pulverized when land on first headlamp (100+50=150miles/h ) therefore we know how many trips has finished :) Maths when is not correlated objectively with psysics is full of......paradoxes.Sandy
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
JVL, Be nice. I don't think Viola Lee intended to join your club. ;-) Besides, our little wasp has a sister who also likes to make infinite numbers of trips on a timeline. -QQuerius
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Viola Lee: I have been beset by this problem too many times: People not well versed in math think they have solved a problem when they in fact don’t understand basic ideas. Welcome to the club.JVL
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
ViolaLee I have been beset by this problem too many times: People not well versed in math think they have solved a problem when they in fact don’t understand basic ideas.
This is a funny reactionSandy
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Sandy writes, " A necessary condition to resolve this problem is that you must not be a maths literate." I have been beset by this problem too many times: People not well versed in math think they have solved a problem when they in fact don't understand basic ideas.Viola Lee
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
DaveS https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.0.0/svg/1f926.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Emojione_1F421.svgSandy
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
🤦daveS
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Querius a. How far did the wasp travel? b. How many trips between the locomotives did the wasp make? My point in this silliness is that the wasp actually traversed an infinity of trips.
Kairosfocus Q, start with inferred time to collision, where 40t + 50t = 200, so t = 200/90 = 2.222 . . . hrs. D = v*t so distance cumulatively flown at 100 mph is 222.222 . . . miles, which is the sum of the trips flown, the vast majority of terms being in the short interval just before impact. KF
Nope. A necessary condition to resolve this problem is that you must not be a maths literate. :) In the last second before the 2 trains will meet(40m apart) will be the last trip of wasp because in that last second wasp max speed is psysically restricted to only 40m/s .Sandy
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Now imagine running the experiment backward, so the trains back up from the point of impact until they are 200 miles apart. How far does the wasp travel? How many trips does it make?daveS
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Q, start with inferred time to collision, where 40t + 50t = 200, so t = 200/90 = 2.222 . . . hrs. D = v*t so distance cumulatively flown at 100 mph is 222.222 . . . miles, which is the sum of the trips flown, the vast majority of terms being in the short interval just before impact. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
DS, I think part of the point is that transfinite quantities have strange properties that are largely unfamiliar to us and are counter-intuitive. Here, countably infinite means aleph_null in scale. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
222.22 (repeating of course) miles? And yes, countably infinitely many trips.daveS
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, Ok, let's try it out. The locomotives start 200 miles apart. Locomotive 1 (L1) travels at 40 mph Locomotive 2 (L2) travels at 50 mph The wasp (W) travels at 100 mph a. How far did the wasp travel? b. How many trips between the locomotives did the wasp make? My point in this silliness is that the wasp actually traversed an infinity of trips. -QQuerius
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Q, you can know the magnitude, aleph_null, as that is the number of terms in an infinite, convergent power series. The known total distance comes from known speed and time to impact. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
An infinite amount of mathematicians walked into a bar. The first ordered a pint, the second ordered a half pint, the third ordered a fourth-pint, etc. The Bartender eventually walked up and gave them two pints and said: “you mathematicians don’t know your limits.”Sandy
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
DaveS @380,
It’s trivial to move your finger 1 mm, but it’s not even clear it’s possible for something to move an infinite number of millimeters. That’s something that will never be observed ‘directly’, in any case.
In my math problem, you can observe the two locomotives heading toward each other and their eventual collision, You can observe the wonky wasp zipping between the locomotives. You can calculate the location and moment of impact. However, you cannot count the number of trips the wasp took, which is infinite. -QQuerius
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, Yes, but there's more to it. The total length of the super-wasp's travel can be computed from its given speed and the time it takes for the trains to collide, but the number of trips it takes cannot be computed. -QQuerius
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Q, you are restating Zeno's paradox of convergent series where trips take shorter and shorter until they converge. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Q, The question seems to be much different when all the "trips" are identical in length and duration. It's trivial to move your finger 1 mm, but it's not even clear it's possible for something to move an infinite number of millimeters. That's something that will never be observed 'directly', in any case.daveS
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
@Querius
The velocities of each locomotive and the mad wasp is given as well as their initial separation. One is asked how long before the trains collide and how far the point-sized wasp flies before it’s crushed. The answers can easily be calculated and they’re finite. But notice that the *number* of trips that the point-sized, super-fast wasp makes is infinite. An infinite number of trips is traversed in a finite amount of time.
Do you still believe the stork brought you? A point-sized stork. ;)Sandy
October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, Yep, you sure did. Just took me a while. ;-) My perspective is that the origin point on the number line is in motion, not stationary, and that I could take any arbitrary segment as a traversal function/automobile. Finally, I realized that I needed to maintain a separation between time and the number line/freeway. Still, I could be wrong . . . I'm reminded of the old problem that has two locomotives heading toward each other on the same track. No, this won't end well. Also, a point-sized, super-fast wasp travels from one headlamp to the other, repeatedly turning around and flying to the headlamp of the other train, back and forth. The velocities of each locomotive and the mad wasp is given as well as their initial separation. One is asked how long before the trains collide and how far the point-sized wasp flies before it's crushed. The answers can easily be calculated and they're finite. But notice that the *number* of trips that the point-sized, super-fast wasp makes is infinite. An infinite number of trips is traversed in a finite amount of time. -QQuerius
October 29, 2020
October
10
Oct
29
29
2020
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Q, you will notice, I have consistently spoken to finite scale discrete stages. That would be like counting distance by mileposts on your highway. KFkairosfocus
October 29, 2020
October
10
Oct
29
29
2020
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 16

Leave a Reply