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
Q, all infinities are not equal. There are more reals than integers: that is, the integers have cardinality aleph_null and the reals aleph_one. As Dave pointed out before, I don't think the article you linked to mean what you think it means.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Viola Lee,
Sure, we move through an infinite number of reals every microsecond, if you wish, or through any infinite number of points in any spatial interval.
Great! So since all infinities have been proved to be equal, then traversing a hypothetically infinite number line given an infinite amount of time is possible right? https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/ I would also remind you that so far there's been no objection to traversing an infinite amount of time in the future (currently in progress) over an infinite amount of time, of course. -QQuerius
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Yes, KF, I know that, and was explaining that to Querius.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
VL, the issue is the reals mileposted by the integers and it is the integers labelling identifiable distinct successive stages that we have been interested in. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
DS, please. When I first met the term it was precisely in the context of the INFEASIBILITY of such a task, which is why I have consistently used it in that sense. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Yes, at least in part (contrary to what I said facetiously above). Engaging in these debates sometimes helps me clarify my own position. The inevitable tangents are also interesting for their own sake.daveS
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Unfortunately, we have accomplished essentially nothing in a finite amount of time.
Nothing is infinitely small! I have a question. Is the objective here to accomplish anything?jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Jerry: And then there was quaternions. Shudder. Thank you for bringing up painful memories! From Wikipedia: (some of the formatting predictably fails)
Quaternions are used in pure mathematics, and also have practical uses in applied mathematics—in particular for calculations involving three-dimensional rotations such as in three-dimensional computer graphics, computer vision, and crystallographic texture analysis. In practical applications, they can be used alongside other methods, such as Euler angles and rotation matrices, or as an alternative to them, depending on the application. In modern mathematical language, quaternions form a four-dimensional associative normed division algebra over the real numbers, and therefore also a domain. In fact, the quaternions were the first noncommutative division algebra to be discovered. The algebra of quaternions is often denoted by H (for Hamilton), or in blackboard bold by H \mathbb {H} (Unicode U+210D, ?). It can also be given by the Clifford algebra classifications Cl0,2(?) ? Cl+ 3,0(?). The algebra ? holds a special place in analysis since, according to the Frobenius theorem, it is one of only two finite-dimensional division rings containing the real numbers as a proper subring, the other being the complex numbers. These rings are also Euclidean Hurwitz algebras, of which quaternions are the largest associative algebra. Further extending the quaternions yields the non-associative octonions, which is the last normed division algebra over the reals (the extension of the octonions, sedenions, has zero divisors and so cannot be a normed division algebra).
JVL
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Unfortunately, we have accomplished essentially nothing in a finite amount of time.daveS
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
If you disagree, describe the sequence of infinitely many tasks accomplished in a finite time interval.
Any debate on infinity.
To an almost Trumpian degree
Will Godwin’s law be extended to Trump?jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, there is also an infeasible supertask, which is not completed. KF
No, you're engaging in dishonest debating tactics here. To an almost Trumpian degree. :P If you disagree, describe the sequence of infinitely many tasks accomplished in a finite time interval.daveS
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Q, I believe the word "traverse", as we have been using it in this discussion, means to progress by discrete intervals, such as we might do by moving through the integers from 1 to 10. The reals are infinitely dense, so I don't think the word "traverse" applies in the same sense. Your question brings up continuity, as opposed to discrete quantities, which is substantially different. Sure, we move through an infinite number of reals every microsecond, if you wish, or through any infinite number of points in any spatial interval.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
The weirdest one for me is using imaginary numbers in physics applications. Complex analysis turns out to be very pretty mathematics.
And then there was quaternions.jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
DS, there is also an infeasible supertask, which is not completed. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Viola Lee @328, Can one traverse the infinite number of reals between -1 and 0? JVL @330, Nicely stated! Jerry @331,
I decided I loved math but not the people in it and didn’t want to spend the rest of my life with them.
Haha! Love it! -QQuerius
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
So, yes, all models are wrong but some are useful.
I never said they were not useful. In fact I said just the opposite.
Extremely useful but no real world examples. The only numbers that exist are positive integers and in reality are also in our heads as we enumerate external realities. No negative numbers. No rational numbers such as fractions. No irrational numbers such as pi or e or the square root of two. No lines, no circles, no squares, no right angles. All are extremely useful but no actual examples in reality. All make life better but are just constructs in our minds. They help us to communicate and make things. They make life better.
I have a background in math and physics and had a fellowship to Duke University PhD program in math which I pursued. But left to go into US Navy for a more interesting life. I decided I loved math but not the people in it and didn’t want to spend the rest of my life with them. Joined the Navy to see the world. Got to go to 5 continents. Then got a non science related graduate degree from Stanford. Ended up seeing all 7 continents at least twice. Much more fun than math and people were more interesting. Definitely understand the usefulness of math from basic arithmetic to partial differential equations.jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Jerry: These so called “real” numbers do not exist in reality. They exist only in our minds. Perhaps not (and 'real' is just what mathematicians agreed to call them), BUT I did use the ratio of the diagonal of a square to a side to help lay-out the grid on an archaeological site, within a margin of error obviously! :-). And e turns out to be pretty useful as well especially in Euler's Identity (one of Kairosfocus's favourite equations), some differential equations, and modelling population growth (other bases are available of course). And that pesky pi does seem to turn up an inordinate amount of times across lots of applied disciplines. So, yes, all models are wrong but some are useful. The weirdest one for me is using imaginary numbers in physics applications. Complex analysis turns out to be very pretty mathematics. The more we study the quantum realm the idea of discrete, countable objects gets slipperier and slipperier so perhaps the real world is less discrete than we think. If everything is just clouds of probability then how do you model that without real numbers?JVL
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
"Aristotle said the past is infinite because for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. It is difficult to make sense of his belief about the past since he means it is potentially infinite. After all, the past has an end, namely the present, :) so its infinity has been completed and therefore is not a potential infinity." https://iep.utm.edu/infinite/#SH4d End of story. Absurdity remain absurdity even when talked by Aristotle.( adaptation from John C. Lennox “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.”)Sandy
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Thanks, JVL, @325. That's probably what Q meant. Although I still don't know what "how about" he might be referring to.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
KF, Yes, so I guess you weren't making such a simplistic claim as I implied. The figure:
. . . . H’-1 — H’ — H’+1 — . . . . H’/2 . . . . [–//–] {{{ . . . . k’-3 — k’-2 — k’-1 — k’ — k’+1 — . . . -1 — *0* — +1 — +2 . . . k-1 — k — k+1 . . . . }}} [–//–] . . . . H/2 . . . . H-1 — H — H+1 . . . .
The issue is whether a traversal of the bolded sequence from left to right is possible.
So, within the span of R, we find an implicit transfinite traverse to reach to k’ by ascent from the zone L-ward of k’.
Yes.
The same we contemplated in seeing that the span to k’ from n implied also the onward unlimited L-ward span beyond k’ of scale aleph_null.
I can't remember what n was, and I can't really parse what you're saying here. [Edit: Perhaps the descending traversal? More on that below].
Trying to traverse it in steps L-ward beyond k’ would be a futile supertask, and by symmetry descending the same span would be similarly an infeasible supertask.
Two issues: 1. It's not a supertask. Why do you continue to use this misleading terminology? From SEP:
A supertask is a task that consists in infinitely many component steps, but which in some sense is completed in a finite amount of time.
Anyway, when I see this term, I'll translate to "an infinite, beginningless sequence of tasks, with an endpoint". 2. I thought we settled this "symmetry" issue when HeKS was involved in these threads years ago. Ascending the span is not symmetrical with descending the span, and I think you agreed. We are talking about the ascent, not the descent, so let's cease to speak of the descent.daveS
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
I think what Querius was saying was that there are infinitely many real numbers in the gap between -1 and 0.
Irony!!! These so called “real” numbers do not exist in reality. They exist only in our minds.jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: There are no gaps between the real numbers. Not sure what point you are making. Well . . . let's just say between any two real numbers you can find another one. Which is also true for the rational numbers. In both case the average of the two numbers works nicely. I think what Querius was saying was that there are infinitely many real numbers in the gap between -1 and 0.JVL
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
Q writes, "Viola Lee, And how about the infinite real-number gap between -1 and 0?" ??? There are no gaps between the real numbers. Not sure what point you are making.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
However that does not render abstracta untrue or only models. Including the famous ratio of circumference to diameter
What is in your head is indeed only a model. Just as is the weightless elephant or frictionless ice. The circle is only perfect in our minds so is a circle or pi any more real or true than the weightless elephant? I came to this understanding from a paper I wrote in a college philosophy course on the nature of a number, teaching math, being in a PhD program in math and learning about the physics of the universe. Nothing I said undermines the usefulness of math or other possible models and certainly not the basic laws of physics. All these gyrations with infinite sets or infinity are interesting and maybe useful for something but really don’t represent anything real. Just as the circle in our head does not have an actual exemplar in the world. I pointed out the absurdity of an infinite past above as a consequence of postulating it. I have not seen any usefulness for holding it other than to give the middle finger to those who believe we live in a created universe. But I’m sure it will be ignored as people want to argue over ideas that only exist in our heads. Does this mean that something infinite cannot exist somewhere/somehow? No, it just means within our sensory world it doesn’t exist and we can only use our imperfect/finite understanding to create what such an infinite existence may be like. An interesting question is “are we part of an infinite existence and are unable to comprehend it?” For example if something is infinite then would it have any bound and not include our universe? Otherwise how could it be infinite if it was bounded? Of course, we may not be able to truly comprehend just what infinite means only that we have no examples of it.jerry
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
DS, Did you notice that I highlighted the reals and that the aleph_null magnitude is of reals [i.e. integers] labelling stages beyond a finitely remote past point? I was explicitly shifting focus to the reals and to the implicit presence of a transfinite in the onward, without speaking of any representative transfiniter hyperreal. Notice, the triple double brackets. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Viola Lee, And how about the infinite real-number gap between -1 and 0? -QQuerius
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Dave writes, "Yes, if you tack inaccessible points onto the original model, you end up with an impossible traverse." Great. That is a point that was constantly in the back of my mind. Posit an extension of the real number system that is by definition separated from the reals by an infinite gap, and then claim you can't traverse it. Well, duh.Viola Lee
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
KF,
0, 1, 2, 3 . . . . –> k[+0], k+1, k+2, k+3 . . . . –> [These two sets are 1:1, connected by a bijective transformation, so they are both transfinite and of scale aleph_null. That is, we here see the well known result that subtraction of a finite number of elements from a transfinite set leaves it at being transfinite.] That is we see continued finite stage addition but never an actual completion of a transfinite span through finite increment. Chasing the mirage yet again. The extended grand number line of the hyperreals readily shows how finite ascent from an explicitly transfinitely remote point L-ward will not reach a finite span from 0.
Yes, this traversal, which has a beginning, will never exhaust the positive integers.
However, as noted, our education tends to make the reals seem more real than the hyperreals, and there is a fixation on the finiteness of span between any two specified naturals or integers (and of course, reals bracketed between successive naturals).
Hm, well my education didn't have that effect. Obviously the real numbers are much more familiar, but in my view, the hyperreals and surreals are exactly as real as R. The infinite-past cosmologists seem to prefer to stick with R, perhaps in part because they find it unnecessary to posit time points separated by infinite intervals. If you do introduce such things, then you are talking about a sort of "serial multiverse" which is extravagant.
The key to seeing the wider picture, again, is to recognise the “outwards” unlimited extension beyond any k or k’, so that we see that the outward zone beyond such is of scale aleph_null. Relative to k’:
Yes, if you tack inaccessible points onto the original model, you end up with an impossible traverse. Again, we don't need to see any "wider picture". Everyone involved in this discussion is well-versed in the properties of R and Z. Just demonstrate that a beginningless, stepwise traversal of the negative integers, in increasing order, in time, is impossible. Then get it published and enjoy the fame and fortune. :-)daveS
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Q, yes, there is no absolutised observer in Einstein's world and yet he and his colleagues contemplated on GTR a cosmological world with a grand time scale. This is the context of his inadvertent discovery of the cosmological constant which he put up to stabilise the fine-tuned steady state model. As you will be familiar, we routinely contemplate this in discussions of the bang and timeline of approximately 14 BY (with current physical span inferred at about 92 bn LY), we even observe H-R plots for and infer ages of star clusters based on breakaway from the main sequence to head to the Giants bands. Such clusters are of course [originally] gravitationally bound zones with a common origin and history so the bigger stars burn out first creating the breakaway point and branch to the giants branch. These turn on the Hubble expansion factor for expansion as a whole and dynamics of giant H-rich clouds collapsing into hot balls prone to turn fusion furnace emitting large quantities of light for clusters. In this sense, there is indeed an inferred cosmological scale common clock driven by energy flow dynamics in a cosmos prone to form stars and galaxies etc. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT
DS, Following up on your infinte time traversal claim, I point back to 236:
[KF, 236:] kindly notice the difference between the [timeless] set of integers as a whole and the issue of temporal-causal succession to now. The latter implies that there is an asymmetry in time, a direction of flow, a succession from one “year” to the next. As a direct consequence, going forward from any given now, succession proceeds and may well ultimately continue without onward stopping-point. At each actual successor to the relevant now, there will have been a finite succession to whatever future point has been reached and is in process of giving rise to its own successor. There is no problem here, we are never actually at a transfinitely remote future point and potential infinity simply means for all we know succession will continue without a limit. (Such would not be our actual world under present trends; one, which is subject to energy flow dynamics and eventual heat death.)
Notice, the underlying problem is again moving from any given now forward through the stage by stage next-step succession. What happens here is that whenever one attains to some k forward from a relevant zero point, the same issue of aleph-null onwardness confronts: 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . . --> k[+0], k+1, k+2, k+3 . . . . --> [These two sets are 1:1, connected by a bijective transformation, so they are both transfinite and of scale aleph_null. That is, we here see the well known result that subtraction of a finite number of elements from a transfinite set leaves it at being transfinite.] That is we see continued finite stage addition but never an actual completion of a transfinite span through finite increment. Chasing the mirage yet again. The extended grand number line of the hyperreals readily shows how finite ascent from an explicitly transfinitely remote point L-ward will not reach a finite span from 0. . . . . H’-1 — H’ — H’+1 — . . . . H’/2 . . . . [–//–] . . . . k’-1 — k’ — k’+1 — . . . -1 — *0* — +1 — +2 . . . k-1 — k — k+1 . . . . [–//–] . . . . H/2 . . . . H-1 — H — H+1 . . . . However, as noted, our education tends to make the reals seem more real than the hyperreals, and there is a fixation on the finiteness of span between any two specified naturals or integers (and of course, reals bracketed between successive naturals). The key to seeing the wider picture, again, is to recognise the "outwards" unlimited extension beyond any k or k', so that we see that the outward zone beyond such is of scale aleph_null. Relative to k': . . . . H’-1 — H’ — H’+1 — . . . . H’/2 . . . . [–//–] {{{ . . . . k'-3 — k'-2 — k’-1 — k’ — k’+1 — . . . -1 — *0* — +1 — +2 . . . k-1 — k — k+1 . . . . }}} [–//–] . . . . H/2 . . . . H-1 — H — H+1 . . . . So, within the span of R, we find an implicit transfinite traverse to reach to k' by ascent from the zone L-ward of k'. The same we contemplated in seeing that the span to k' from n implied also the onward unlimited L-ward span beyond k' of scale aleph_null. Trying to traverse it in steps L-ward beyond k' would be a futile supertask, and by symmetry descending the same span would be similarly an infeasible supertask. We are still left with the conclusion that for a temporally-causally successive stage world there was a finitely remote beginning. Stepwise, finite stage traversal of an explicitly or implicitly transfinite span is an infeasible supertask. KFkairosfocus
October 28, 2020
October
10
Oct
28
28
2020
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 16

Leave a Reply