Why God can't exist
Offline God cannot exist becuase he would contridict himself. If he is omnipotent and omniscient I see no motive behind creating anything or doing anything. I also have have I list of 27 fallacies against God:
I. Omnipotence v.s. Omniscience.
1. God is Omnipotent
2. God is Omniscience
3. Does God know his future course of action for sure as it is set in stone?
Yes- He can't change it, its set in stone, God is not Omnipotent.
No- There is something he does not know, he is not Omniscience.
II. Omnipotence v.s. Limits.
Can God become more powerful?
Yes- He is not Omnipotent to begin with, an Omnipotent being is at maximum power.
No- That is something he cannot do then, he is not Omnipotent as an Omnipotent being can do anything.
III. Omnipotence & Omniscience v.s. Omnibenevolence & Free Will.
1. God is Omnipotent, Omnisciencent, and Omnibenevolence.
2. God knows if your going to hell or not before your born.
#2 is false.- God is not Omnisciencent
#2 is true.- God is not Omnibenevolent
IV. Occam's Razor.
1. The Big Bang, Chemical and Macro evolution, and the evolution of altruistic genes for survival fill in the gaps where God was once needed for science.
2. There is no reason for a God.
3. God should not be believed in.
V. Transcendence v.s. Creation.
1. God is Transcendence
2. God surpasses physical existence.
3. God cannot create.
4. God defies himself.
VI. Wants.
1. God is perfect.
2. A perfect being cannot want.
3. God wanted to create the universe.
VII. The Quick Fix.
1. There are many problems in the world and much evil.
2. God is Omnibenevolent
3. God could stop this evil and not interfere with free will (he can do this as he is Omnipotent)
4. Evil still exists
5. God is not either Omnipotent or Omnibenevolent.
VIII. The Disproportionate Hell.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. Hell exists.
3. Hell is infinite punishment.
4. Nothing anyone could do could merit up to Hells punishment. (Sending someone to hell for a mass murder would be like the electric chair for someone who barley broke the speed limit.)
5. God is not Omnibenevolent.
IX. Perfection.
1. God is a perfect creator.
2. We are not perfect.
3. A perfect creator creating something not perfect would be like a perfct dishwasher not washing dishes perfectly.
4. God is not perfect.
X. Hume's Dictum.
1. Only physical things can be proven.
2. God is not physical.
3. God cannot be proven no matter what.
XI. God, the Dictator.
1. God punishes people who do not follow him extremely harshly.
2. God is a dictator.
XII. Excepting of Christ.
1. God is Omnibenevolent.
2. If you do not except Christ you go to Hell.
3. There are people who have never heard of Christ.
4. Those people will go to hell.
5. That's like a teacher giving half of a class lectures on Astrophysics for a year, and the other half nothing. At the end the teacher gives a huge test on Astrophysics that counts for 100 % of there final grade.
6. God is not Omnibenevolent.
XIII. The Unremarkable Planet.
1. We have been chosen as the one and only race that God shows himself to.
2. There are possibly billions of other races, much smarter and better than us.
3. We will only exist for a few million years.
4. Why should we be chosen?
XIV. The Sadomasochistic God.
1. Jesus (God) died on the cross for our sins.
2. See VII.
3. God is Sadomasochistic
XV. Picking and Chosing.
Some people accept parts of the bible as true and other parts needing for a modern day addaption. Why though can't they adapt the Virgin Birth or the death of Jesus? How do they choose what to adapt?
XVI. Telephone.
The game of telephone is an interesting one. Many people sit around in a circle and whisper a sentance to the next person. By the time it comes aaround it is usally much different from the original. The bible is 2, 000 years old and has been translated and possibly corrupted into many different versions. How then can you accept any of it as truth?
XVII. Tech v.s. Religion.
The worlds population that is religious in a timeframe is inverse to its technology. Also Statistically people with higher IQs are less religious.
XVII. The Myth Cycle.
Myths have fallen and risen over the ages countless numbers of times, all have eventually been scientifically disproven. What makes our modern day religions any different?
XIX. The Burden of Proof.
1. The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the original assumption (that God exists).
2. No proof has been brought foward.
3. We should then doubt the assumption.
XX. Can God Guess?
1. To guess you have to have little or no knowledge of a subject.
Can God Guess?
Yes- Then he is not Omniscience.
No- Then he is not Omnipotent.
XXI. Can God violate his Omnibenevolence?
Yes- He is not Omnibenevolent.
No- He is not Omnipotent.
XXII. Pain in Heaven.
Can you, in heaven cause pain to another in heaven?
Yes- God is not Omnibenevolent, he would never allow that.
No- God does not accept Free Will.
XXIII. Skyhook.
Where did God come from?
1. He was always here.
2. He made himself.
If he made himself then who made the one that made himself make himself.
2. Results in an infinite chain devoid of any sense. An infinite God making God.
Besides God is a scientific asumption and should be treated as such. The idea that an ultimatly complex being just came together or always existed is unthinkable.
XIV. The Soul?
A. Soul Ex Nihilo
At what point does the soul come into a life form? Is it formed along side it in an evolutionary process or does it appear out of nothingness (violating the second law of thermodynamics).
B. Occam's Razor
If human and animal emotions and actions can be explained through electrical currents and chemical reactions what is the need for belief in a soul?
C. The Pyramid
Choices and behavior is controlled by psychology. But what is that controlled by?
Choices and behavior
Psychology
Biology
Biochemistry
Chemistry
Physics
Math
Math, is an exact science. It cannot be changed(2+2 will never equal 5) If our choices are mere branches of math, then they cannot change, we are mechanical animals, advanced computers.
D. Dissection
When you dissect a human, or when a human is cut open and is still alive, where is the soul?
If its transparent shouldn't it float away, or is it anchored to the body. Yet, if it is anchored to the body, what releases it at death?
E. Transcendence v.s. Control
As we cannot see or physically feel the soul, it is transcendent, and if it is transcendent how can it control, come it contact with, a physical body?
F. The Universes Eternal Memory
If you lose all your memory right before you die and are reduced to a mentally retarded individual, how as does a soul retrieve all these memories?
XV. The Grand Unified Theory.
The Grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics.
If this is so it would be proven that the universe has a chosen path it must take.
And if this is so then how do we make choices, and how can we be held responsible for choosing wrong? No good God would punish something that couldn't decide for itself.
XVI. A Cyclic Universe
The cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly in endless cycles of death and rebirth.
The theory could potentially explain why a mysterious repulsive form of energy known as the "cosmological constant", and which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.
If this is so there was no first moment of creation, disproving the notion of a creator.
XVII. The Demolition.
Pascal's Wager- Is absurd as there are infinite possible Gods.
All the Gold in China- Is absurd. Have you searched the universe to determine there is no unicorns, or no Thor?
Because the Bible Says So- If that was true I could write a book saying I'm God. And I would be God.
After these ideas have been eliminated there leaves only one theistic argument left. "You've Just Gotta Have Faith."
Point one.- While I could just have faith in God. Atheism is an equally appealing thing to have faith in. What makes yours more worthy to have faith in?
Point two- Your going to trust possibly the most important thing ever, where we came from and will go, not to science and reason, but to faith?!
Point three- Gods existence is equal to the existence of a rhino in a shoe box. You do not know for sure if there's a rhino in your unopened shoe box or not, but you'd have to be insane to believe that there is. With all the small space and scarcity of rhinos in a shoe box, its hard to believe in it. What makes God any different? His twenty six other fallacies are even greater than the ones of a rhino in a shoe box. The chance that a rhino is in fact in a shoe box is higher than the chance that God exists. So believing in him is like believing there is in fact a rhino in your shoe box.
The less validity an idea has is equal to its number of fallacys. With 27 fallacys against God and two (size and scaricity of a rhino) against the idea of a shino in a shoebox we can determine it is more plausible to find a rhino in your next shoe box than god existing. As all fallacys are imposibilitys and one idea cannot be more impossible than another, though you cannot disprove God per se, you can reduce his probability of existance to almost nothing.
- Login to post comments
Offline A lot of important scientist in history that tryed to prove that God Does't exist, changed their mind?
There is a book talking about Darving for example that he says to repent about desagree with God existence?
Have you ever really try to know the truth unprejudiced?
The existence of god is not a question for science. God is by definition outside of nature. Science by definition only deals with things inside of nature. It is therefore impossible for science to disproove god.
What is is possible to do though is disproove certain claims about god. Such as he created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago. Showing that a man who wrote a book over a thousand years ago was incorrect in his claims about the actions of god does not proove that god does not exists, just that he didn't create the world in the timeframe described in the bible.
This argument is not scientific. It is philosophical. It does not even disproove god, it disprooves certain qualities that man assigns to god.
I'm helping god (if he exists) by refining our definition of him, removing certain lies about him.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Same problem as discussed above.
Lets be even more specific.
My question is "What will be the weather tomorrow, at 3pm, in the vicinity of my house? That weather being the weather I experience. 'I 'being the single being in this universe having these thoughts, not other mes in other universes.
This is good, you've narrowed it down again to good context for me to explain my point. There is no 'I in one universe'. This is called the principle of non-locality. So this goes back to knowing, and the problem with knowing 'I in one universe' is that you don't 'know' I or Universe unless you know the whole set of "I's" or the whole set of 'Universes'. One or the other, they are absolutely dependent and can't be separated. This is why it's considered virtually impossible to understand macro-quantum reality. Every 1 thing is joined with another, for all practical purposes, infinite thing, So to get one I in one Universe you have to take One I and many universes. There are mutiple correlations, and they are all true. So you have IANDuniverse1, IANDuniverse2, IANDuniverse3 == I in one universe or I1ANDuniverse, I2AND Universe, I3ANDUniverse == I in one universe.
The latter is easier to intuit. Non Locality essentially means that there is technically an exact copy of you at the other end of the any universe you're in. And Basically a whole set of You's in between. This you cannot see in classical reality, and that is because of way this set works, if you take it back to it's fundamental level, One Bit of You and One Bit of the Universe == One Bit of you connected to the whole set of the Universe at a selected point, The whole you is this process multiplied by such ridiculous numbers that by the time it gets to the macro level the copy of you is rendered deeply into the universe in so many shuffled pieces it's.. well, considered imperceptible for good reason.
There are two possibilities.
1) God's answer is singular (It will be raining or it will be sunny etc.) In which case he cannot alter it, as he is already aware of how it will be.
2) God's answers are many. He summarises all causational paths that flow from this moment. (This is assuming a universe model where every random fluctuation creates alternate universes where each possible outcome occurs) He still cannot alter any of those paths, as they were all happening anyway. He cannot change the path where it rains or he would have been wrong about it raining on that path.
2.1) If these multiple causational paths are just possibilities and only one will be played out then god is not omniscient if he does not know which one that is. Hanging the one that is played out invalidates is previous knowledge, which is impossible due to omniscience.
2.1 naturally is closest in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that the omniscient is not omniscient because it doesn't invalidate the previous knowledge. Back to the I in one universe == lots of I's and one universe. When I is in one position in that one universe, it is also in all positions in that universe. So I can be standing straight up or laying down in one universe, they are equal as long as the universe is equal because of how many me's there are in the one universe.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline This is good, you've narrowed it down again to good context for me to explain my point. There is no 'I in one universe'. This is called the principle of non-locality. So this goes back to knowing, and the problem with knowing 'I in one universe' is that you don't 'know' I or Universe unless you know the whole set of "I's" or the whole set of 'Universes'. One or the other, they are absolutely dependent and can't be separated. This is why it's considered virtually impossible to understand macro-quantum reality. Every 1 thing is joined with another, for all practical purposes, infinite thing, So to get one I in one Universe you have to take One I and many universes. There are mutiple correlations, and they are all true. So you have IANDuniverse1, IANDuniverse2, IANDuniverse3 == I in one universe or I1ANDuniverse, I2AND Universe, I3ANDUniverse == I in one universe.
I gave a very clear definition of what I meant by this universe. It is the one I am aware of. I gave a clear definition of what I meant by 'I'. It is the self thus this self is aware of, not other parallel mes. I am only experienceing one state, even if other 'I's are experiencing others.
The question was set in the context of my perception.
2.1 naturally is closest in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that the omniscient is not omniscient because it doesn't invalidate the previous knowledge. Back to the I in one universe == lots of I's and one universe. When I is in one position in that one universe, it is also in all positions in that universe. So I can be standing straight up or laying down in one universe, they are equal as long as the universe is equal because of how many me's there are in the one universe.
Any individual 'I' can only experience one path. My question was specific to one I's experience. If god's original answer was not about this I then god was wrong.
It doesnt matter that in some other universe the answer known by god was right, it is wrong in the one the question was about.
If god cannot know an answer about an specific individual universe then that is a limitation to his knowledge and he is not omniscient. Even if they are really one continuous multiverse. I can still define this universe as the one I am experiencing and can therefore ask questions about it.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:This is good, you've narrowed it down again to good context for me to explain my point. There is no 'I in one universe'. This is called the principle of non-locality. So this goes back to knowing, and the problem with knowing 'I in one universe' is that you don't 'know' I or Universe unless you know the whole set of "I's" or the whole set of 'Universes'. One or the other, they are absolutely dependent and can't be separated. This is why it's considered virtually impossible to understand macro-quantum reality. Every 1 thing is joined with another, for all practical purposes, infinite thing, So to get one I in one Universe you have to take One I and many universes. There are mutiple correlations, and they are all true. So you have IANDuniverse1, IANDuniverse2, IANDuniverse3 == I in one universe or I1ANDuniverse, I2AND Universe, I3ANDUniverse == I in one universe.
I gave a very clear definition of what I meant by this universe. It is the one I am aware of. I gave a clear definition of what I meant by 'I'. It is the self thus this self is aware of, not other parallel mes. I am only experienceing one state, even if other 'I's are experiencing others.
The question was set in the context of my perception.
You are defining things which fundamentally don't exist, The other you's are not parallel, they are you. And yes you do perceive them but you call them Universe, so alternately this definition incoherently separates things which are fundamentally not separate in any way. That 'I' and that 'Universe' do not exist. It's I*Universe = I; Universe*I = Universe Therefore Universe AND I == (Universe*I, I*Universe).
Quote:2.1 naturally is closest in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that the omniscient is not omniscient because it doesn't invalidate the previous knowledge. Back to the I in one universe == lots of I's and one universe. When I is in one position in that one universe, it is also in all positions in that universe. So I can be standing straight up or laying down in one universe, they are equal as long as the universe is equal because of how many me's there are in the one universe.
Any individual 'I' can only experience one path.
That One path you experience is Path of Self over Path of Universe, can you see how that is? If it wasn't then Choice is an incoherent term because you have none. If that definition is true and negates God changing anything it equally negates that you can change anything. One path == One path. So if you have One Path you have no choices. If you have one path over a field, you have choices.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Offline You are defining things which fundamentally don't exist, The other you's are not parallel, they are you. And yes you do perceive them but you call them Universe, so alternately this definition incoherently separates things which are fundamentally not separate in any way.
My perception exists, It's all I know for sure, everything else is based on layers of assumptions (I think, therefore I am). The other I's can be separated, atleast for the purposes of definition by this fact.
I may percieve all other states, but the perception that I am refering to does not include any of the others, only the perception of the one state. My question was in terms of the one state in one perception.
That One path you experience is Path of Self over Path of Universe, can you see how that is? If it wasn't then Choice is an incoherent term because you have none. If that definition is true and negates God changing anything it equally negates that you can change anything. One path == One path. So if you have One Path you have no choices. If you have one path over a field, you have choices.
What's wrong logically with there being no choice? Our 'decisions' are simply ther result of the states of out brains created by previous experiences. There's no need for free will in that. At best you can include soem randomness from quantum mechanics but flipping a coin is not choosing.
Let's change the point of view. If god is aware of all states in all universes, past, present and future (omniscience). Any one universe may last forever or may end at a certain point in it's future. God knows what that end point is (or that there isn't one). He cannot then destroy the multiverse before all universes have reached the time he knows they will end.
We could argue that as time exists only within individual universes that god is exempt although that creates problems for god, if god does not exits in something resembling time he cannot act at all, actions take place in time.
Lets rephrase it to avoid the argument. God cannot stop the multiverse from running to the endpoints he knows it will run. Or if the multiverse is a continuous entity then it's more like an end-line, end-plane or end-infinite-n-dimensional entity but that does not chage the meaning here.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:You are defining things which fundamentally don't exist, The other you's are not parallel, they are you. And yes you do perceive them but you call them Universe, so alternately this definition incoherently separates things which are fundamentally not separate in any way.
My perception exists, It's all I know for sure, everything else is based on layers of assumptions (I think, therefore I am).
Nailed the contradiction in one, there. Perception is all we know for sure. None of these fundamental physics principles about reality are based on layers of assumptions, they are pure (albeit counterintuitive) perceptual reality.
The other I's can be separated, atleast for the purposes of definition by this fact.
Then omniscience itself is impossible under those facts because either K or U is empty, or neither K nor U exists. Avoiding the nihilist road of neither exist the only option is that the set of all things != the set of things an entity knows.
I may percieve all other states, but the perception that I am refering to does not include any of the others,
This is where multiverses are commonly misunderstood. They don't exist that way, that is not multiverse, it is a supernatural thought experiment. Multiverse is like this, the state you percieve is the other state, it includes the other state exactly as you percieve it, how else do you think humans could percieve such a thing? There was no hopping to another universe to see it, it was in the perception of this one, where else could it be ?
That One path you experience is Path of Self over Path of Universe, can you see how that is? If it wasn't then Choice is an incoherent term because you have none. If that definition is true and negates God changing anything it equally negates that you can change anything. One path == One path. So if you have One Path you have no choices. If you have one path over a field, you have choices.
What's wrong logically with there being no choice?
Because one path == one path. Set in stone. If you say that A human has a field of paths at the beginning of their life and one summative one path that they took at the end then that does not equal one path as one path. It equals one path over a field. Without the field you have one path at the beginning of life == the summation at the end of life. Two equal linear sets. Nowhere to map any alternative to so there is no choice.
Thus there is no way that 'a human has only One path' is a complete truth unless of course a human really does have only one path and there is no such thing as choice, if free will exists it's a half truth because in free will there is one path in many.
Our 'decisions' are simply ther result of the states of out brains created by previous experiences.
There's no need for free will in that. At best you can include soem randomness from quantum mechanics but flipping a coin is not choosing.
One decision mapped to previous experiences is f(x,y,z,w...) = 1 where x,y,z,w... is experiences, it is not 1=1 these are two different equalities. If free will exists then F(x,y,z,w...) is free will, there may be no need for free will, but there is a need for the function that would define it if it exists.
Let's change the point of view. If god is aware of all states in all universes, past, present and future (omniscience). Any one universe may last forever or may end at a certain point in it's future. God knows what that end point is (or that there isn't one). He cannot then destroy the multiverse before all universes have reached the time he knows they will end.
We could argue that as time exists only within individual universes that god is exempt although that creates problems for god, if god does not exits in something resembling time he cannot act at all, actions take place in time.
Lets rephrase it to avoid the argument. God cannot stop the multiverse from running to the endpoints he knows it will run. Or if the multiverse is a continuous entity then it's more like an end-line, end-plane or end-infinite-n-dimensional entity but that does not chage the meaning here.
Exactly that does not change. It never changes, if it did then God is not omniscient. But all points are multiple equalities, so they can be the same when they are different. For example the final point in a universe set can be apple, and apple == apple*(!apples that apple is dependent on to exist). No matter which way you map apple to the field you have an end-point which == apple.
So if God knows (truly knows) a path of a multiverse that runs :
strawberry, orange, apple then he knows they will be strawberry, orange, apple correctly and perfectly. Such a thing entails knowing exactly how apple1*(!apples that apple1 depends on to exist) = apple2*(!apples that apple2 depends on to exist)
If he doesn't know how they are equal, then he is not omniscient. If he does, he is definitely omniscient, and he's also omnipotent according to one or two Quantum theories.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
- Login to post comments
Are you really sure about God's existence?
I have a theory most rational
If you really believe in something you don't try to prove it.
When something exists you don't think about it, we just accept because, it exists.
But if you aren't really sure about your beliefs you spend a lot of time, trying to prove something of which even you aren't certain.
If there is a possibility to disbelieve, in something, if you don't have certainty that you are right you spend years and years trying to prove something just for yourself.
Can you understand that?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I agree you have argued with my logic. But you have also thrown in slight toward my identity in every argument. Even here you do just that while claiming that you are not.
Because I don't agree that an omnipotent God makes no sense. I disagree with that statement. Have I not said that enough? There are problems with the logic put to the concept Omnipotence that I see. They are not the same problems that you see.
Perhaps it is you who half-understands.
I do not use any thesaurus for the purpose of hiding information and I do not choose words so that the reader can not understand. I choose words with the intent that the reader can less misunderstand or misconstrue. You have assumed incorrectly.
I value them equally. The substance is lost if the form is inadequate.
When this argument is used and reused by someone it suggests that you don't fully understand what I am saying, and are deflecting with appeal to ridicule.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
So you agree that omnipotence has inherent logical conratdictions yet you still think you can use it in the definition of a being and claim that being exists? If you are using a different definition og omnipotence then we are not arguing the same thing and you shoyuld have challenged the definition rather than launch into a debate what is effectively a completely different argument.
I readily admit that I half-understand what you have said. However I have studied quite high level physics, mathematics and many other topics and never found myself failing so completely to comprehend what a writer is trying to say I conclude that the failing is in your writing, not my reading.
Then you have failed by your own measure. Your form has comepletely failed to convey your substance.
This was not an argument, just an observation. I made my arguments in previous posts and do not think your overcomplicated discussion of multiple universes in any way falsifies the initial logical argument made.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I did not say that. I said there are problems with the logic put to omnipotence, problems inherent in the classic logic defining omnipotence, not inherent in the concept of omni-anything; inherent in the classic logic.
I would say the failing is in the fact that you can't have multiverses with out bending some of the logic of the classical universe, in particular empiricism and determinism. If you adhere unwaveringly to certain linear or causal precepts then you will translate the argument down into them where it is found to not fit.
Not completely, only where certain aspects of specific forms of logic are held to be supreme. And that is not my failing, I also contend nor is it yours, the systems of logic have inherent incompatibility.
It does falsify it on the grounds that it is inherently contradicted simply by the existence of possible multiverses. How they can exist is important to demonstrating why that is, and explaining that does require somewhat of an a priori rewrite. If you admit you don't understand then why question how much length I will go to to offer you a deeper understanding?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
So your argument is then that if logic contradict god then logic simply doesn't apply to him.
The nature of logic is that it applies no matter what the context. Scientific laws may change in another universe but logic will not. Science requires the context of reality, logic (and mathematics) are independent of the universe we inhabit.
Now your argument seems to be that logic is inherently flawed. the problem is you are trying to use logic to argue it. Now we end up with another circular problem. If you succeed then your own argument it inherently flawed.
Nope, If god is all knowing then he knows the future of every possible universe. Meaning he is unable to change any of them. He can move to or create a uiniverse where things are already how he intended to change them to be but the original universe must remain unaltered otherwise he was originally wrong about that universe.
The argument becomes needlesly complicated but remains unchanged.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
We can go round and round in these circles if you like but it's getting nowhere.
1. No I am not saying logic is wrong because it contradicts God. I am saying some precepts of logic contradict reality as we know it therefore God is safe without even being brought into the question.
2. The nature of logic is that it must apply no matter the context. However there are contexts where certain assumptions do not apply therefore they are under question as to the supremacy of their position in standard logic. Where standard causal relationships break down and standard empirical relationships break down it is useless to assume them.
3. Logic itself is not inherently flawed as far as I am concerned, however, there are contradictions when dealing with physical reality. Physics establishes it's own principles and there are certain principles where the validity of logic seems to break down. It actually can have logic put to it but there is an incompatibility between a standard logical set and a set that logically describes things like Non locality and such.
Last but not least: do you wish to continue the discussion from here ?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
1) Give one correct application of logic that contradicts reality
2) Logic is not empirical, it's the opposite of empiricism.
3) see 1
Lastly, yes, I would like to continue. Maybe things have gotten a little personal and we have both repeated ourselves a bit but I am genuniely trying to understand your point (mostly to see if I can tear it apart, but partly just to get another way of looking at reality), I just have a tendency to do so in a way that sounds like I'm ridiculing what I see your position to be. When I'm polite you need to be careful, then I'm trying to trap you. Oh wait, I'm trying to be polite now, um oh never mind, I think I lost my point.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Distributive law (essential to the question of omni anything ie Know * everything = Sum
Knowathing) (Knowbthing) ... (Knownthing) ) doesn't hold, please don't ask me to dic around with type characters, I'm pretty awful at it.
But this question necessitates an induction of empiricisms such as definition of knowing a multiverse. Our classical senses do not reflect the logic for knowing multiverses, if they did I could just point one out to you, couldn't I. This is as much information as you need to get the gist of the idea but you have to follow from that point abandoning a few assumptions about you think you know about knowing or see about seeing.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical%3F
For the gist of what I mean when I say empirical relationships used by logic.
LOL, well I'm happy to continue if you are. I already wrote my next post on the original discussion.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Why is that in contradiction to reality?
This question, unlike many is indepenent of empiricisms. It' is dealing with a purely theoretical being. We are working with a pure definition.
A mathematical solution based on measurements has uncertainty due to the measurements. A mathematical solution of a pure mathematical problem is perfect.
The wikipedia article only said ther was a contradiction and seemed very reluctant to reveal what it was. The problems with quantum mechanics I am aware of seem to be that it is counter-intuitive rather than contradicting of algebra. At worst it would seem to be an incorrect application of logic (like trying to work on non-euclidian space using euclidean rules) rather than a problem with the logical principles.
Maybe that is the point you're trying to make, that the logic we are using in this proof is being applied to a problem with a different set of rules. If that is the case I would say that since we are defining the rules (it's a completely theoretical concept we're working on) that the critisism is invalid.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
You missed it? The common practice of Distributive law is in contradiction with fundamental reality. Omni-n only exists under the law of distribution, that is how it is defined.
It is not. Define science.
It will not bend to the seeming basics of distributive law; this much is not theory any more it is proven. Energy and power are synonymous terms so potency is also going to give you trouble because science defines energy.
The And/Or of omniscience is an empirical question, as I demonstrated above, to get omni-thing you distribute thing over everything where thing is empirical. Where there are multiverses (and there is at least something that resembles multiverses in our reality) you can't do that. What you can do is normalise 'thing' and distribute over the normal, then it works just fine, but classical logic has always held you can jump straight in no matter the size of what you are looking at, so this technically contradicts it.
In a discussion like this one that can be quite obstructive, the contradiction is buried quite deep in the heart of the matter and it's not easy to pull out. But basically in fundamental reality you can't define 'every' without normalising 'one'. For omniscience you must normalise 'know', the empirical definition will not do the job correctly. Since the argument about omnipotence, omniscience etc etc is about the fundamental reality of everything this can't be avoided.
I have a good idea, actually, having thought of that - Deludedgod posted something called 'the matter/information conjecture problem for God' in another RRS forum, in that post he normalised 'know' using 'bits' per the Shannon information theory, perhaps that can serve as an example of what I am trying to convey.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Missed what? This and your previous post are simply the assertion that it is a contradiction, not a proof that it is.
The problem in question (the existence of god) is not a scientific one. god - if he exists - exists outside of nature and is thus outside of science. This is a problem of philosophy and can therefore be dealt with using pure logic.
nope, show me an example of omnisicence we can measure and then maybe we can discuss it in empirical terms.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Huh? why did you hack up my post like that? I did not say omnipotence was empirical. In perfectly salient terms:
A:
1. 'Everything' is absolutely inclusive of all real things.
2. The multiverse is a real thing.
Hence. Everything includes the multiverse.
B.
Omniscience is a proposition derived from the distribution of 'knowledge' (science empirically defined) over everything.
You cannot distribute 'knowledge' empirically defined over multiverses.
This proposition is invalid in multiverses.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I don't see why you keep bringing distribution into this.
Mathematically
Know*Everything != omiscience, It's an expression that really makes no sense.
Logically
Know and Everything != omniscience.
Know or Everything != omniscience either.
If you want a mathematical definition then:
let U be the set of every thing. (universal set)
let K be the set of things a being knows
If K=U then that being is omniscient
alternatively if K' (compliment of K) is 0 (an empty set) the being is omniscient.
By this definition. If K' contains one or more things then the being is not omniscient. If there is one thing that the being does not know then they are not omniscient.
If you disagree with this definition then we have been arguing different things.
A mathematical definition of omnipotence:
Let V be the set of all actions (the universal set, but I've already used U)
Let A be the set of actions that the being can take.
IF A=V then the being is omnipotent.
alternatively if A'=0 the being is omnipotent
conversely, if A' has one or more members then the being is not omnipotent. If there is one action that the being cannot take then they are not omnipotent
Once again, if you disagree with that definition we have been arguing different things.
So in order to demonstrate that it is impossible for a being to be both omnipotent and omniscient all I need to do is show that in order to have K=U A' must have atleast one member.
Start by assuming K=U
one thing what the weather will be tomorrow (in this universe in the vicinity of my home). As this is in U it is definitely in K. So god knows what the weather will be tomorrow.
One thing that god cannot do now is change what the weather will be. (he cannot be wrong in his initial knowledge of the weather otherwise K!=U) so A' contains 'change the weather tomorrow'. A' is not empty so god is not omnipotent.
No use of the distributive property applied
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
A lot of important scientist in history that tryed to prove that God Does't exist, changed their mind?
There is a book talking about Darving for example that he says to repent about desagree with God existence?
Have you ever really try to know the truth unprejudiced?
You are still distributing knowledge over things in a way you cannot do. I told you this contradiction is buried deep, didn't I.
How do the sets commute? You are assuming they do not commute, but they do, they can never be equal in certain frames of reference (ie when something is 'happening' in a universe), 'things' have at least two properties in fundamental reality hence every 'Thing' has at least two 'knows' to it. Because the set of all things includes multiverses, K cannot equal U if the being is omniscient. K must be at least double U if the being is omniscient. The Omniscient must therefore know the things in the way they are not the things per se. Follow yet?
You cannot distribute the two to one ratio of the know set and the thing set, you must normalise Know and distribute that, you can not normalise 'know' with an empirical definition it is not the normal. The normal must have a magnitude of 1. Individual things have a magnitude greater than 1 by empirical definition (quantum observation), therefore an empirical definition of know is incompatible because it requires 2 at least.
The shortcut to normalising 'know' is by splitting it in half and applying boolean logic of yes/no. so that 1 'known thing' equals 1/2 known + 1/2 unknown NB: unknown is kind of a counterfactual definition, the other half is technically a known, ignored and therefore not-true, half because it's, like, switched off; but in a bizarre way again through empirical observation we can say that this is actually equal to an unknown so in boolean terms it's a perfectly valid No, (there are also huge numbers of proofs supporting the case for normalising it this way so I am not making up rules as I go along)
So you have an unknown half of everything which is also true and technically known; this is why an omniscient is allowed to be wrong because being wrong is still right.
So to be omniscient by this stringent definition of things you must be wrong and right at the same time and you must also know the secret we don't yet know which is how things flicker between wrong and right outside of time-like dimensions. By all indication simply knowing this would be omnipotence by our standards.
Clearly I disagree with the definition. But I have been saying that
it shouldn't come as a surprise.
I have this in my other post which I intended to send once we got through this but I will mention it here 'know' is a verb and it correlates to an action which could be defined as computation for the sake of this argument (not my favourite definition, but adequate), this action by physical definition converts energy and is therefore equal to using power so Omniscience is necessarily a subset of Omnipotence.
Now to the definition. Energy is fundamentally interchangable all over the place, it is 'things' and it is the equal of work done; or power, as in omnipotence. This means the sets are not necessarily one to one over everything in this case either. In essence they are more like 1:infinity one action taken equals a lot more than one action because of the way energy works (chains of causality) and because of the way causality breaks down at the fundamental level you can't correlate 'actions' to 'actions taken' properly without normality. But even so, essentially the end product definition of omnipotence remains pretty much the same with this factored in, there are some odd results like quantum tunneling which adulterate it a bit but thats basically it... for now, because we understand energy in terms of work quite well, that's not so new to us as 'energy is everything'.
Just so I can demonstrate in similar terms how things being multiple make the question above a special join of K and U.
There are two 'things' to that question at least.
1.weather and
2.tomorrow.
Now 'weather tomorrow' can be weather-a tomorrow1 and weather-b tomorrow2 in multiple universes, weather-a/tomorrow-set is a couple which rely on each other, weather-a and tomorrow-set cannot be separated to make one or the other untrue, if you shuffle weather a around to another tomorrow then weather a and the original tomorrow are still true, whether or not they happen, because they exist in union with weather a; weather a and tomorrow2 could be the right tomorrow and if it is weather a is still true with tomorrow1 because weather a is true in K, weather-a makes tomorrow1 true in K and U while it is also not true in K or U, by definition it has to be at least half not true in K to be true in K.
So all up omniscient knowing necessarily entails the ultimate degree of choice to shuffle weathers over the tomorrow set without ever making anything you knew untrue.
Well this was rather exhausting... I hope that it has helped.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I was trying to keep things simple by not over defining, I should know better than that. In my definition of omniscience 'thing' basically 'meant something that could be known' Of another way of stating it might be:
U is the set of correct answers to all questions that could be asked. (clarification - questions about reality, not tricks like "True or False: The answer is false"
. Meaning U contains the correct answer to any question I could ask (note, questions I could ask are natrually a subset of all questions, but as a subset is is contained in U). For example "What will the weather be tomorrow, at 3pm(local time, as measured by humans), in this universe, in the vicinity of my house?"
K must equal U for omniscience. If there is one answer that is ouside of K then these is something (a correct answer to a question) that is unknown and an omnicient being, by definition cannot have things they dont know.
If you know both the wrong and right answers (Ingnoring the fact that there is 1 right answer and many wrong answers so there are more than 2 options) but don't know which is which then there is still something you don't know. If you know the right and wrong and do know which is wrong then you still have the contradiction, by switching you change which is wrong ans which is right and therefore change the answer to which one was right and which was wrong (which you previously knew).
[qoute]
Clearly I disagree with the definition. But I have been saying that
it shouldn't come as a surprise.
Then as I said before, you have re-defined omniscience to suit god (keep him omniscient) instead of using another word to describe the qualities you assign to god.
This means that the entire argument is futile. I believe my definition is the correct one, it's the intended meaning when used my most people to describe god. But in the end it doesnt matter since the debade had been me demonstrating that a being with quality A connot exist while you argue that it is still possible for a being with quality B to exist.
The best we can do now is argue the definition of omniscience but then it's just a word, with no inherent meaning so that argument is also futile.
Omniscience is not made neccesary by omnipotence. In my definition A=V there V is the universal set of actions and A is actions that the begin could take, not actions the being has to make, he just has to be able to make them. He could choose to know everything, but he doesnt need to, he can choose to remain ignorant or he could choose to know some things and not others.
But that's not important, if omniscince is a subset of omnipotence then an omnipotent being is inherently contradictory anyway.
I specified "in this universe" for a reason.
Same problem as discussed above.
Lets be even more specific.
My question is "What will be the weather tomorrow, at 3pm, in the vicinity of my house? That weather being the weather I experience. 'I 'being the single being in this universe having these thoughts, not other mes in other universes.
There are two possibilities.
1) God's answer is singular (It will be raining or it will be sunny etc.) In which case he cannot alter it, as he is already aware of how it will be.
2) God's answers are many. He summarises all causational paths that flow from this moment. (This is assuming a universe model where every random fluctuation creates alternate universes where each possible outcome occurs) He still cannot alter any of those paths, as they were all happening anyway. He cannot change the path where it rains or he would have been wrong about it raining on that path.
2.1) If these multiple causational paths are just possibilities and only one will be played out then god is not omniscient if he does not know which one that is. Hanging the one that is played out invalidates is previous knowledge, which is impossible due to omniscience.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!