I only asked whether you were interested in epistemology in the strict context of the problem I raised. — S

Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. I can present you with many arguments to show that space is intrinsically mathematical. This means mathematics precedes space. But mathematics exists in the mind, first and foremost. Space was there before our minds were there and mathematics precedes space therefore mind precedes space.
Pi is and essential unit of space and Pi can be expressed, with an infinite degree of precision mathematically: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html

Likewise with the other trigonometric functions, sin, cos, tan,...

Simply saying it is a matter of reason is not saying much. What is reason? Is reason only something that can be shared through language? Who has a monopoly on what is reasonable? The very question about God can be answered simply if we can say for sure what is reasonable. Are you saying that something that cannot be shared is not reasonable? Like I said, if I had a thought about X this morning it is, for me reasonable to believe I was thinking about X. But I cannot share that reasonable conclusion because I cannot prove I had a thought about X. Does that mean my conclusion is no different from delusion? — EnPassant

For starters, stop mentioning "for sure" and "proof". That is beside the point. Certainty is not required and has not been requested.

Now, there can be a reasonable basis for the belief that you had a thought about some particular thing this morning. That's an ordinary and relatable scenario. There's nothing controversial about it. A reasonable argument can be constructed logically based on empiricism, and based on science. We know that humans are capable of thinking, and have thoughts. It is plausible that you had a thought this morning. You could be lying about what exactly it was about, but why would you do so? It would be charitable to assume that you're not lying without good reason to think that you are lying. And it seems unlikely that you'd be mistaken.

But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. They can't be reasonably justified in the same way. If you claim that you can see ghosts or that God revealed himself privately to you or that you know that the moon is really made of cheese, then any reasonable person would need more than your mere saying so in order to reasonably reject that you're not deluded and that your claim is not bullshit. On the face of it, that's exactly what it looks like.

But extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. — S

But that does not mean you can place an extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you cannot reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me.

As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. And that is the answer to the question of this thread: we cannot agree on what 'reasonable' means.

Well, you should have taken me up on that x^2 point because I was leading up to evidence for God. — EnPassant

Cut to the chase. Give me the short version. Thus far, it just looks like a distraction or a delaying tactic.

Cut to the chase. Give me the short version. Thus far, it just looks like a distraction or a delaying tactic. — S

That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind.

That is the short version. The argument is that mind precedes space and that must be God's mind. — EnPassant

What do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion?

What on do you mean by "mathematics precedes space" and how did you reach that conclusion? — S

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics.

But that does not mean you can place and extraordinary claim on the same level as delusion. — EnPassant

It's on the same level as delusion unless you can distinguish it. If you can distinguish it, do so. Show me. Otherwise I have no reason to treat them any differently.

There are plenty things that cannot be shared but you can reasonably assert they are delusion purely on the basis that they cannot be argued for. You can refuse to believe an assertion but saying it is delusion or on the same level as delusion - well, that's a bit too much like Dawkins petulance for me. — EnPassant

First of all, calling it "Dawkins petulance" is not a valid argument.

Second, you haven't provided an example of your first sentence. You tried, but it failed, as I demonstrated. Your attempt to draw a false equivalence isn't working.

As for 'reasonable' arguments. Many people speak glibly about what is 'rational' or 'reasonable' as if it was clearly understood what these words mean. Except on the most primitive level (science etc) we cannot agree on what these words mean. Indeed, much of philosophy is about trying to determine what is reasonable. A philosopher can present a seemingly reasonable argument and another, equally astute, philosopher can present a convincing counter argument. So how can reason be against itself? If we could understand what is reasonable we would know a great deal. — EnPassant

I just gave you an example of what's reasonable and what's not. You just don't want to accept it because it is in your interest to try to level the playing field. But it's not a level playing field. Your god nonsense is not on the same level. It would have to earn its place, but it is either too lazy or too incompetent to be counted amongst serious claims. It can't reach those heights. It is a different kettle of fish. It is a kettle of bullshit. And you pour us decent philosophy folk out a steaming cup of bullshit and offer it to us. I decline. :vomit:

kettle of bullshit. — S

a steaming cup of bullshit — S

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy?

[...] the "people" claiming "atheism" don't like the term I use, "God hater."

They're telling me, "atheist" and I tell them "God hater." I think that's fair, don't you? — Daniel Cox

Why would they care about being called God hater? For them, God represents a delusion and a lie, and I think its perfectly reasonable to hate deluded lies. Sure it's fair.

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant

You're confused about how the burden of proof works. I don't have to disprove your assumption that mathematical features of the world came from a mind. That's your burden of proof. Either there's an explanation in physics for how mathematical features of the world came to be, or we don't know. Our current knowledge of the origins of the universe only goes as far as the Big Bang. You'd just be begging the question by assuming that, for example, the three-dimensionality of space came from a mind, and that this mind must be God. That's entirely unwarranted. If you can reasonably demonstrate this, then again, I say get on with it. And appealing to presumed authority is not a valid argument, either, so that won't work. The argument itself must work, and will either stand or fall by its own merits or demerits.

Atheism does not imply meaninglessness, because otherwise they would have no moral standpoint or moral ontology. Faith in God, exemplifies evidence, but that's not to say God is arbitrarily selective or dismissive to the unevangelized. Our moral encompassing or decisiveness I personally believe, is predated by God. The origins and backgrounds for moral ontology has a sound reason that reinforces the argument for the existence of God. Provided, if moral objectivity exists.

Theism isn't arrogant in a way that we believe our lives are far much of modesty and complacence because of God, again that God is unknowable. He may have accidental semantic attributes, but not intrinsic-essential; or to our degree of knowledge, at least.

If life is truly meaningless, then happiness would be void in its oneness - advancements, failure, or self-actualization do not matter in the form of existence. Personally, I think that's untrue.

And this manner of discourse, in your estimation, constitutes philosophy? — EnPassant

In full context, yes, certainly. What makes you think that philosophical discourse can't be expressed in crude language? Try thinking outside of the box. Even my crudest expressed philosophy is light-years ahead of your uncritical approach to the subject. Do you think that singling out "bad words" and gasping in disapproval somehow makes you better at philosophy than me?

I can't believe you are rehashing the old empiricist-rationalist debate.

I have already told you. Many physicists and philosophers argue, coherently, that space is intrinsically mathematical; mathematics enables space to exist. But where did mathematics come from if not from a mind? This is the so called Platonic view of mathematics. — EnPassant

EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. Thing about it this way: it takes logic to create logic so logic/math is not a creation of God.

I agree however that the universe is mathematical and God must have used mathematics in creation of the universe. God is the first discover of maths; he did not create it. If it was a creation, how come π is 3.1416... In a created version of maths, important constants would be round numbers I feel.

If you want to argue the case for God, I suggest you use first cause arguments... they are much stronger.

arguing for a divine consciousness is not that hard but also completely inconsequential. Taking all your argument to be true changes nothing about how I'll live because all you proved is that there is some form of divine consciousness but not the Christian or Islamic God. Most atheists don't have a problem with "cosmic consciousnesses" but they do have a problem with the self contradictory God of the Abrahamic religions. Your divine consciousness doesn't have any commandments and thus it's inconsequential

— Devans99

Tell me something about this entity you call "God."

Tell me something about this entity you call "God." — Frank Apisa

Timeless

Just As St Thomas Aquinas claimed, the first cause must be timeless.

Powerful But Not Omnipotent

Creation of the universe requires considerable power but not omnipotence. Could God create a copy of himself? By doing so, he would cease to be omnipotent, so effectively God cannot be omnipotent.

Intelligent But Not Omniscient

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence.

But to know everything, you first must know yourself. That requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge. So God cannot be omniscient.

Benevolent But not Omnibenevolent

Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:

- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.

The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be good.

Omnibenevolent would require infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. So this is impossible.

Sexless

Referring to God as ‘Him’ is the judaic tradition. But of course ‘he’ cannot be the product of bisexual reproduction.

Not Omnipresent

Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. This means they are casually disconnected from each other (can have no effect on each other - not in each other’s future light cones). To class as one being, all parts of the being must be causally connected, so God cannot be omnipresent.

Not Infinite

Infinite implies unmeasurable. But a being can always measure itself - it is called self-awareness. So God cannot be infinite.

Non-Material / Extra dimensional

Spacetime started 14 billion years ago. The first cause must be from beyond spacetime. We know the first cause cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). A key question is, can space exist without time? IE can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So space cannot exist without time (in our universe anyway). So the first cause might be ‘spaceless’ too. That might mean the first cause is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A non-material or extra dimensional first cause would be able to cause the Big Bang without destroying itself.

Devans99
1.7k

Tell me something about this entity you call "God." — Frank Apisa


Timeless

Just As St Thomas Aquinas claimed, the first cause must be timeless.

Powerful But Not Omnipotent

Creation of the universe requires considerable power but not omnipotence. Could God create a copy of himself? By doing so, he would cease to be omnipotent, so effectively God cannot be omnipotent.

Intelligent But Not Omniscient

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence.

But to know everything, you first must know yourself. That requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge. So God cannot be omniscient.

Benevolent But not Omnibenevolent

Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:

- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.

The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be good.

Omnibenevolent would require infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. So this is impossible.

Sexless

Referring to God as ‘Him’ is the judaic tradition. But of course ‘he’ cannot be the product of bisexual reproduction.

Not Omnipresent

Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. This means they are casually disconnected from each other (can have no effect on each other - not in each other’s future light cones). To class as one being, all parts of the being must be causally connected, so God cannot be omnipresent.

Not Infinite

Infinite implies unmeasurable. But a being can always measure itself - it is called self-awareness. So God cannot be infinite.

Non-Material / Extra dimensional

Spacetime started 14 billion years ago. The first cause must be from beyond spacetime. We know the first cause cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). A key question is, can space exist without time? IE can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So space cannot exist without time (in our universe anyway). So the first cause might be ‘spaceless’ too. That might mean the first cause is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A non-material or extra dimensional first cause would be able to cause the Big Bang without destroying itself. — Devans99

But...what size tee shirts?

Like XXXXXXXXXXXL?

LOL! We don't know if he is immanent within the universe but if he is and is visiting earth, yes maybe big bodybuilder would be a good form for him.

EnPassant, mathematics predates the mind, the universe and God. — Devans99

I don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind.

It must do, maths is logic and logic is not something you create, you are born with it. — Devans99

Brouwer, a Dutch mathematician, maintained that math creates logic.

don't see how it can predate God because math does not exist without mind. — EnPassant

The concept of a circle for example; is independent of any particular mind so it must have existence outside of all minds. Concepts like circles (and maths) exist and await discovery. It is not possible to create the concept of a circle (or maths) - you discover it. π will always be 3.1416... its not possible to have a non-circular circle.

1 and 0 are true and false. All mathematical propositions ultimately reduce to logical propositions.

The concept of a circle for example; is independent of any particular mind so it must have existence outside of all minds. — Devans99

Pi is an essential unit of space and it can be represented, to an infinite degree of precision, with numbers (see this link http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html). Likewise with sin, cos, and tan. David Hilbert showed that the coherence of geometry is dependent on the coherence of math. From these considerations it can be argued that space is simply a physical expression of number. But if number precedes space mind precedes space.

"Why do atheists ask for evidence of God, when there is clearly no such evidence?"

I have thought about this.
And my answer is: They know no reconciliation.

Here is a reconciliation:
- God is everything.
- Everything is God.
- Everything is evidence of God.

Here is another:
- God is not everything.
- God is something.
- No one can see God.
- God is hidden.

God's mind precedes the creation of spacetime I would say. But maths predates that. Maths reduces to Logic. What is logic? Just information (trues and falses) and ways to differentiate between them. Information predates everything because everything is information. God is information.

By the definition of existence, a concept doesn't "exist" because it has no "life or real being". Now I'm annoyed because while looking up the dictionary definition for "exist" I noticed they've included "spiritual existence" to appease religious folks. The definition is wrong. In order for something to "exist", it must have a presence that is detectable via the senses and discernible via mental processes, a reason for being called "existent", and this must be verifiable via objective demonstration. The only way to detect a concept is to touch, hear or see symbols or structures of some kind which represent it. Even symbols don't exist, they're just abstract arrangements forced into meaning for humans by prior humans' imaginations. I'm not talking past anyone.

You wrote, "your god nonsense is not on the same level."

God is not a god or any god, these are different and incompatible terms. In Richard Dawkins' God is Too Complex to Exist, Dick is not talking about a god or any god. Is Thor too complex to exist? Of course not.

I'm really surprised in just the last couple of weeks I've been a part of this community the argument is over whether or not "gods" exist.

You disagree with the presence of 300 sigma and the fact I have a Holy Cross on Mt. Rubidoux, the greatest trophy awarded to anyone in human history.

If all your argument does is dismiss out of hand all the contradictions to your argument then you need a new strategy.

You'll have to clarify your meaning because I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to anything I've said.

"Uncaused cause" is an argument put forward by naturalists because that's what they feel they can tackle.

"Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis

I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis"

Dfpolis is a contributor here.

Try to tackle this.