On 1/17/2015 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least
having an
idea of, what God is.
I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or
at
least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one claims to know the
extent
of reality, how can one suppose to know what it does or doesn't contain?
You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties are not
in reality.
I agree with that.
If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation that is
fairly
strong evidence it doesn't exist.
"Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but
does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he
wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not
want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is
both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants
to, then how comes evil in the world?'"
--- Epicurus
That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards the advancement of
theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the power and desire to prevent any
bad thing from happening does not exist.
What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology had remained open to
free inquiry over the past several millennia?
And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and
observation, but
are very unlikely on our best theories of how the world works, e.g. teapots
orbiting
Jupiter. Are you "agnostic" about the teapot orbiting Jupiter?
To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a working theory of our
solar system.
To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this universe, nor in
any other place in reality) requires a working theory of reality. What is yours?
Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean "I'm
equally
disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's impossible to decide the
question."
That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from one's working
theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that question is decidable or not,
though perhaps it's possible to accumulate evidence towards one. So far I think man has
made little progress in this endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead
than most towards developing one. Working under those theories, I might say I am more of
a "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify at least three things one might
call god within those ontologies. However, as to which theory of reality is correct, I
might call myself agnostic (even though I might be in the high 90's percentage wise
leaning towards it, I could never be certain).
Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly
unlikely
Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are assuming
here?),
When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful person
and who
wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing principle or the set
of true
propositions.
Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that question. Why should we
suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely to exist in reality?
There's a difference between "super-powerful minds" and "a superpowerful person". By
superpowerful person I meant one who could transcend physical laws, i.e. perform
miracles. By the very definition of miracles these are not reliably observed and so the
empirical evidence makes their existence very unlikely. A superpowerful mind might just
be a human mind implemented in an electronic medium so that it was millions of times
faster - but was still a Turing machine. It couldn't do miracles.
also, to what degree do you hold the main idea the everything list is meant
to
discuss, to be true (or likely)?
I'm evenly divided on that question.
So then would you not also be evenly divided on the existence of "superpoweful people
who want to be worshipped"
No, see above on "superpowerful people".
(assuming the two are not mutually exclusive properties and hence not logically
impossible) then if every possible universe exists, some are sure to contain
"superpoweful people who want to be worshipped".
and don't find that it contributes anything to discussions such as "why
is
there something rather than nothing?"
But "god" is the supposed answer to that very question.
"God" is also supposed to answer the question, "How should humans behave?"
Yes, and the conception of God as the one mind to which we are all a part does provide a
foundation for an ethical framework (not unlike the golden rule or karma).
Yes, and the conception of God as a tyrannical patriarch dictating behavior also provides
a framework for ethics - one that has been widely employed. Does that prove that both
concepts of God are realized?
and "Who will save me from death or disaster?"
The conception of God-like entities with the power to computationally simulate worlds
and galaxies can "save you" by providing you a computational afterlife.
And providing they exist and that "I" can experience it.
The question is not is there an answer or isn't there (of course there is
since we
are here),
That doesn't follow. Conceivably there is no "reason".
Only in an fundamentally non-deterministic universe, which I personally have great
difficulty conceiving.
I don't. The current, best theory of this universe is non-deterministic.
In the major religions the "reason" is that a supernatural immortal
person willed
or caused it. "Reason" referred to what humans mean when they ask one
another for a
reason. Physical causes are not reasons in that sense (although Aristotle
thought
they were).
the question is what is the nature, and what are the properties, of that
thing,
Now you assume it's a thing or object. Are the equations of quantum field
theory a
thing?
Yes, but are they the ultimate explanation for their own existence or not?
I don't think existence needs an explanation.
What part do those equations play in the relation to everything else that may
exist?
They are constraining descriptions we invented.
that object, that answer to the question of why reality exists.
That's easy. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be reality, would it?
That might be true, but it's not an answer to the question of why this reality
exists.
Why not? Because it's not elaborate enough?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
