Human Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

The logically self-contradictory governs nothing. It does not limit God. Hello!

It is logically self-contradictory to state that 2 + 2 =53,567.

By definition, it is impossible to do self-contradictory things. If God exists, he could not possibly do things that are self-contradictory.

You, however, say that logically self-contradictory things do not limit God. Thus:

1) The statement 2 + 2 =53567 is self-contradictory.
2) You say that self-contradictory things do not limit God.
3) That is the same thing as saying God can do every self-contradictory thing, yes?
4) Therefore, if what you say is true, then God can make 2 +2 =53,567.​

I disagree. Not even God can make 2+2=53,567.

Logical necessity does not override God.

It is logically necessary that the statement 4=53,567 cannot be both true and false. If God can override logical necessity that means God can make that statement be both true and false.

Do you really think God can make 4 = 53,567?

 

[Estrid]

It is logically self-contradictory to state that 2 + 2 =53,567.

By definition, it is impossible to do self-contradictory things. If God exists, he could not possibly do things that are self-contradictory.

You, however, say that logically self-contradictory things do not limit God. Thus:

1) The statement 2 + 2 =53567 is self-contradictory.
2) You say that self-contradictory things do not limit God.
3) That is the same thing as saying God can do every self-contradictory thing, yes?
4) Therefore, if what you say is true, then God can make 2 +2 =53,567.​

I disagree. Not even God can make 2+2=53,567.



It is logically necessary that the statement 4=53,567 cannot be both true and false. If God can override logical necessity that means God can make that statement be both true and false.

Do you really think God can make 4 = 53,567?

The post you responded to was good. It had such information as is precisely that for which we all have ever sought.
No limits!

God CAN swallow himself andake rocks he cannot lift.

 

[SelfSim]

Where does that line of questioning take you?

'I don't know' is the starting point for scientific enquiry. The question then becomes: 'How?'

'Why?' however, assumes existence, which contradicts the original answer of: 'I/{we} don't know''.
Science doesn't 'assume' the existence of .. anything. It tests its propositions.

 

[AV1611VET]

God CAN swallow himself and make rocks he cannot lift.

Are you sure about that?

God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power.

SOURCE

 

[Mark Quayle]

We were discussing SN 1987A, and why that is evidence that the universe is far older than 6000 years old. I spend a lot of time discussing this supernova at How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free, including explaining how we know the light from that supernova really traveled that many years. You can read it at my website.


Relativity doesn't help you here. Physical observations and geometry say the supernova was 169,000 lightyears away when the star exploded. And relativity tells us the light can't travel that far through space in 6000 years.

Yet the whole thing is expanding, including the rate of expansion, exponentially, supposedly, including time and space. 'Reality'. Seen from the rate from the beginning, which we don't know, and seen from the current farthest reaches, we really don't know, do we? Then when you consider how God (first cause) sees it, who knows? I don't, and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either.

Are you the one who said the old science is replaced with a new one, and the new one will be replaced eventually? If so, why would the person who said that be so adamant about his understanding of the current one?

 

[SelfSim]

Yet the whole thing is expanding, including the rate of expansion, exponentially, supposedly, including time and space. 'Reality'. Seen from the rate from the beginning, which we don't know, and seen from the current farthest reaches, we really don't know, do we? Then when you consider how God (first cause) sees it, who knows? I don't, and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either.

Are you the one who said the old science is replaced with a new one, and the new one will be replaced eventually? If so, why would the person who said that be so adamant about his understanding of the current one?

Non sequitir.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is logically self-contradictory to state that 2 + 2 =53,567.

By definition, it is impossible to do self-contradictory things. If God exists, he could not possibly do things that are self-contradictory.

You, however, say that logically self-contradictory things do not limit God. Thus:

1) The statement 2 + 2 =53567 is self-contradictory.
2) You say that self-contradictory things do not limit God.
3) That is the same thing as saying God can do every self-contradictory thing, yes?
4) Therefore, if what you say is true, then God can make 2 +2 =53,567.​

I disagree. Not even God can make 2+2=53,567.



It is logically necessary that the statement 4=53,567 cannot be both true and false. If God can override logical necessity that means God can make that statement be both true and false.

Do you really think God can make 4 = 53,567?

Number 3) NO.

I did not, nor do I say, that God can do self-contradictory things. A self-contradictory thing is nothing and can do nothing. It does not limit God, because God is the source of logic, and has no inclination, no desire, no need, no reason to do self-contradictory things. The whole idea is a human bogus proposition.

Truth is, self-contradictory things cannot limit even us. We are limited to non-self-contradictory things, by reality, not by self-contradictory things.

 

[doubtingmerle]

'I don't know' is the starting point for scientific enquiry. The question then becomes: 'How?'

'Why?' however, assumes existence, which contradicts the original answer of: 'I/{we} don't know''.
Science doesn't 'assume' the existence of .. anything. It tests its propositions.

Fair enough. Let's change the question from why to how.

• How did the universe begin? There was a Big Bang.

• How did the Big Bang happen? Probably there was cosmic inflation and quantum effects.

• How did cosmic inflation and quantum effects come about? I don't know. There is some explanation, though.

• How did that explanation for inflation come into existence? I don't know. If you keep drilling down, ultimately, we come to an explanation at the root of it all. That explanation could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing.

Now, I would like you to answer, beginning with how the universe began. When you get to the bottom, is your answer substantially different from mine?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you sure about that?


SOURCE

Your source repeatedly argues that God cannot do things that are logically impossible. This is the debate that I have been having with Mark Quayle. I have been arguing that no God could possibly do things that are impossible. Mark, however argues that logical impossibility cannot possibly limit God.

Your source says,

God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man’s ability is being shown in contrast to God’s), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.​

and also:

God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible—these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality.​

 

[doubtingmerle]

A self-contradictory thing is nothing and can do nothing. It does not limit God

So AV1611VET's source is wrong? It says God himself is limited such that he cannot possibly do logically impossible things.

It says God cannot make two-sided triangles. Do you think that God could have invented two-sided triangles? I say that two-sided triangles are impossible, so therefore God cannot do that.

Back to the claim that 2 + 2 could equal 10 if God had not decreed otherwise.

Consider the following:

1) Two plus two: xx xx
2) Four: xxxx
3) Ten: xxxxxxxxxx​

I say that it is logically impossible for God, for any God to invent mathematics such that line 1 and line 3 truly have the same number of x's. That is logically impossible. Sure, he could say they have the same number of x's, but if he says that, he would be wrong.

Anybody who says that lines 1 and 3 have the same number of x's is wrong. And if God invented math such that his math said they had the same number of x's, then God would be wrong. God cannot invent math such that his invented math can truthfully say that lines 1 and 3 have the same number of x's. God cannot do that.

 

[SelfSim]

Fair enough. Let's change the question from why to how.

• How did the universe begin? There was a Big Bang.

• How did the Big Bang happen? Probably there was cosmic inflation and quantum effects.

• How did cosmic inflation and quantum effects come about? I don't know. There is some explanation, though.

• How did that explanation for inflation come into existence? I don't know. If you keep drilling down, ultimately, we come to an explanation at the root of it all. That explanation could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing.

Now, I would like you to answer, beginning with how the universe began. When you get to the bottom, is your answer substantially different from mine?

• We don't know ..
• The universe, the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and quantum effects are all models developed by scientists doing their best to explain how to think of things coming into existence, all of which are based on what we do know.
• We won't know more until they come up with a better tested model.

I'll leave it up to you to decide on whether that answer is substantially different from yours.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yet the whole thing is expanding, including the rate of expansion, exponentially, supposedly, including time and space. 'Reality'.

Yes, that is what the evidence shows. There are multiple lines of evidence that indicate that spacetime itself was inflating rapidly for the first fraction of a second of the early universe.

And our current understanding of physics says that inflation must have been going on long before our universe began, and must have extended far beyond our universe. In fact, once that inflation began, physicists say it likely would continue forever and be constantly increasing exponentially.

I am not a physicist. But I linked to a documentary where leading physicists say this. I link to it again at the bottom of this post.

Seen from the rate from the beginning, which we don't know, and seen from the current farthest reaches, we really don't know, do we?

Correct. We don't know.

But "I don't know" is not the same as "I don't have a clue" or "I will never know". Again, see the video I linked to.

Are you the one who said the old science is replaced with a new one, and the new one will be replaced eventually? If so, why would the person who said that be so adamant about his understanding of the current one?

Those aren't my words, but yes, of course, science is continually being updated as we make new discoveries.

How many times have I said on this thread, "I don't know" regarding the ultimate reason for existence? Many, many times. How many more times do you want me to say, "I don't know"?

If you think I have made a statement that is "so adamant about [my] understanding" of this, please echo back that statement. If I agree that statement was too strongly worded, I will correct it to reflect my agnosticism.

 

[doubtingmerle]

• We don't know ..
• The universe, the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and quantum effects are all models developed by scientists doing their best to explain how to think of things coming into existence, all of which are based on what we do know.
• We won't know more until they come up with a better tested model.

I'll leave it up to you to decide on whether that answer is substantially different from yours.

That's a little cryptic, so its hard to say where this agrees or disagrees with me.

Do you or do you not agree that the universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?

Do you or do you not agree that the Big Bang most likely came from cosmic inflation and quantum effects?

Do you or do you not agree that there is some true explanation for how this all came to be. We may never know that explanation, but can we agree there is some true explanation?

Do you or do you not agree that, ultimately, that explanation at the root of it all could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your source repeatedly argues that God cannot do things that are logically impossible. This is the debate that I have been having with Mark Quayle. I have been arguing that no God could possibly do things that are impossible. Mark, however argues that logical impossibility cannot possibly limit God.

Your source says,

God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. The truly impossible is not made possible by adding more power. Therefore, unless context indicates otherwise (e.g. Matthew 19:26 where man’s ability is being shown in contrast to God’s), impossibility means the same thing whether or not God is involved.​

and also:

God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle, or a married bachelor. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible—these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality.​

Yup.

 

[Estrid]

Fair enough. Let's change the question from why to how.

• How did the universe begin? There was a Big Bang.

• How did the Big Bang happen? Probably there was cosmic inflation and quantum effects.

• How did cosmic inflation and quantum effects come about? I don't know. There is some explanation, though.

• How did that explanation for inflation come into existence? I don't know. If you keep drilling down, ultimately, we come to an explanation at the root of it all. That explanation could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing.

Now, I would like you to answer, beginning with how the universe began. When you get to the bottom, is your answer substantially different from mine?

You might review Dr. Tegmarks ideas about the mathematical
nature of reality.
Two things that seem reasonable to
me are that math exists independent of any universe, and,
that reality is stranger than we can ever know.

We are possibly much less equipped than a goldfish is to understand the origin of fish food.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are possibly much less equipped than a goldfish is to understand the origin of fish food.

Well-said.

QV please: My Taj Mahal Challenge

 

[SelfSim]

• We don't know ..
• The universe, the Big Bang, cosmic inflation and quantum effects are all models developed by scientists doing their best to explain how to think of things coming into existence, all of which are based on what we do know.
• We won't know more until they come up with a better tested model.

I'll leave it up to you to decide on whether that answer is substantially different from yours.

PS: The same answer applies in the case of biological Evolution, of course.

 

[SelfSim]

That's a little cryptic, so its hard to say where this agrees or disagrees with me.

Do you or do you not agree that the universe almost surely began with the Big Bang?

Do you or do you not agree that the Big Bang most likely came from cosmic inflation and quantum effects?

Do you or do you not agree that there is some true explanation for how this all came to be. We may never know that explanation, but can we agree there is some true explanation?

Do you or do you not agree that, ultimately, that explanation at the root of it all could be an infinite series, multiple circular series, an uncaused eternal base reality, an eternal being with a mind, or simply the fact that something sometimes comes out of what we call nothing?

I am not attempting to agree or disagree with you.
My response is consistent with the science defining the concepts posed in the question and listed in my response.
Yours isn't.

 

[SelfSim]

You might review Dr. Tegmarks ideas about the mathematical nature of reality.
Two things that seem reasonable to me are that math exists independent of any universe, and, that reality is stranger than we can ever know.

Many more would say that math is stranger to them than reality is, I think(?)

We are possibly much less equipped than a goldfish is to understand the origin of fish food.

Ha!
Something three radically different humans all agree on!
How odd .. and rather disturbing considering that @AV1611VET is one of 'em!
(No offence intended there, AV).

 

[AV1611VET]

Ha!
Something three radically different humans all agree on! How odd .. and rather disturbing considering that @AV1611VET is one of 'em!
(No offence intended there, AV).

None taken!