Nature

[Resha Caner]

Or, alternatively, we could conclude that if an infinite god (or whatever) exists nature must be infinite.
Comes the next guy who then claims god to be "super-infinite" and therefore not contained by nature...
and so on and so forth...words...

Is infinity an important concept for mathematics?

 

[quatona]

Is infinity an important concept for mathematics?

I´m sorry, I am not a mathematician, but if I recall correctly what I was taught 35 years back in school I suppose it is (like, I mean to remember that "parallels" were defined as "meeting in the infinite"). But I really can´t recommend you to take my word for it.
Anyway, I´m not sure what your point is in asking me this.

 

[Gracchus]

Is infinity an important concept for mathematics?

I don't know if it is more important than any other mathematical concept. Cantor went to the trouble to prove that the number of number of real numbers is greater than the number of integers. And Cantor's Theorem proves that there are an infinite number of infinities.
I don't know... Is that important?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know if it is more important than any other mathematical concept. Cantor went to the trouble to prove that the number of number of real numbers is greater than the number of integers. And Cantor's Theorem proves that there are an infinite number of infinities.
I don't know... Is that important?

Yes, it is. Of course your point is valid that infinity is not more important than other concepts, but it is still important.

I´m sorry, I am not a mathematician, but if I recall correctly what I was taught 35 years back in school I suppose it is (like, I mean to remember that "parallels" were defined as "meeting in the infinite"). But I really can´t recommend you to take my word for it.
Anyway, I´m not sure what your point is in asking me this.

Let me give a mathematical example. I shall define a set, S = {1,2,3}. As Gracchus has graciously stated for us, the set of integers (I) is infinite. Therefore, S does not contain I. Such distinctions are incredibly important to math. Take the idea of infinitesimals in calculus. Newton developed calculus by assuming infinitesimals. It was later found that many of the assumptions associated with infinitesimals were wrong. Such threw the math world into a great tizzy. The solution was to discard infinitesimals and replace them with the delta epsilon proof (which, if I recall, is based on Didekind cuts - this whole area of math makes my head hurt).

Since then, a valid theory of infinitesimals has been found, but the point is that ideas of the infinite (and the infinitesimal) are important to math. Without them, important things come crashing down. So, it is not, as quatona has implied, just words.

As I understand it, the "set" called "nature" has been defined, and it is finite. Therefore, it does not contain God. Sure, we could define it differently. Be my guest, and good luck with that. But, as it stands, nature does not contain God. That is not a trivial conclusion.

I will also add, based on other comments I have made, that this conclusion is not solely one of reason. It also involves what is revealed in the Bible, wherein it is made clear that pantheism is false. But, for now, I doubt you care too much about that aspect. Rather, we are more focused on what you will accept, which is (first of all) the rational side of the discussion. For that reason, my conclusion is not trivial. Why? Because the second aspect I expect you to demand is "evidence." However, if your conclusion is the same as Wiccan's (a pantheistic conclusion), then any "evidence" I might suggest will only be met with a shrug and the comment, "Yeah, that's natural."

 

[quatona]

Since then, a valid theory of infinitesimals has been found, but the point is that ideas of the infinite (and the infinitesimal) are important to math. Without them, important things come crashing down. So, it is not, as quatona has implied, just words.

Well, something doesn´t seem to add up here.
You said:
a. nature is finite
b. only god is infinite, hence supernatural
c. mathematics deal with the infinite.
My conclusion from these premises: mathematics deals with the supernatural and god.
Alternatively, we could of course, acknowledge that mathematics is a formal system within which "infinity" is strictly defined and only applies within this system - i.e. numbers/calculations. In which case we´d also have to acknowledge that you were employing a false equivocation, in the first place.

As I understand it, the "set" called "nature" has been defined, and it is finite.

Please explain conclusively the relation between nature, the supernatural and mathematics in view of your assertion that mathematics and religion deal with infinity while natural sciences don´t.
If infinity is not included in nature - would natural sciences have to stop using mathematics for their tools?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sure. The will allows for evil. But the very state of being a robot raises the question of whether it can be happy. Maybe "happy robot" is an oxymoron.

People can be happy.
I say, why can't we be happy all the time?
They say, because we have free will.

In other words, we aren't eternally happy because we have free will. If we didn't have free will, therefore, we'd be eternally happy. Thus, a 'robot' could indeed be happy.

I don't believe angels always manifest in the same way. They manifest based on the purpose God has given them.

Hence why I mentioned ghosts. If ghosts existed, would you consider them supernatural?

Extrapolation is a dangerous thing, as is its close cousin: induction. In your case, it has made the word "natural" useless. If everything is natural, then it provides us no distinction between things and may as well be discarded. The conclusion from your extrapolation is that nothing is unnatural ... or supernatural.

I never said that everything was natural. I said that the fundamental, philosophical commonalities between me and a tree, which I think we all agree are 'natural' things, gives us a base to deduce the 'natural'-ness of other things - such as, say, rocks. From there we can go to the particle level - quarks and leptons, for instance.

The common theme? Ultimately, that they can all interact with us. A rock is 'natural' because it's so very obviously there - because it can interact with us in very direct ways. The 'super'natural, conversely, is always attributed to things which cannot be tested, which may as well not exist - or to things which ultimately become rather mundane phenomena (e.g., lightening, magnetism)

But I never said that everything is 'natural'. The point of my definition is that there may be some things which exist, some particle that can only ever interact with itself - such a particle would be 'super-natural'.

Let me ask then, is your "nature" finite?

I'm a physicist What do you mean by 'finite'? Finite in spacial length? Temporal duration? In possibilities? In multitude of contained entities?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, something doesn´t seem to add up here.
You said:
a. nature is finite
b. only god is infinite, hence supernatural
c. mathematics deal with the infinite.
My conclusion from these premises: mathematics deals with the supernatural and god.
Alternatively, we could of course, acknowledge that mathematics is a formal system within which "infinity" is strictly defined and only applies within this system - i.e. numbers/calculations. In which case we´d also have to acknowledge that you were employing a false equivocation, in the first place.

Yes, it's possible that I'm wrong. Many of my Christian acquaintances hate that I like to speculate on these things. I simply accept that non-believers have raised some interesting, challenging questions, and I like to discuss them. As one of my history mentors (who is also a Christian) says, "Don't be afraid of the truth."

So, you raise a point I hadn't considered. But at the moment I don't see that I am in error. Whether numbers "exist", whether they are "properties", or whether Frege finally found their proper definition is still under debate. So, maybe it would be appropriate to call them "supernatural." I'm not sure yet where I would stand on that. I would, however, agree that many numerical concepts seem to be "unnatural." One of those concepts is infinity, but there are others.

If infinity is not included in nature - would natural sciences have to stop using mathematics for their tools?

Why would they? Are you saying abstract concepts can't be applied to the physical world? There are many practical examples that seem to say otherwise. Again, IMO (with respect to science) it's only a model anyway - not the real thing.

 

[Resha Caner]

People can be happy.
I say, why can't we be happy all the time?
They say, because we have free will.

In other words, we aren't eternally happy because we have free will. If we didn't have free will, therefore, we'd be eternally happy. Thus, a 'robot' could indeed be happy.

It seems an unconscious being would not be aware of things like happiness, and I'm assuming a robot is not conscious. But, if you don't like the free will answer, then why do you think unhappiness occurs? If it's determined, then I guess we're just stuck with it.

Hence why I mentioned ghosts. If ghosts existed, would you consider them supernatural?

Yeah, I guess so. I'm still wondering if there is a point to this question.

I never said that everything was natural. I said that the fundamental, philosophical commonalities between me and a tree, which I think we all agree are 'natural' things, gives us a base to deduce the 'natural'-ness of other things - such as, say, rocks. From there we can go to the particle level - quarks and leptons, for instance.

The common theme? Ultimately, that they can all interact with us. A rock is 'natural' because it's so very obviously there - because it can interact with us in very direct ways. The 'super'natural, conversely, is always attributed to things which cannot be tested, which may as well not exist - or to things which ultimately become rather mundane phenomena (e.g., lightening, magnetism)

But I never said that everything is 'natural'. The point of my definition is that there may be some things which exist, some particle that can only ever interact with itself - such a particle would be 'super-natural'.

OK. But you did call God natural, and that I dispute. For example, I see no difference between you claiming randomness in QM and me claiming that what you see is God's unknown purpose. Maybe I can't prove my position, but neither can you. So, I wouldn't accept that your unproveable assumption is valid while my unprovable assumption is invalid.

I'm a physicist What do you mean by 'finite'? Finite in spacial length? Temporal duration? In possibilities? In multitude of contained entities?

The first time it came up I was thinking spatial, but my usage may have drifted since then. So, of the categories you listed, would you accept any of them as finite?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It seems an unconscious being would not be aware of things like happiness, and I'm assuming a robot is not conscious. But, if you don't like the free will answer, then why do you think unhappiness occurs? If it's determined, then I guess we're just stuck with it.

Sadly. The point is that, if God exists and wants us to be happy and can make us happy... why doesn't he? Trite answer: free will. To me, free will isn't worth the suffering in the world, and it only justifies the human evils of the world - volcanoes and disease can't be blamed on free will without resorting to Creationism (quite a leap, but it comes with Original Sin, Fall of Paradise, and all that).

Yeah, I guess so. I'm still wondering if there is a point to this question.

Because in post #13, you said that the supernatural is something that doesn't require a physical manifestation to exist. I've been trying to ascertain what you mean by 'physical manifestation'. If a ghost is supernatural, it's not a physical manifestation - so I'm at a loss to what would count. Why would a ghost not be a physical manifestation, but a tree (presumably) would?

But you did call God natural, and that I dispute. For example, I see no difference between you claiming randomness in QM and me claiming that what you see is God's unknown purpose. Maybe I can't prove my position, but neither can you. So, I wouldn't accept that your unproveable assumption is valid while my unprovable assumption is invalid.

I don't think they're comparable: quantum mechanics is supported by a century of evidence, and shows no sign of being overturned any time soon. The 'Goddidit' explanation just serves as a placeholder until whatever's really doing it is found. Lightning? Goddidit. Volcanoes? Goddidit. Origin of life? Goddidit.

Science can come up with testable things like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, spontaneous generation, and evolution, which provide actual, useful, testable, and justifiable explanations for all sorts of things - including, say, radioactive decay.

And they're all wholly natural theories. Nothing about the world seems to require a supernatural explanation - allegedly supernatural phenomena are either shown to be not as supernatural as previously thought (e.g., lightening), or are simply cannot be shown to be actually real (e.g., ghosts, homoeopathy, intercessory prayer).

The natural and physical world is the world we know exists, the stuff we are sure is really there. The supernatural and spiritual world seems to be the stuff of superstition: magic and hexes and curses and spirits and souls and angels and demons and all the rest that can't, in fact, be shown to exist.

The first time it came up I was thinking spatial, but my usage may have drifted since then. So, of the categories you listed, would you accept any of them as finite?

Spatially? Unknown.
Temporally? Unknown.
In possibilities? Yes, possible
In multitude? Probably not.

 

[Resha Caner]

Sadly. The point is that, if God exists and wants us to be happy and can make us happy... why doesn't he? Trite answer: free will. To me, free will isn't worth the suffering in the world, and it only justifies the human evils of the world - volcanoes and disease can't be blamed on free will without resorting to Creationism (quite a leap, but it comes with Original Sin, Fall of Paradise, and all that).

Free will explains, but does not justify suffering. Nothing justifies suffering, not even Christ's suffering (IMO). (Again IMO) Christ suffered because he loved us, not because it was justified. And further yet, my view of free will explains that it didn't have to be this way. The guilt is ours, not God's. So, it seems you're still blaming God for the suffering (or at least think God would deserve the blame if you believed God existed). To me that seems the same as blaming the mother for the crimes committed by the child just because the mother gave birth and for no other reason. Thankfully, his suffering means our guilt has been absolved.

Because in post #13, you said that the supernatural is something that doesn't require a physical manifestation to exist. I've been trying to ascertain what you mean by 'physical manifestation'. If a ghost is supernatural, it's not a physical manifestation - so I'm at a loss to what would count. Why would a ghost not be a physical manifestation, but a tree (presumably) would?

Just for my own sanity (so that I don't have to argue something I consider to be impossible), let's create a hypothetical. Say someone perceives that they saw a ghost. For example, Wilhelmina Houdini goes to a fortune teller and thinks she encounters the ghost of her departed husband, Harry. In reality, what happened was that a demon (a fallen angel) created the deception. We still have a spirit and a physical manifestation, so I think the content we're discussing remains unchanged.

It also expresses part of my reply. I never said the supernatural can't physically manifest. I said it is not necessary for existence. I think what you're struggling with is the details of how something can exist and yet not be physical.

I don't think they're comparable: quantum mechanics is supported by a century of evidence, and shows no sign of being overturned any time soon. The 'Goddidit' explanation just serves as a placeholder until whatever's really doing it is found. Lightning? Goddidit. Volcanoes? Goddidit. Origin of life? Goddidit.

Science can come up with testable things like classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, spontaneous generation, and evolution, which provide actual, useful, testable, and justifiable explanations for all sorts of things - including, say, radioactive decay.

And they're all wholly natural theories. Nothing about the world seems to require a supernatural explanation - allegedly supernatural phenomena are either shown to be not as supernatural as previously thought (e.g., lightening), or are simply cannot be shown to be actually real (e.g., ghosts, homoeopathy, intercessory prayer).

The natural and physical world is the world we know exists, the stuff we are sure is really there. The supernatural and spiritual world seems to be the stuff of superstition: magic and hexes and curses and spirits and souls and angels and demons and all the rest that can't, in fact, be shown to exist.

I don't think your answer addresses what I said. I never said QM is invalid (at least not in its totality as a scientific model). Yes, there are parts of it that I think are a bit loopy (pun intended), but there are also parts I find unrefutable. As for the "testability" part of it, I've tried to explain that before. My post was driving to the bottom of the causal chain. We discussed this in a previous thread. Your assumption at the bottom of the chain is: it's random. I'm saying that assumption is no more valid that the "goddidit" assumption. Neither can be proved, and both lead to the same result: We don't know why the wave function collapses as it does for such-and-such specific instances. It just does.

If this randomness is part of "nature", I would then say that your appeal to "nature" has the same mystical quality to it that causes you to object when a Christian appeals to God.

If you really want to correct that, you would need to take a more agnostic position: unknown. And yet, I think science demands one to pursue answers to unknown questions.

Spatially? Unknown.
Temporally? Unknown.
In possibilities? Yes, possible
In multitude? Probably not.

So, the first step would be to posit a hypothesis. Do you have one for these categories?

 

[sandwiches]

Free will explains, but does not justify suffering. Nothing justifies suffering, not even Christ's suffering (IMO). (Again IMO) Christ suffered because he loved us, not because it was justified. And further yet, my view of free will explains that it didn't have to be this way. The guilt is ours, not God's. So, it seems you're still blaming God for the suffering (or at least think God would deserve the blame if you believed God existed). To me that seems the same as blaming the mother for the crimes committed by the child just because the mother gave birth and for no other reason. Thankfully, his suffering means our guilt has been absolved.

If a child's mother is aware of her child doing something wrong and she is capable of stopping said act, would you not say that she's morally obligated to do something about it? Would you say that this mother is a good mother if she allowed her children to fight each other to death?

 

[Resha Caner]

If a child's mother is aware of her child doing something wrong and she is capable of stopping said act, would you not say that she's morally obligated to do something about it? Would you say that this mother is a good mother if she allowed her children to fight each other to death?

I'm really wanting to kill this half-thread. There's another thread on free-will raging at the moment, and free-will is not the intended focus here.

But, to answer your question, yes the mother has some responsibility for the child. In my previous post I carefully segregated the act of giving birth. Birth, by itself, does not make the mother guilty because she had no intent to create an evil child (at least a good mother wouldn't). Further, note the important qualifier in your statement: capability. The mother is only responsible insofar as she is capable. If the mother is 5 feet, 100 lbs, and the child becomes a 6.5 foot, 350 lb professional wrestler, her "capability" is much diminished.

I would say a similar thing about God. His act of creation does not, by itself, make God guilty of evil, because he had no intent to create evil. I would think God's choice was to create with free will or not to create at all. Creating a determined universe was not an acceptable option. It seems obvious God's choice was to create. Therefore, free will is one of the principles that guides God's interaction with the world (because he chose it to be that way). It is not that he completely abandoned his creation. He has done everything he can within the principle of free will to curb evil - up to and including sacrificing Christ to absolve that evil.

For me, the issue of free will is not either/or. As I said in the other thread, I do not claim free will means a being operates without outside influence. There is a spectrum of possibility from complete bondage to complete freedom. The mode of the distribution is likely pretty well centered, and likely no human has met the criteria for one of the extremes (though it could be said God meets the criteria for complete freedom and Satan will - at some point in "time" - meet the criteria for complete bondage).

If that isn't a good place to end this part of the discussion, I guess we need another free will thread (or we could try to appropriate the existing one).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Free will explains, but does not justify suffering. Nothing justifies suffering, not even Christ's suffering (IMO). (Again IMO) Christ suffered because he loved us, not because it was justified. And further yet, my view of free will explains that it didn't have to be this way. The guilt is ours, not God's. So, it seems you're still blaming God for the suffering (or at least think God would deserve the blame if you believed God existed). To me that seems the same as blaming the mother for the crimes committed by the child just because the mother gave birth and for no other reason. Thankfully, his suffering means our guilt has been absolved.

I agree with one point you made: the mother is not guilty for the crimes of the son. Nor, indeed, should anyone be guilty for the crimes of anyone else.

But, apparently, they are. There are the victims of the Haiti earthquake. There are babies who live for a just few hours in agony before perishing. Who's free will caused their suffering? If it wasn't their own, then they are suffering for someone else's crimes.

Suppose our hypothetical mother knew that, should she get pregnant in the next five days, her child would eventually end up slaughtering 6 million Jews. I think we can all agree that any attempt on her part to conceive that child makes her culpable, in whole or in part, for those deaths.

Why, then, is God not culpable for all suffering and death? He, like the mother, knew the consequences of his actions. Yet he did so anyway. Free will doesn't change that.

Just for my own sanity (so that I don't have to argue something I consider to be impossible), let's create a hypothetical. Say someone perceives that they saw a ghost. For example, Wilhelmina Houdini goes to a fortune teller and thinks she encounters the ghost of her departed husband, Harry. In reality, what happened was that a demon (a fallen angel) created the deception. We still have a spirit and a physical manifestation, so I think the content we're discussing remains unchanged.

It also expresses part of my reply. I never said the supernatural can't physically manifest. I said it is not necessary for existence. I think what you're struggling with is the details of how something can exist and yet not be physical.

No, I can fully accept that (it's easy enough to imagine a particle that interacts with absolutely nothing, and thus will never be known to us - it is, effectively, not physical). My difficulty is accepting something that can exist, that is not physical, and yet can still interact with us.
It's all well and good to say a demon created an apparition, but what, precisely, happened?
If you saw a ghost, was there a volume of space from which a spectrum of radiation was emitted? Could it knock over picture frames, and do other poltergeist-y things? If so, I would argue that these real, tangible phenomena make it a physical being, regardless of its demonic origins.

I don't think your answer addresses what I said. I never said QM is invalid (at least not in its totality as a scientific model). Yes, there are parts of it that I think are a bit loopy (pun intended), but there are also parts I find unrefutable. As for the "testability" part of it, I've tried to explain that before. My post was driving to the bottom of the causal chain. We discussed this in a previous thread. Your assumption at the bottom of the chain is: it's random. I'm saying that assumption is no more valid that the "goddidit" assumption. Neither can be proved, and both lead to the same result: We don't know why the wave function collapses as it does for such-and-such specific instances. It just does.

If this randomness is part of "nature", I would then say that your appeal to "nature" has the same mystical quality to it that causes you to object when a Christian appeals to God.

If you really want to correct that, you would need to take a more agnostic position: unknown. And yet, I think science demands one to pursue answers to unknown questions.

My objection is that it's not an assumption. It's a testable theory. Goddidit is little more than wordplay, while 'randomness did it' is a testable hypothesis that we can experiment with - and, lo and behold, 'randomness did it' passes with flying colours.

So it's apples and oranges. I'm not simply throwing the word 'random' around, there is real, empirical evidence supporting that claim. The same, I think, cannot be said for God.

So, the first step would be to posit a hypothesis. Do you have one for these categories?

Claim: The universe is spatially finite.
Test: Fly to the edge of universe.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm really wanting to kill this half-thread. There's another thread on free-will raging at the moment, and free-will is not the intended focus here.

Threads evolve as the focus of conversation changes.

But, to answer your question, yes the mother has some responsibility for the child. In my previous post I carefully segregated the act of giving birth. Birth, by itself, does not make the mother guilty because she had no intent to create an evil child (at least a good mother wouldn't). Further, note the important qualifier in your statement: capability. The mother is only responsible insofar as she is capable. If the mother is 5 feet, 100 lbs, and the child becomes a 6.5 foot, 350 lb professional wrestler, her "capability" is much diminished.

Luckily capability and fitness is something that never comes into play when we talk about God as he is always capable and fit to intervene with his children.

I would say a similar thing about God. His act of creation does not, by itself, make God guilty of evil, because he had no intent to create evil.

However, unlike a human, God knows exactly what the consequences of his actions will be. God had full knowledge that evil would 'descend' upon his creation. He also has full knowledge of what can save his people and each individual and what to do to keep them from harm.

I would think God's choice was to create with free will or not to create at all. Creating a determined universe was not an acceptable option.

This is a false dichotomy. A father watches and teaches his children and intervenes when they make a mistake. This doesn't rob them of free will.

It seems obvious God's choice was to create. Therefore, free will is one of the principles that guides God's interaction with the world (because he chose it to be that way). It is not that he completely abandoned his creation. He has done everything he can within the principle of free will to curb evil - up to and including sacrificing Christ to absolve that evil.

That's the best he could do? Really? He can't help someone who's being brutally murdered or raped but hey! at least Jesus was executed 2000 years ago! Do you really believe that that makes up for letting millions suffer from disease, war, violence, natural disasters, emotional suffering, etc, right?

For me, the issue of free will is not either/or. As I said in the other thread, I do not claim free will means a being operates without outside influence. There is a spectrum of possibility from complete bondage to complete freedom. The mode of the distribution is likely pretty well centered, and likely no human has met the criteria for one of the extremes (though it could be said God meets the criteria for complete freedom and Satan will - at some point in "time" - meet the criteria for complete bondage).

If that isn't a good place to end this part of the discussion, I guess we need another free will thread (or we could try to appropriate the existing one).

Again, this is how conversations work. They lead us into different topics and change as we discuss.

 

[Resha Caner]

Suppose our hypothetical mother knew that, should she get pregnant in the next five days, her child would eventually end up slaughtering 6 million Jews. I think we can all agree that any attempt on her part to conceive that child makes her culpable, in whole or in part, for those deaths.

Why, then, is God not culpable for all suffering and death? He, like the mother, knew the consequences of his actions. Yet he did so anyway. Free will doesn't change that.

The mother doesn't know, and that is key. But we can probably both see the end of that argument, and I get the feeling that end will not satisfy you. So, let me try asking your question a different way. Can the mother guarantee her child will not slaughter 6 million Jews? Should she proceed without that guarantee?

No, I can fully accept that (it's easy enough to imagine a particle that interacts with absolutely nothing, and thus will never be known to us - it is, effectively, not physical). My difficulty is accepting something that can exist, that is not physical, and yet can still interact with us.

I guess I don't understand why you take this position. You can imagine something supernatural, but you can't imagine it interacting with the physical. In some ways it seems you're hung up on definitions (because I wouldn't accuse you of lacking imagination). It seems you defined the supernatural as something that can't interact with the physical, making your conclusion self-evident. I could certainly invent a hypothetical definition of something that is not physical but has the ability to manipulate the physical - maybe even some near parallels from real life. But you'll never accept it if you continue to insist on such definitions. My definition of the supernatural was different than yours - that it does not require the physical to exist. Are you willing to work with that definition?

My objection is that it's not an assumption. It's a testable theory. Goddidit is little more than wordplay, while 'randomness did it' is a testable hypothesis that we can experiment with - and, lo and behold, 'randomness did it' passes with flying colours.

So it's apples and oranges. I'm not simply throwing the word 'random' around, there is real, empirical evidence supporting that claim.

Nope. Your evidence confirms your probability distribution. We've been through this before. Remember the number sequence I gave you? I'll bet you could construct a probability distribution for it. And, the more statistical moments you create (average, std dev, kurtosis, etc.) the more accurate it will become. But the increasing correlation does not change the fact that you have applied a distribution to a deterministic sequence (albeit a complex one). The fact that you can't find the deterministic law does not prove randomness. In fact, I can't conceive of a test that would prove randomness. That is why, in our previous discussion, I asked for one. It is certainly possible someone has posited a way to do it. In fact, if you recall, I did some searching on the subject. All I found were papers saying randomness can't be confirmed. I didn't find one saying it could be. In fact, I think the very definition of randomness precludes it being verified. Therefore, it remains an assumption.

Claim: The universe is spatially finite.
Test: Fly to the edge of universe.

Getting you this far was the first babystep toward understanding why God is not natural. But, in light of what I said earlier, I don't know if I should proceed with it yet.

 

[Resha Caner]

Threads evolve as the focus of conversation changes.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

That's the best he could do? Really? He can't help someone who's being brutally murdered or raped but hey! at least Jesus was executed 2000 years ago! Do you really believe that that makes up for letting millions suffer from disease, war, violence, natural disasters, emotional suffering, etc, right?

Yes, I believe Christ's sacrifice is God's ultimate gift. That you think otherwise doesn't surprise me. We are obviously applying different criteria. I could note that Christ's sacrifice is not all he has done, but I don't think that would impress you either. You would ask me what these other actions are, and then deny that God did them.

Your post seemed to be one of extracting strawmen from what I have said. I honestly don't have the patience to go through and try to clarify every erroneous inference you have made.

I certainly don't claim I can explain the entirety of an infinite God. I can only explain what has been revealed. As such, I am well aware of where the gaps are in my argument. When someone hits upon one of those gaps, I try to be honest about it (it has happened a few times here at CF). At the same time, I also like to offer some speculation on what might bridge that gap. In fact, my theory of debate is that every argument has a weakness. Extreme skeptics like to crow when they have found it. I'm not interested in that. The discussions I enjoy are those where, once the gap is found, those in the discussion try to search out if there is any possible bridge - or if the argument must end there.

If I am being unfair to you, I will apologize, but my impression of your post was not positive. So, if you're really interested in continuing, I would suggest narrowing the scope of your reply to something we can actually dig into.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The mother doesn't know, and that is key. But we can probably both see the end of that argument, and I get the feeling that end will not satisfy you. So, let me try asking your question a different way. Can the mother guarantee her child will not slaughter 6 million Jews? Should she proceed without that guarantee?

No, since she's not all-knowing.
But the premise was if she knew. If. I daresay such a woman wouldn't get pregnant, but if she knew (even if she was mistaken), and if she sought to get pregnant anyway (even if she failed), is she not culpable for (at least attempted) genocide? It'd be hard to convict in a court of law, but you get my point: while this is a hypothetical and few women (if any) would want this, this is apparently what happened with God.
God created humans in the full knowledge of the suffering we would endure (for whatever reason). He created us anyway.

I guess I don't understand why you take this position. You can imagine something supernatural, but you can't imagine it interacting with the physical. In some ways it seems you're hung up on definitions (because I wouldn't accuse you of lacking imagination). It seems you defined the supernatural as something that can't interact with the physical, making your conclusion self-evident. I could certainly invent a hypothetical definition of something that is not physical but has the ability to manipulate the physical - maybe even some near parallels from real life. But you'll never accept it if you continue to insist on such definitions. My definition of the supernatural was different than yours - that it does not require the physical to exist. Are you willing to work with that definition?

Certainly, if you could define the 'physical'. As far as I can tell, the natural and the physical are synonymous.

Nope. Your evidence confirms your probability distribution. We've been through this before. Remember the number sequence I gave you? I'll bet you could construct a probability distribution for it. And, the more statistical moments you create (average, std dev, kurtosis, etc.) the more accurate it will become. But the increasing correlation does not change the fact that you have applied a distribution to a deterministic sequence (albeit a complex one). The fact that you can't find the deterministic law does not prove randomness. In fact, I can't conceive of a test that would prove randomness. That is why, in our previous discussion, I asked for one. It is certainly possible someone has posited a way to do it. In fact, if you recall, I did some searching on the subject. All I found were papers saying randomness can't be confirmed. I didn't find one saying it could be. In fact, I think the very definition of randomness precludes it being verified. Therefore, it remains an assumption.

I disagree. It follows from quantum mechanics. Consider our number sequence: if I make a function that satisfies those numbers, and you reveal the next number, how likely is it that my function still works? Quite unlikely. But if my function does work, and it works again and again, it would seem I've stumbled upon the winning formula.

But this is besides the point. We don't come to quantum mechanics through a backdoor approach. Modern quantum theory starts with some basic premises, and work its way towards conclusions. Thus far, it's proven itself incredibly accurate. One of the consequences of QM is genuine randomness.

The point is that there is no known deterministic model that accounts for the various phenomena QM associates with randomness (e.g., radioactive decay). It's somewhat more complex than fitting points to a curve; the physical theory by which we explain all small-scale phenomena can explain things like radioactive decay and quantum tunnelling, and it does this using randomness.

The overarching model is very well evidenced. This means that all its conclusions, however counter-intuitive or theologically damaging, are just as well evidenced.

One such conclusion is genuine randomness.
Thus, genuine randomness is at least as well supported as quantum mechanics.

Getting you this far was the first babystep toward understanding why God is not natural. But, in light of what I said earlier, I don't know if I should proceed with it yet.

I'm not sure what steps have been taken, other than a rather nebulous use of the word 'infinite', but go ahead. The worst that happens is I'm exposed to the truth, right?

 

[sandwiches]

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Yes, I believe Christ's sacrifice is God's ultimate gift. That you think otherwise doesn't surprise me. We are obviously applying different criteria. I could note that Christ's sacrifice is not all he has done, but I don't think that would impress you either. You would ask me what these other actions are, and then deny that God did them.

Your post seemed to be one of extracting strawmen from what I have said. I honestly don't have the patience to go through and try to clarify every erroneous inference you have made.

I certainly don't claim I can explain the entirety of an infinite God. I can only explain what has been revealed. As such, I am well aware of where the gaps are in my argument. When someone hits upon one of those gaps, I try to be honest about it (it has happened a few times here at CF). At the same time, I also like to offer some speculation on what might bridge that gap. In fact, my theory of debate is that every argument has a weakness. Extreme skeptics like to crow when they have found it. I'm not interested in that. The discussions I enjoy are those where, once the gap is found, those in the discussion try to search out if there is any possible bridge - or if the argument must end there.

If I am being unfair to you, I will apologize, but my impression of your post was not positive. So, if you're really interested in continuing, I would suggest narrowing the scope of your reply to something we can actually dig into.

Then to be blunt and to the point: The god you proclaim is fair, merciful, and loving, would act like an irresponsible father as he knows what evils and suffering he was creating, he still created them, and now that they exist, he does nothing to fix them and they're still here. All this is you feel is justified by alluding to free will, as though a responsible parent cannot interfere, help, visibly support, or prevent harm to his children.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then to be blunt and to the point: The god you proclaim is fair, merciful, and loving, would act like an irresponsible father as he knows what evils and suffering he was creating, he still created them, and now that they exist, he does nothing to fix them and they're still here. All this is you feel is justified by alluding to free will, as though a responsible parent cannot interfere, help, visibly support, or prevent harm to his children.

I feel I do need to apologize. My reply should have ended much sooner than it did, and I regret that. My impression was that you gave a few comments on the form of my post and made a few one-liners, but that there wasn't anything substantive to reply to. In hindsight, the polite thing would have been just to ask you to rephrase ... so I guess I learned something.

With respect to your latest comment, that may be your conclusion, but it misrepresents what I've said (or at least what I meant to say). The problem is, I don't [(edit) know] where to start. Is it:
1) You misunderstood me
2) You understood me, but you think my logic is wrong
3) You understood me, but you don't accept my premise
4) Some combination of the above

Merely restating your opinion in a way that doesn't represent my position isn't going to help. I'm not asking you to be more concise in your sweeping opinion of my position. I get it that you disagree. I'm asking you to focus. So, maybe we should start with the above list, but please don't pick #4. Let's focus on one of the first three.

That's my long reply. Would the short reply have been better? It would have been: please clarify why you disagree.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, since she's not all-knowing.
But the premise was if she knew.

Yes, I understood your premise. I guess I'm asking you to modify that premise to better suit the point I'm trying to make. I get that such a premise fits well with why you think God is culpable. But I don't think that, and I'm trying to clarify why.

Again, this is not either/or. I'm talking about the possibilities. So, I think you answered the first question, but not the second. Even though the mother can't divine that her child will be genocidal, neither can she divine that her child won't be genocidal. So, she is aware that there is some possibility that her child may be genocidal (which is real life rather than hypothetical). Should she conceive?

Certainly, if you could define the 'physical'. As far as I can tell, the natural and the physical are synonymous.

Touche'. You pose a difficult problem. The best I can do for the moment is to say the "physical" is that constituted of matter and/or energy in some form. But I'm not sure that definition is sufficient for our discussion. Also, I wouldn't say it is a synonym of "natural." I would say more, that "physical" must be contained in everything "natural," but that "natural" is something more than that.

I disagree. It follows from quantum mechanics. Consider our number sequence: if I make a function that satisfies those numbers, and you reveal the next number, how likely is it that my function still works? Quite unlikely. But if my function does work, and it works again and again, it would seem I've stumbled upon the winning formula.

But this is besides the point. We don't come to quantum mechanics through a backdoor approach. Modern quantum theory starts with some basic premises, and work its way towards conclusions. Thus far, it's proven itself incredibly accurate. One of the consequences of QM is genuine randomness.

The point is that there is no known deterministic model that accounts for the various phenomena QM associates with randomness (e.g., radioactive decay). It's somewhat more complex than fitting points to a curve; the physical theory by which we explain all small-scale phenomena can explain things like radioactive decay and quantum tunnelling, and it does this using randomness.

The overarching model is very well evidenced. This means that all its conclusions, however counter-intuitive or theologically damaging, are just as well evidenced.

Again you're trying to distinguish my number sequence from the way QM was acquired. I don't see the distinction. Who is to say my number sequence wasn't the measurement of something "natural?" Give me a premise for that sequence, and then test it (actually I'm not sure I kept the generating function, so I'd have to start over if you took that challenge). Isn't that what you're saying was done for QM?

What has surprised me about the history of science is the vast number of theories for natural phenomena, and the poverty of information from which they started. Many of them came from "rational" thought, not really from "observation." And it's not as if one theory was so much more self-evident than another. Often the winner came from the rhetorical (or political, etc.) abilities of its supporters. People are very clever at curve fitting, and then manage to deceive themselves that the result is "real" or "truthful" because of their success. I apologize for repeating myself, but Nagel's argument applies here. Whether it be the First Law or concepts like "stiffness" and the other things I work with on a daily basis, there is nothing that will falsify those concepts. It's all a matter of parsimony.

One such conclusion is genuine randomness.
Thus, genuine randomness is at least as well supported as quantum mechanics.

So, I don't dispute the usefulness of an idea of randomness. But you still have not proven it. Give me a "theory of randomness." I would think something that is purely random would have a uniform distribution across infinity.

I'm not sure what steps have been taken, other than a rather nebulous use of the word 'infinite', but go ahead. The worst that happens is I'm exposed to the truth, right?

I'm sorry for disappointing you. It just seems we have other issues to nail down before this would be of any value. And those issues seem to be the same ones we left unresolved in prior threads. I guess there's no getting round them.