Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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...
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.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.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?
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.
Well, something doesn´t seem to add up here.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.
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.As I understand it, the "set" called "nature" has been defined, and it is finite.
People can be happy.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.
Hence why I mentioned ghosts. If ghosts existed, would you consider them supernatural?I don't believe angels always manifest in the same way. They manifest based on the purpose God has given them.
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.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'm a physicistLet me ask then, is your "nature" finite?
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.
If infinity is not included in nature - would natural sciences have to stop using mathematics for their tools?
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.
Hence why I mentioned ghosts. If ghosts existed, would you consider them 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'.
I'm a physicistWhat do you mean by 'finite'? Finite in spacial length? Temporal duration? In possibilities? In multitude of contained entities?
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).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.
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?Yeah, I guess so. I'm still wondering if there is a point to this question.
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.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.
Spatially? Unknown.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?
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).
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?
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.
Spatially? Unknown.
Temporally? Unknown.
In possibilities? Yes, possible
In multitude? Probably not.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Claim: The universe is spatially finite.So, the first step would be to posit a hypothesis. Do you have one for these categories?
Threads evolve as the focus of conversation changes.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
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?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).
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.
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.
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.
Claim: The universe is spatially finite.
Test: Fly to the edge of universe.
Threads evolve as the focus of conversation changes.
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?
No, since she's not all-knowing.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?
Certainly, if you could define the 'physical'. As far as I can tell, the natural and the physical are synonymous.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?
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.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'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?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.
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.
No, since she's not all-knowing.
But the premise was if she knew.
Certainly, if you could define the 'physical'. As far as I can tell, the natural and the physical are synonymous.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?