Regarding Franko...

[BillyJoe]

Franko,

Why is it acceptable, in your view, for A-Theists to have an “illusion of “free will””, but unacceptable for other Theists to have their own Religious illusions – like God, Karma, or afterlife?

I am happy for theists to have an "illusion of God" because the "illusion of God" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of God", which is real, makes it seem as if "God" is real. "God", however, is not real.

To make this clearer, let us consider for a moment the perfect example of an illusion: the optical illusion.....

Have a look again at the square in the "Color-bleeding Illusion" and the shades of grey in the "Checker-board Illusion. You really do seem to see them don't you? Everyone does. In fact, at first blush, you are willing to swear that they are there. But they are not. And you can prove to yourself. There is no square or different shades of grey out there. Using Paintshop you can flood the square as if is not there - because it isn't - and you can cut out and overlap the shades of grey to show that they are not radically different - they are identical. So they are not out there even though they seem to be. But there are representations of them in our brains. Which is why we all seem to see them out there.

Optical illusions, therefore, are real because we all have representations of them in our brains which is why we all seem to see them out there when they are actually not out there.

Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Not at all [I don't have the illusion of free will]. I am a Fatalist. All that happens to me is the direct result of the Laws of Physics. I would only be kidding myself if I believed otherwise.

Franko, the "illusion of free will" is merely seeming to have "free will". The "illusion of free will" doesn't disappear because you have investigated the matter and discovered that there is no "free will".

Everyone has an "illusion of free will". We live every moment of our whole lives as if we have "free will". Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "free will" we still have the "illusion of free will". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

[Franko expanding on Fate as evidence for God]

TLOP controls YOU
YOU control a CAR.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR.

You want to claim that you are a superior consciousness to BOTH your CAR, and TLOP. This is a serious logical contradiction on your part.

We are back to your simple and complex question about whether a car is conscious.

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious. It obviously isn't.
The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.

So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

On the left is simplicity and, on the right is increasing evolved complexity - with artifacts containing within them the complexity of the entities that produced them.

It's more a question of evolution than control.

Right … ...[free will is] an illusion – NOT real. Just like you believe of the Christian God, and the concept of “afterlife”. So if they are ALL illusions, then why is “free willy” okay for you’re a-Theist friends, while God and afterlife are unacceptable?

Well "free will" shouldn't be okay for a materialist.

The only way it is okay for a materialist to believe in "free will" is if he redefines the term so as to make it okay. But, in my opinion this just confuses the issue. "Free will" implies something beyond physics and chemistry and I do not see the point in removing that extra something out of "free will" so as to make it okay for a materialist to believe in it.

Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.

It's the evolutionary process producing entities of increasing complexity. At some period in time that complexity produces consciousness. TLOP are not conscious at all and human artifacts represent a higher consciousness than humans because they imply the existence of humans capable of producing them.

So a Theist is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?

They are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.

The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend?

Well, if you accept that a human artifact represents a higher consciousness than the individual humans who produced it, then an astronaut controlling a rocket would be an example of a lesser consciousness controlling a higher consciousness.

Is this really that difficult for you to grasp [that consciousness creates matter], My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.....

....and energy is a zero sum.....

.....It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.....

....or perhaps a quantum fluctuation split zero energy into the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity......

....But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns.

.....or the matter/gravity, constrained by TLOP, created patterns which acted as the sieve of natural selection driving the evolution of entities which, of course, recogize these patterns.

That [TLOP being less conscious then you] is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code.

.....it's turtles all the way up.....

That original programmer is a program in the computer of another programmer who is a program in the computer of yet another programmer who .... etc etc etc

.....and turtles all the way down.....

The original program produces a program which runs in a computer and that program produces another program which runs in another computer and that program produces yet another program which he runs in yet another computer and that program....etc etc etc.

Perhaps the last turtle/program produces the first turtle/program creating a self-sustaining loop?

....or perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation.....

The point is that no one really knows. The only way we can know anything is through science and that is where I prefer to firmly plant my feet. I enjoy speculating and imagining like everyone else but I don't imagine that pure imagining will reveal The Truth

If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU.

I have offered an explanation above which you may or may not find acceptable. Be that as it may, you cannot use the inability to explain something as evidence for God. That is "God of the Gaps".

There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.

Yes......

Darwinian evolution is about the origin of species.
Darwinian evolution is not about abiogenesis.

But no.....

I am not bringing up Darwin as an argument for abiogenesis.
I am saying that life could have evolved.

I am using the word "evolve" generically.

You are the one making “science” equivalent to “God”. I am simply pointing out that this is what you are doing

I am not making this equivalence. On the contrary, what I am saying is....

Science is objective.
God is subjective.
God sits in the gaps.
Science fills in the gaps.

There is no equivalence between the two.

 

[BillyJoe]

Impy Timpy,

Have you not heard the term "cartesian dualism"?
Descartes believed in "mind" and "brain" not "mind is brain".

BillyJoe.

 

[BillyJoe]

Aoidoi,

Piss off

BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

We are in complete agreement. However what I am saying is not only that we act as if "free will" is real, but that for all practical reasons we must do so. If we want a functional society and if we want concepts such as ethics and laws to have any meaning, that is.

My God, I think we are.

BillyJoe.

 

[Checkmite]

I asked Franko a while ago what proved (for him) that God exists. He told me that it was logic, something like "2+2=4". I asked him to elaborate, but he ignored me. Yet, this allegory is flawed.

By saying "it's as simple as 2 + 2 = 4", I assume Franko means that "Something" + "Something" = "Proof there is a God". But this simply does not work, because the expression "2 + 2", while it does indeed equal 4, most certainly does not prove the existence of 4, nor should it be the criteria which leads someone to "believe" in 4. 4 already exists, the expression "2 + 2 = 4" just indicates how it relates to other numbers. Thus, by saying that "believing in God" is as simple as "2 + 2 = 4", one is plainly stating that the existence of God is already assumed, and that terms "x" and "y" are merely compatible with that presumption.

Second, even supposing that the "2 + 2 = 4" allegory is valid, Franko cannot reasonably be upset with us for not understanding when he doesn't define "2". Does 2 = Fate, for example? "Fate + Fate = Proof there is a God"? Or does 2 = Consciousness? Can something added to itself equal evidence of God?

Perhaps it would be better if we had more than two integers to work with - "1 + 3 = 4" for example. That way it may follow a little easier, and we come up with "Fate + Consciousness = Proof there is a God".

But even in this case, we're dealing with uncertain terms. The exact natures of the integers "Fate" and "Consciousness" are unknown, and the actual existence of the integer "Proof there is a God" is questionable.

But using a "mathematical" allegory won't work, for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post - no matter whether you use addition, subtraction, long division, or vector calculus. One set of numbers simply does not prove the existence of another set, even if the two are equal.

 

[Upchurch]

But using a "mathematical" allegory won't work, for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post - no matter whether you use addition, subtraction, long division, or vector calculus. One set of numbers simply does not prove the existence of another set, even if the two are equal.

While I agree that a simple mathematical formula would be insufficient to prove a vastly complex concept like God, I don't know that I agree that it would be completely impossible. Physics does this all the time. Granted, the premisises (sp?) used in theoretical physics are varified empircally.
However, for the sake of argument, should we have a set of reasonable assumptions, it might be possible to derive a logical (or mathematical) proof of god based soley on those reasonable assumptions. It might also not be possible. I guess it really depends on how tight or loose you want your assumptions to be.

Not that I agree or disagree with Franko's position that god can be logically determined (hell, I've never even heard what his logical proof is), but I don't think it is theoretically impossible to come up with a good proof. I just haven't heard one that wasn't based on really loose assumptions.

Upchurch

 

[Checkmite]

Well Upchurch....I see what you're trying to say, but I still disagree.

Mathematical theorems are proven through (however complex) equations...but this is something different. A theorem is a way of explaining how this set of quantative observations or predictions can be related to or reconciled with that set. It's a "method", in other words...and when proving them, no new terms are discovered...we use the same integers, exponents, sin/cos (etc), and values that have always been there...we simply arrange them in different configurations until we find one that works...it may take us a while to figure out the right process; but once it's figured out, we say "of course, that's the only way it could have worked".

But the mathematical term "God" (reverting to the allegory) has not been shown to exist yet. It's not a function, to be sure - it would be an integer, the way it is used. But since the very existence of this integer is the matter in question, we cannot actually use it in an expression unless we assume it exists.

Like I said, 2 + 2 = 4, just as surely as -3(-6) / 9 + 2 = 4...but we've never needed any equation to "deduce" the very existence of the number 4.

However, you are right...while he has gone on and on about how "it's easy as 1-2-3", Franko has never once shown the actual logical steps which lead him to believe in God - he's never "defined the terms", so to speak. I must correct my earlier post....I asked him twice to do this. The first time, he did ignore me, but the second time, he said "It looks as if you may not be compatible with the information", whatever the hell that means.

 

[CWL]

I have also asked Franko to explain his chain of reasoning on several occasions. This has always resulted in special pleading and statements that I "could not be expected to understand as an A-Theist" etc.

To such nonsense I think it is more than appropriate to respond with the old Swedish saying "Foggy speech, foggy thoughts".

 

[Upchurch]

Like I said, 2 + 2 = 4, just as surely as -3(-6) / 9 + 2 = 4...but we've never needed any equation to "deduce" the very existence of the number 4.

Sorry, jkorosi, but I'm afraid I must still disagree with you in principle here. Previously unknown phenomena have indeed been deduced through mathematics. For examples, the constancy of the speed of light or the existance of black holes. Both were deduced mathematically before their existance was verified (edited to add: or even imagined).

I will point out that things that there are also things that have been proven mathematically that have been later patently proven to be false. Along the same lines of my examples above, I would point to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (which incidently was never taken as a serious physical phenomena but recognized as a flaw in the then current theory).

I would also like to point out that none of these phenomena were assumed to be true first and then the proof made to back it up. In these cases, the math suggested the phenomena first and then it was identified.

The only way to know which of these catagories Franko's 1-2-3 proof belongs to is to examine the proof itself.
Upchurch

 

[Franko]

Billyjoe,

I am happy for theists to have an "illusion of God" because the "illusion of God" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of God", which is real, makes it seem as if "God" is real. "God", however, is not real.

I am happy for A-Theists to have an "illusion of free will" because the "illusion of free will" is real. The problem is that the "illlusion of free will", which is real, makes it seem as if "free will" is real. "free will", however, is not real.

BTW … God is real …

To make this clearer, let us consider for a moment the perfect example of an illusion: the optical illusion.....

Have a look again at the square in the "Color-bleeding Illusion" and the shades of grey in the "Checker-board Illusion. You really do seem to see them don't you? Everyone does. In fact, at first blush, you are willing to swear that they are there. But they are not. And you can prove to yourself. There is no square or different shades of grey out there. Using Paintshop you can flood the square as if is not there - because it isn't - and you can cut out and overlap the shades of grey to show that they are not radically different - they are identical. So they are not out there even though they seem to be. But there are representations of them in our brains. Which is why we all seem to see them out there.

Optical illusions, therefore, are real because we all have representations of them in our brains which is why we all seem to see them out there when they are actually not out there.

Like the optical illusion, the "illusion of free will" and the "illusion of God" are also real but, like the square and the different shades of grey, "Free will" and "God" are not there.

Well, I’d say you are half right.

Franko, the "illusion of free will" is merely seeming to have "free will". The "illusion of free will" doesn't disappear because you have investigated the matter and discovered that there is no "free will".

Speak for yourself. You have no idea how I perceive reality.

… unless you are claiming to read minds?

Everyone has an "illusion of free will".

Again -- Speak for yourself. I don’t have it, neither do any of the other LD. Ask the Wraith if he experiences the “illusion of free will”.

Your claim is as absurd as me claiming that ALL A-Theists experience the “illusion of God”, or the “illusion of afterlife”, or all A-Theists experience the “illusion of invisible pink dragons living in their garage”.

We live every moment of our whole lives as if we have "free will".

Speak for YOURSELF!

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "free will" we still have the "illusion of free will". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "God" we still have the "illusion of God". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

Even when we realize that there is no such thing as "afterlife" we still have the "illusion of afterlife". You really aren't wanting to deny this are you?

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

We are back to your simple and complex question about whether a car is conscious.

The simple answer is that a car is not conscious. It obviously isn't.

Well …technically you can’t say that it is NOT conscious. Technically you can only claim that YOU are more conscious. If you want to precisely define consciousness, then perhaps, you could claim the CAR is NOT conscious. Do you have a definition of consciousness?

The complex answer is that a car is conscious because it is the artifact of a conscious being.

Just like YOU are a conscious artifact of TLOP?

So we actually have an evolutionary process...

TLOP -> -> -> non-conscious entities -> -> -> transitionally conscious entities -> -> -> conscious entities -> -> - > artifacts

Is this what you call a proof Billyjoe? This looks more like a logical contradiction to me. You are simply CLAIMING that TLOP is non-conscious. You might as well be claiming that your CAR is more conscious then you are. Why the contradiction? You have done nothing to explain it, you have simply asserted that there is NO contradiction.

But your assertion is no proof; it’s just an assertion.

TLOP controls YOU controls CAR

On the left is simplicity and, on the right is increasing evolved complexity - with artifacts containing within them the complexity of the entities that produced them.

So if complexity increase to the right, then you are claiming that your CAR is more conscious then YOU are!!! So is your CAR GOD Billyjoe?

It's more a question of evolution than control.

So you CAR is more evolved than YOU? Without humans, how many CARS would exist?

Well "free will" shouldn't be okay for a materialist.

The only way it is okay for a materialist to believe in "free will" is if he redefines the term so as to make it okay. But, in my opinion this just confuses the issue. "Free will" implies something beyond physics and chemistry and I do not see the point in removing that extra something out of "free will" so as to make it okay for a materialist to believe in it.

Well your “illusions of free will” comments aside, I think we see eye to eye in that this conversation was FATED to happen at this moment, and what you said, and how I would respond was also FATED. The question is will this conversation have any ultimate effect on Your Fate overall?

Franko:
Explain why TLOP is less conscious then you, and try to do more then just claim it is so.

Billyjoe:
It's the evolutionary process producing entities of increasing complexity.

So TLOP produces US … we produce TOASTERS; ergo Toasters are more evolved then we are?

At some period in time that complexity produces consciousness. TLOP are not conscious at all and human artifacts represent a higher consciousness than humans because they imply the existence of humans capable of producing them.

You are thinking of things in terms of “Matter” instead of terms of Energy. Once you envision the Universe as it is (in terms of Energy) then you will see, that there is NO WAY TLOP can be less evolved than you are.

You can make a Toaster, can a Toaster make you?

TLOP can make you, can you make TLOP?

You can’t even comprehend TLOP!

Franko:
So a Theist is JUST as justified in believing in “God” as an A-Theist who believes in “free will”?

Billjoe:
They are both equally unjustified in their belief because neither "free will" nor "God" exist.

I agree.

But, perhaps you should have a chat with CWL and straighten him out. He has deluded himself into believing you agree with him on this point …

Franko:
The evidence is ALL around you. When have you EVER seen a single example of a lesser consciousness controlling a superior one as a trend?

Billyjoe:
Well, if you accept that a human artifact represents a higher consciousness than the individual humans who produced it, then an astronaut controlling a rocket would be an example of a lesser consciousness controlling a higher consciousness.

So you are actually claiming that the Rocket is somehow more conscious then the Astronaut? (at least that is consistent)

Why isn’t the Rocket a “God” then? It is a superior consciousness?

It almost sounds like you are claiming that “God” will one day be a super-intelligent computer algorithm … kind of like TLOP!!!

Franko:
Is this really that difficult for you to grasp [that consciousness creates matter], My Friend? Take a look around you … what do you see? It isn’t what it appears. Everything you see is just Energy.....

Billyjoe:
....and energy is a zero sum.....

Is that what you believe???

Ohhh, I’d love to see you try and prove that assertion Billyjoe. What you say may be True from the POV of a Pseudo-Materialist, but only as a theory. No one has ever been able to prove this claim, nor will they.

Franko:
.....It is consciousness which perceives the Energy as more than it is. Consciousness makes the Energy more than it is. It Elaborates, it creates, it uses its imagination. Energy (“matter”) couldn’t do this on its own. It doesn’t have the ability to evolve. Your mind perceives patterns in Energy, and it interprets them into a story which makes sense to you, yourself.....

Billyjoe:
....or perhaps a quantum fluctuation split zero energy into the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity......

There is only one type of particle in reality … Gravitons. There are two varieties – Posi-Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons. One types produces/creates/generates Energy/”Matter”(Information), the other type destroys/annihilates Energy/”Matter”(Information).

The thing is, that the Anti-Gravitons have this tendency to annihilate themselves. So over time, the Posi-Gravitons are increasing in number relative to the whole.

Franko:
....But those patterns did not appear magically or randomly (same difference) they were all created by consciousness. Without consciousness there are no patterns.
added: in other words, all of the patterns are being created by one Graviton, or another.

Billyjoe:
.....or the matter/gravity, constrained by TLOP, created patterns which acted as the sieve of natural selection driving the evolution of entities which, of course, recognize these patterns.

What you are claiming is that Machines make Minds. All of the evidence indicates that the opposite is TRUE.

Franko:
That [TLOP being less conscious then you] is kind of like two computer programs getting together inside the computer memory, and one of the programs (You) starts telling the other that there is NO EVIDENCE for the PROGAMMER, and that in all likelihood the computer and us programs just spontaneously and randomly appeared out of the void. No Programmer was required to write our code.

BillyJoe:
.....it's turtles all the way up.....

That original programmer is a program in the computer of another programmer who is a program in the computer of yet another programmer who .... etc etc etc

Exactly! Which is what Godel explained.

Essentially you are trying to argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

Are you familiar with Mandelbrot? What you are claiming is analogous to looking at some of the fine detail after generations and generations of recursion on the Mandelbrot set, and claiming that this fine detail is more complex then the original algorithm and program that is generating the fine detail you are observing.

.....and turtles all the way down.....

The original program produces a program which runs in a computer and that program produces another program which runs in another computer and that program produces yet another program which he runs in yet another computer and that program....etc etc etc.

Perhaps the last turtle/program produces the first turtle/program creating a self-sustaining loop?

So now you are the Elephant claiming that Zero and Infinity are the same thing? Let me give you a warning, my Friend. The Elephant made the mistake of looking at Time before he should have. It fried out his little brain.

....or perhaps it was a quantum fluctuation.....

Sure! Why not just claim it was “Magic”?

If your prefer a magical answer to Godel’s solid Math, then knock yourself out, my Friend. Personally I think you are fooling yourself, and you aren’t exactly convincing me that these aren’t religious beliefs on your part.

The point is that no one really knows.

Sure you do – THERE IS NO GOD!

The only way we can know anything is through science and that is where I prefer to firmly plant my feet.

If your definition of “Science” involves calling something FALSE when you have NO EVIDENCE it is FALSE, then I have a different definition of “Science” then you do.

I enjoy speculating and imagining like everyone else but I don't imagine that pure imagining will reveal The Truth.

2 + 2 = 4

So you are claiming that thought experiments are an invalid method of investigation?

If it weren’t for thought experiments, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein would have never been heard of.

Franko:
If there is no evidence for God, then explain why you believe that you are more conscious then your CAR, but TLOP is NOT more conscious then YOU.

Billyjoe:
I have offered an explanation above which you may or may not find acceptable. Be that as it may, you cannot use the inability to explain something as evidence for God. That is "God of the Gaps".

Actually your inability to explain an obvious logically contradiction is what I call A-Theism of the Gaps. It is only God of the Gaps when a Theists dodges logical inconsistencies in Their beliefs. But when you A-Theists use this fallacious argument it is YOUR problem.

Franko:
There’s you’re A-Theism of the gaps I was talking about. Darwin says NOTHING about Abiogenesis, yet you A-Theists ALWAYS bring up Darwin as an argument for Abiogenesis.

Billyjoe:
Yes......

Darwinian evolution is about the origin of species.
Darwinian evolution is not about abiogenesis.

But no.....

I am not bringing up Darwin as an argument for abiogenesis.
I am saying that life could have evolved.

I am using the word "evolve" generically.

Here is a hypothetical conversation between us. Please make any corrections on your side …

Franko: Does Darwin provide any evidence for the origin of Life? In other words, is Darwin a Proof of Abiogenesis?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin only proves evolution (change over time) once life got started. Darwin – in and of himself – says nothing about life’s origin.
Franko: So Darwin provides no proof that Matter makes consciousness?
Billyjoe: No, Darwin does not prove Matter makes consciousness
Franko: So what empirical evidence do you have that Matter makes consciousness is True? It is merely an assumption on your part, is it not? Why even bother to mention Darwin?
Billyjoe: ???

[I claimed that Billyjoe was saying “Science” equals “God” …]
I am not making this equivalence. On the contrary, what I am saying is....

Science is objective.
God is subjective.
God sits in the gaps.
Science fills in the gaps.

There is no equivalence between the two.

Well this is a lot of question begging and unfounded assumptions on your part. I could just as easily claim:

A-Theistic Science is subjective. (No evidence = FALSE???[are you crazy?])
God is objective.
A-theistic Science tries to hide the gaps.
God fills in the gaps.

 

[Aoidoi]

Aoidoi,

Piss off

BillyJoe

Now that is the best idea I've seen in this thread!

 

[Checkmite]

Sorry, jkorosi, but I'm afraid I must still disagree with you in principle here. Previously unknown phenomena have indeed been deduced through mathematics. For examples, the constancy of the speed of light or the existance of black holes. Both were deduced mathematically before their existance was verified (edited to add: or even imagined).

I will point out that things that there are also things that have been proven mathematically that have been later patently proven to be false. Along the same lines of my examples above, I would point to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (which incidently was never taken as a serious physical phenomena but recognized as a flaw in the then current theory).

I would also like to point out that none of these phenomena were assumed to be true first and then the proof made to back it up. In these cases, the math suggested the phenomena first and then it was identified.

All right, all right...you win. I'm wrong - at least in this particular instance. Salut!

The only way to know which of these catagories Franko's 1-2-3 proof belongs to is to examine the proof itself.
Upchurch

I agree. Now...do you think we'll ever be provided with that proof?

 

[Upchurch]

All right, all right...you win. I'm wrong - at least in this particular instance. Salut!

Gratse (sp?). I'm sorry if I seemed to be brow beating you. That wasn't my intent. I've always thought that it is the sign of a great mind to be able to recognize when one is wrong, because that is the only way one can grow. (a lesson far too often ignored)

I agree. Now...do you think we'll ever be provided with that proof?

I cannot say. Of course, such a proof would require clear statement of it's assumptions/premises and a step by step chain of logic. It would have to be understood that the argument is only to be taken within context of the assumptions/premises, which are to be taken as givens.

Actually, I'm kinda interested in this now, on an intellectual level. What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Upchurch

 

[whitefork]

What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Upchurch

If God is (logically) necessary, then no assumptions would be required. You'd merely assume that God does not exist, and then show the (logical) contradition.

Most interesting attempt would be Anselm's, I think (bad paraphrase follows):

God is that which the greater than cannot be imagined.
That which exists only in thought is less great than that which exists in reality.
Therefore God exists in reality.

Always brings down the house.

 

[Upchurch]

God is that which the greater than cannot be imagined.
That which exists only in thought is less great than that which exists in reality.
Therefore God exists in reality.

Hold the phone, I remember ol' Anselm from Mideval Philosophy in college! I wrote a paper where I found a way to quantify god based on his and Augustine's writings. I gotta find that paper! That'd be loads of fun on here.

If I remember right, I created a variable, X, that was representative of something like a things cosmic significance. I could be off, but I think that
X = 0 was nothingness
0 < X <= 0.5 was plantlife
0.5 < X < 1 were animals
X = 1 was humanity
1 < X < infinity were all the celestrial critters that they wrote about.
X = infinity being the greatest thing that is, was God.

I had references where I justfied each step and what not. I gotta find that paper....

Upchurch

 

[Upchurch]

I gotta find that paper....

heh heh heh! I found a hard copy (with my prof's notes )

I'll type it back up when I get the chance and let you folks rip 'er to shreds. Might be a fun change of pace....

Upchurch

 

[wraith]

What would be the minimal amount of assumptions that would have to be made in order to logically deduce the existance of god? Might be a fun mind puzzle.

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

Come on churchy, it's not hard!

 

[Upchurch]

Can you create something more conscious than yourself?
Do you control TLOP?

Franko,

oh, excuse me, "wraith"

What on earth does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

Upchurch

 

[Checkmite]

Gratse (sp?). I'm sorry if I seemed to be brow beating you. That wasn't my intent. I've always thought that it is the sign of a great mind to be able to recognize when one is wrong, because that is the only way one can grow. (a lesson far too often ignored)

No, I didn't take it that way at all. I honestly hadn't thought about it...it hadn't occurred to me then, about the black holes and such. In fact, now that I think about it, the existence of Hawking radiation was also deduced from math. But you are right...and I feel no shame admitting when I'm wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll type it back up when I get the chance and let you folks rip 'er to shreds. Might be a fun change of pace....

Done and done.

Upchurch