Originally posted by knightmeister
My guess is that this is the case , but I don't know as such.

So you guess that God created the universe but you do not know it? Or am I misunderstanding?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you guess that God created the universe but you do not know it? Or am I misunderstanding?

I do not even know if God exists for certain. It's my belief that it's impossible to know anything for certain or prove anything for certain (Goedel) . Man is in the position of having to place his bets for what he sees as his best reasons for doing so. Faith is a universal system all men use.

In this context I do not believe that the universe popped out of nowhere.

I cannot know (with scientific certainty) that God created the universe any more than you can know that it popped out of zilch. You have your faith , I have mine , the difference is I am not in denial about my faith.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not even know if God exists for certain. It's my belief that it's impossible to know anything for certain or prove anything for certain (Goedel) . Man is in the position of having to place his bets for what he sees as his best reasons for doing so. Faith is a universal system all men use.

In this context I do not believe that the universe pop ...[text shortened]... ilch. You have your faith , I have mine , the difference is I am not in denial about my faith.

I am in denial about my faith? What makes you think that?

I can know with scientific certainty that my computer exists. I can know with scientific certainty the approximate age of the earth and how it was formed.
Why can I not know with scientific certainty how the universe started? (and no, I don't believe that it popped out of Zilch).

I believe it is incoherent to talk of mathematical proof with regards to reality without some basic axioms. If we do however admit some axioms then some things can definitely be "proved for certain."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am in denial about my faith? What makes you think that?

I can know with scientific certainty that my computer exists. I can know with scientific certainty the approximate age of the earth and how it was formed.
Why can I not know with scientific certainty how the universe started? (and no, I don't believe that it popped out of Zilch).

I believe i ...[text shortened]... . If we do however admit some axioms then some things can definitely be "proved for certain."

Why can I not know with scientific certainty how the universe started? ---whitey---

.....because once you know with certainty how it started then you will have found the cause of the universe starting. Therefore , having found the cause of the universe starting you would then have to find how the cause of the universe starting started. Once you explain that and find out how that started you then need to find out how that started. ........zzzzz.....etc etc.

So even if you did know how the universe started with "scientific certainty" you would still not have the answer. You would have an incomplete system (as Goedel showed) which requires further explanation.

Goedel showed that any explanation or "proof" just leads on to further questions. You can never close the system. That's what God is like -- an eternal unclosed system that just has no beginning or end. An eternal God is far more in line with Goedel than any scientific "explanation" because the idea of eternity accepts an open system whereas scientific "certainty" looks for a closed system that can never really happen.

Originally posted by knightmeister
.....because once you know with certainty how it started then you will have found the cause of the universe starting. Therefore , having found the cause of the universe starting you would then have to find how the cause of the universe starting started. Once you explain that and find out how that started you then need to find out how that started. .... whereas scientific "certainty" looks for a closed system that can never really happen.

What absolute nonsense you come up with sometimes!

Why do you claim that science must necessarily be looking for some closed system? You are such a typical theist, drawing lines around science and saying: "If you step over that you are dead". Then science steps over it. You move your line back a few feet and repeat.

Of course your whole God concept is little more than an attempt to hide the fact that it does not answer any question whatsoever but rather attempts to make unsubstantiated claims.
In the first part of your post you are essentially saying:
1. everything has a cause and thus there must be an infinite causal chain.
Then you proceed with:
2. Infinite causal chains are impossible, or at best unknowable.
Then you come up with:
3. My God does not have a cause thus breaking the infinite causal chain.
But that contradicts 1.
Of course throughout it is all based on the assumption that causal chains are necessary yet you give no reasoning to support such an assumption and there is no scientific reason that I know of to support such an assumption. In fact, current science strongly suggests the opposite.
You also ignore a number of other possibilities such as finite time etc.
The worst part of it all is that you then imply, by the use of the label 'God' that your solution directly implies your other claims about God which in fact it does not. You would be far better off merely calling your concept 'eternity' and not 'God'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What absolute nonsense you come up with sometimes!

Why do you claim that science must necessarily be looking for some closed system? You are such a typical theist, drawing lines around science and saying: "If you step over that you are dead". Then science steps over it. You move your line back a few feet and repeat.

Of course your whole God concept ...[text shortened]... s not. You would be far better off merely calling your concept 'eternity' and not 'God'.

I touched a nerve eh?

Think about it , if you explain something in terms of something else then you must also find an explanation for that thing which you use to do the explaning. The whole point is that ultimately life is a huge mystery for which there is no explanation.

Thesim does not seek to explain why God is there , it seeks to express the mystery that God just "IS" .

You said that you thought that science could explain how the universe started. I do not think anyone can explain how God started.

I do not think everything has to have a cause , I think that everything which we seek to explain "how it started" must have a cause.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I touched a nerve eh?

No. Why do you always think that? Are you one of those people who is convinced that everyone else is a closet theist?

Think about it , if you explain something in terms of something else then you must also find an explanation for that thing which you use to do the explaning. The whole point is that ultimately life is a huge mystery for which there is no explanation.
I more or less agree with that. But that doesn't mean that the computer in front of me does not exist nor does it mean I cannot explain its existence in terms of something else. It only means I have no 'ultimate' explanation. And I don't particularly want one.

Thesim does not seek to explain why God is there , it seeks to express the mystery that God just "IS" .
In other words it brings nothing new to the table, and explains nothing. So why bring it up in the first place? It is not an answer not even an attempt at one.

You said that you thought that science could explain how the universe started. I do not think anyone can explain how God started.
Oh? When did I say that?
It was you that was making claims about the universe not me. You said God created the universe. Now you say he is one big mystery. Which is it?

I do not think everything has to have a cause , I think that everything which we seek to explain "how it started" must have a cause.
And why do you think that? And stop trying to pretend that it is obvious or proven. If you throw a dice and it shows a 6, you wont know why and science tells us that you cannot know why. I guess your answer is God did it. But you still don't know why God did it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. Why do you always think that? Are you one of those people who is convinced that everyone else is a closet theist?

[b]Think about it , if you explain something in terms of something else then you must also find an explanation for that thing which you use to do the explaning. The whole point is that ultimately life is a huge mystery for which there i ...[text shortened]... t know why. I guess your answer is God did it. But you still don't know why God did it.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding happening here.

I'm basically saying that as soon as we say the universe can be explained and we can say how it started or what caused it this immediately begs the question of "how do we explain the explanation?"

You said "Why can I not know with scientific certainty how the universe started?" ---whitey---

My answer was that any explanation of "how the universe started" would not be complete without an explanation of the explanation.

One could say that "the universe started via a quantum singularity" but it immediately begs the question "is the quantum singularity to be considered part of the universe?" If not then what is it and how did it get there? This is of course brings us either to an infinite regress of explanations or the realisation that there is something out there that requires or has no explanation because it just "IS".

What all this means is that whatever explanation you come up with for the universe starting is bound to be incomplete and just as much of a mystery as it seeks to solve.

Maybe you are just happy with the idea that the universe started via (eg- a singularity) and just want to leave it at that thinking that somehow your explanation just solves the problem?

I think what you need to do is realise what the philosophical implications of Goedel's theory was and why it drove him potty. He probably realised that no explanation could ever be complete or sufficient and it just didn't appeal to his rational mind. He stumbled on what mystics have known for centuries via intuition. All rigidly rational thinkers find it hard to deal with the idea of mystery and absolutes (you said yourself that you "don't want one"😉 because it takes them out of the idea that everything can be in theory understood and explained.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Everything you have said in your first section (above the first dividing line) is correct within the interpretation you have laid out. However, I submit again that this particular interpretation does not faithfully preserve premise 1 of the fatalist argument. This is the point I was trying to address in an earlier post when I made the distinction betwee ...[text shortened]... ’. (same as Premise 3’&rsquo😉.
4’’’. (same as Premise 4’&rsquo😉.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight in my own head—

A. My “tautological interpretation” certainly is not the standard fatalist understanding; it certainly does not entail causal necessity. (Thanks for your explication on that). Nevertheless—

B. My understanding of your comments to tw is that a person, G, need not hold a belief “in such a way that it could not be mistaken” in order for G to justifiably claim (fore)knowledge. (Am I correct there?)

However, if it turns out that G was mistaken, then, in fact, G did not know—by definition (at least under what I understand is the standard definition of knowing). That is, it seems that G can, prior to the unfolding of actual events, justifiably claim to know, but that this claim can prove, ex post facto, to be false.

I just want to add, that it seems to me for G to justifiably claim (fore)knowledge, G must at least hold the expectation that event E will occur (say, on the basis of subjective probability calculation)—else, it seems to me the word “belief” loses its meaning. To believe that E is/will be the case is a stronger claim than just to think that E might be or could be the case, even if one does not claim (fore)knowledge.

C. Re your addition of the word infallibly to the mix—well, first off, I’m embarrassed that I just didn’t think of that...

But, the theists claim for 3-O-G is that G’s “expectation” (or “belief” ) is infallible. That is, the claim is minimally that G’s (fore)knowledge of E will be confirmed ex post facto.

Actually, I think the claim needs to be stronger than that: I think it needs to (and undoubtedly does) entail that G knows that his (fore)knowledge is infallible. In a sense, G is omniscient with regard to G’s own omniscience.

So (and again breaking apart your 1.)—

(1) G knows that S will A.

(2) Such knowledge on the part of G is infallible.

(3) G knows that such knowledge is infallible.

(4) S does not A.

—But, (4) results in a contradiction. I think that justifies:

(4&rsquo😉 It is necessary that S will do A.

(5), (6) and (7) follow your 3”, 4”, 5”.

Comments/corrections?

Originally posted by vistesd
Let me see if I’ve got this straight in my own head—

A. My “tautological interpretation” certainly is not the standard fatalist understanding; it certainly does not entail causal necessity. (Thanks for your explication on that). Nevertheless—

B. My understanding of your comments to tw is that a person, G, need not hold a belief “in such a way that ...[text shortened]... necessary that S will do A.

(5), (6) and (7) follow your 3”, 4”, 5”.

Comments/corrections?

May I come in here....?

You said...

(1) G knows that S will A. (KM- Yes , but for God it's not "will" but has)

(2) Such knowledge on the part of G is infallible. (KM-Yes)

(3) G knows that such knowledge is infallible. (KM-Yes)

(4) S does not A. (KM-No-this is not possible because it's already happened - S did B then 1. would change and God would know S will do B )

—But, (4) results in a contradiction. I think that justifies:

(4&rsquo😉 It is necessary that S will do A. (KM- No - until S reaches point A in time then A has not happened for S - but for God it has happened. Therefore , until S reaches point A in time S can do what he likes )

(5), (6) and (7) follow your 3”, 4”, 5”.

Comments/corrections?


I would refine this model to say .

1) S can do A or B at point T2 in time

2) God is present at point T2 in time and knows S doing A (or doing B)

So far no problem...

3) God is present at both T1 and T2 in time and knows T2 infallibly .

4)Whatever S does at T2 (A or B) is known by God in eternity.

5) Until S reaches T2 then T2 is not set for him and A or B could still occur.

6) S will choose A or B at T2 and T2 is known by God

Originally posted by knightmeister
May I come in here....?

You said...

(1) G knows that S will A. (KM- Yes , but for God it's not "will" but has)

(2) Such knowledge on the part of G is infallible. (KM-Yes)

(3) G knows that such knowledge is infallible. (KM-Yes)

(4) S does not A. (KM-No-this is not possible because it's already happened - S did B then 1. would change and ...[text shortened]... r him and A or B could still occur.

6) S will choose A or B at T2 and T2 is known by God

(KM-No-this is not possible because it's already happened - S did B then 1. would change and God would know S will do B ) (my italics)

Well, I deliberately stated (4) as the contradiction (for a reduction ad absurdum).

However, if it is not possible that S will do anything other than A, then how is A not determined?

How is (S will A) not determined?

Can God alter the universe so that A does not happen?

(KM- No - until S reaches point A in time then A has not happened for S - but for God it has happened. Therefore, until S reaches point A in time S can do what he likes )

First, at that point T(A), can S do anything other than A?

Second, is S’s action at (TA) totally unaffected by anything the S has done, experienced, thought prior to that time?

Third, with regard to your refinement, I am more and more convinced that this “timeless” talk is simply incoherent—whether we use phrases like “outside of time”, or “eternity”, or “timeless” or... And I now regret my own contributions to it.

For example: You say that “A has not happened for S”, but that “for God it has happened.” That makes absolutely no sense to me. A has either happened or it has not. If A has not happened, then either it will or it won’t. On my original inference in this thread, if A will not happen in this universe, it will not happen at all (unless, of course, God’s “best of all possible worlds” includes manifold universes, for which it is best that A happens in one but not another).

Originally posted by vistesd
[b](KM-No-this is not possible because it's already happened - S did B then 1. would change and God would know S will do B ) (my italics)

Well, I deliberately stated (4) as the contradiction (for a reduction ad absurdum).

However, if it is not possible that S will do anything other than A, then how is A not determined?

Ho ...[text shortened]... rlds” includes manifold universes, for which it is best that A happens in one but not another).[/b]

However, if it is not possible that S will do anything other than A, then how is A not determined?

How is (S will A) not determined? ----visted-----


A is not determined "in advance" as such but has been set because it has already happened for God. A will be determined by S in the present moment when S reaches that moment. But until S reaches that point in time A is not determined. The hard bit to understand is that for God S is already there but for S he is not there at T2.


Another way of thinking about this is to imagine you have a time machine that takes you back to 1938 . You know that Hitler will choose to invade poland in a year's time but you only know this because Hitler has (for you) already done this. Does this prove that Hitler could never have done anything else? If so how?

For Hitler in 1938 he is still yet to make that choice , for you it is history , but the choice has not been determined "in advance" , it has been determined by Hitler in 1939. Your past knowledge of 1939 enables you to know this. Hitler's 1939 choice does not have to be "determined" for you to know it. You know that Hitler "will" choose to invade poland because that's what he did in the end , but that does not prove that he could never have invaded France first instead , the fact that he didn't proves that he didn't , NOT that he could NEVER have.

In this sense until Hitler reaches 1939 he can do whatever he likes but for you he has already chosen to do whatever he likes and what he liked was invading poland. The fact that you have this information in 1938 might show that you have advance knowledge of Hitler's free choice in 1939 , or it might show he was always destined to invade poland - who is to say though? The reason it's inconclusive is because if he had freely chosen to invade france instead then THAT would be the information we would have with us in our time machine instead.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b](KM-No-this is not possible because it's already happened - S did B then 1. would change and God would know S will do B ) (my italics)

Well, I deliberately stated (4) as the contradiction (for a reduction ad absurdum).

However, if it is not possible that S will do anything other than A, then how is A not determined?

Ho ...[text shortened]... rlds” includes manifold universes, for which it is best that A happens in one but not another).[/b]

You say that “A has not happened for S”, but that “for God it has happened.” That makes absolutely no sense to me. --visted----


Why? For you 1939 has already happened , but for Hitler in 1938 it hasn't happened yet. For someone living in the particular dimension of time we might call 2078 , you are already dead. For you , you are alive. Who is right ? Maybe you are both right? Maybe you are both looking at time from different points within the time dimension?

Time is relative. It's just a dimension like all the others.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think there's a huge misunderstanding happening here.

Yes there is. You keep attributing thoughts and ideas to me that I have never held nor expressed.

I'm basically saying that as soon as we say the universe can be explained and we can say how it started or what caused it this immediately begs the question of "how do we explain the explanation?"
And I have no objections to that. What I object to is your claim that your God idea does any better or even worse that it is somehow implied.

You said "Why can I not know with scientific certainty how the universe started?" ---whitey---

My answer was that any explanation of "how the universe started" would not be complete without an explanation of the explanation.
I never said it was. But it is an explanation non the less - one you claimed could not be given.

I think what you need to do is realise what the philosophical implications of Goedel's theory was and why it drove him potty. He probably realised that no explanation could ever be complete or sufficient and it just didn't appeal to his rational mind. He stumbled on what mystics have known for centuries via intuition. All rigidly rational thinkers find it hard to deal with the idea of mystery and absolutes (you said yourself that you "don't want one"😉 because it takes them out of the idea that everything can be in theory understood and explained.
I haven't studied Goedel's theory, but I do understand what you are saying. I however disagree with your claims about mystics etc. I find that most mystics and theists think they have solved the problem when in fact all they have done is hide it.
Again, you are projecting thoughts on me that I do not have. I have no problem with mystery etc etc. You are arguing with your own strawman not with me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes there is. You keep attributing thoughts and ideas to me that I have never held nor expressed.

[b]I'm basically saying that as soon as we say the universe can be explained and we can say how it started or what caused it this immediately begs the question of "how do we explain the explanation?"
And I have no objections to that. What I object t ...[text shortened]... problem with mystery etc etc. You are arguing with your own strawman not with me.[/b]

I'm basically saying that as soon as we say the universe can be explained and we can say how it started or what caused it this immediately begs the question of "how do we explain the explanation?" ---KM---

And I have no objections to that. What I object to is your claim that your God idea does any better or even worse that it is somehow implied. ----WHITEY----

RESPONSE---

The reason why the God idea does better is because it is based on an acceptance of the essence of the problem. Rather than look for further explanations which then create further problems , the God idea just simply accepts that there must be something beyond explanation or cause which is boundless both in terms of time/ causality and existence.

Rather than look for "closure" , the God idea accepts and embraces what reality seems to be saying to us at the ultimate end of things. What we try to do when explaning something is to draw a line under it , as if to say "Ok we have explained that , now let's move on to something else". What the God idea does is say " maybe there is no line that can be drawn and ultimately that's the reality that we must embrace. It says that there is something in existence which has no explanation in terms of something else because it just IS and always has been.

The reason why this is a better solution is that an infinite regress of causes and explanations is not needed.