God is not intelligent

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Patricio Da Silva, May 26, 2022.

  1. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So ironic. It is you who is not responding to my points, not the reverse. I never said that one could not consider experience in alternative terms; though if a human can consider from a certain perspective, it is patently false, to my mind, to call that viewpoint "non- human."

    My points had been two. First: that you say, at various times, my meanings were not clear; nevertheless, you answered me with this, so-called, non human perspective, without explaining, at the time, that this was what you were doing. This makes yourself, the worse offender, on that score. So, those in glass houses...


    My second point had been that, even from your later explained perspective, there is no denying that our particular universe, if it is the lucky lottery winner, out of countless other "failures (from the human perspective)," then it is, judged objectively, still extremely " special." IOW, I disagree with your thinking that any given result is unremarkable, in & of itself, within a system in which all possibilities play themselves out. Our own "possibility's" occurrence, would still be an incredible rarity, amongst all the others. How could you not recognize that, and instead, treat it as something mundane?

    I will come back to this, since it is worth discussing, but let me just dispense with this other of your replies, which erroneously purports to be an answer to one of my above described points.

    No point missed, on my part. But I do, now, have a clearer understanding of your own beliefs. To some, it might seem that you are elevating, "Randomity (sic)," to the place of Divine "Spirit." Really, however, the "God," of your belief system, is this Sacred Dynamic, in which all possibilities find manifestations. It reminds me of the assertion put forth by Stephen Hawking-- without any explanation as to HOW this happens (or why)-- at the close of his short series, How to Think Like a Genius, that every decision results in a new universe, continuing from that point, but with some alternate decision being chosen. The irony, in this case, was that Hawking had begun the episode, mocking those in the past who used to believe in the unexplained phenomena of, "magic." Yet, the hypocrite ends his show, talking about his own, "scientific," version of something magical that he believes occurs, though having no real proof of it, and certainly no explanation for it.

    I would make the same observation, in your case. Your accepting that,
    Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
    "Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable,"

    is your own leap of faith, every bit as great as the idea that there might be a central intelligence, to the universe. Why would one assumption be less logical, or more fanciful, than the other? Clearly, your possibility only sounds like a more "rational," option, to you, but that and a dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee.

    So this, if you have any intention of addressing directly, my points, would be my third. I think this is enough, for one post, though I (you will not be surprised to hear) have more to say on the general subject.
     
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    TRue, I could have been clearer on that point (which you highlighted). One of my purposes of publishing my thoughts on this, is to get feedback.

    Thank you.

    However, but let's look at the bigger picture here:

    I do not see any logic, or evidence that is more compelling than the counter argument, which is to say, the science backed argument, that there is no intelligent designer to the universe. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. But, their arguments cannot rule out a spiritual basis to life, either. But it would be wrong to conclude 'spiritual basis' equals 'intelligent design'.

    I do believe in a spiritual basis to life, and I take it on faith, but it is based on my sensibilities, I've sensed the soul, and therefore postulate it's truth therein.

    That it can't be falsified will not be acceptable to science, I understand that, but that's okay given that the point is it won't interfere with science, either, and that is why I take this path. I try to surmise the most spiritual path which does not conflict with science, which also is based on my experience.
     
  3. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you wish to know how well your ideas come across, to others, there are definitely some parts of it that beg for further explication. For example, your underlying predicate-- given infinity, all possibilities will manifest (if my paraphrase is acceptable)-- is not as clear as you may imagine. For, if your postulate is simply that, given endless time, all things will occur, this is manifestly false. For analogs, to clarify my own meaning, look at the people who can live very long lives (relatively speaking) but who accomplish very little, as opposed to others who have very short, yet prolific, lives. Or, look at some towns, where it is small exaggeration, to say, "nothing much ever happens." IOW, Time, alone, does not make things happen. So I assume you are thinking of something more, of some
    Storehouse of potentials, as well. From whence proceeds this, or whatever System you have in mind, which is the provocateur, for change? And how does this conform with science?

    In truth, though it is foreign to our human conception, it would seem that the canvas, upon which Existence has been painted, was never unprimed. There must have been always Something there, that could lead to more. Even if this something were immaterial-- conceptual, or even what we think of as "nothingness," itself-- it had the potential for physicality. This is true of both scientific, as well as spiritual truth, and so the distinguishing between them is not as clear-cut, as you (and many devotees of science) seem to imagine. More about this, in a following post.

    But, for now, back to your bubbling laboratory of possibilities. There would seem to be more conditions to be met, to guarantee ALL POSSIBILITIES, than you are giving due consideration. To once more cut to the chase, for the time being, while it might be possible to imagine some mechanism, to insure what you assume, and even to claim that the "natural" device, while accomplishing a complex task, was not, itself, an Intelligence, any more than would be a computer program, I feel you would be hard-pressed to explain this regulator, guaranteeing continual, and ever-expanding change, as simply a "random," occurrence; and whatever would have set up this device, certainly would qualify, in my mind, as an Intelligence.

     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,909
    Likes Received:
    16,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think your understanding of infinity is lacking here. If this universe is infinite you can't propose limits such as you do.

    If this universe is truly infinite, I don't know how you could even claim that YOU are unique.

    Plus, there isn't anything wrong with random. Let's remember that randomness is one of the contributors to evolution. And, evolution is pretty darn terrific.
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I didn't say 'all things will occur'.

    Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable. Not all things are possible. That's why the statement is quite different than what you wrote.

    What you wrote is false, what I wrote, I don't think is.

    Do you see the difference?

    Well, infinity is the thing that gives birth to the possible. If it's possible, then given infinity, the possible is inevitable. Maybe an astronomical number things have to be in place for life to occur, but, remember, there is no such thing as a large number compared to infinity. Compared to infinity, all numbers are infinitesimal.

    against the backdrop of infinity, something only has to be possible, and if it's possible, given enough time, even a trillion years, it will happen, sooner or later. But, ONLY the possible will happen. Not everything is possible.

    Therefore, if God is anything, it's the abstract concept of infinity plus possible equals inevitable.

    We know life is possible. But, we do not know if infinity is true. However, infinity does exist in the abstract, so I say yes, it's true.
    My axiom rises or falls on the veracity of infinity.

    But, infinity, if it doesn't exist in the physical universe, it does exist in the abstract.

    My gut feeling is that all there is is ultimately is born out of the abstract, and therefore, infinity is real.

    That abstract is not an intelligence, it's a divine, spiritual source, like a fountain spewing water and the water flows in the path of the least resistence, in randomity.
     
  6. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bravo! It takes real gusto to criticize a person's translation of a word, while clearly dispensing with doing any verification of one's own ideas, which are patently wrong. "Infinite," only needs mean, in this case, "endless." There is no reason that a void, an emptiness, a wasteland, a desert, and so forth, cannot be "infinite," or termed as such.

    And I never said that there was "anything wrong with random." It is merely my opinion that it is a foolish notion to imagine that everything that exists, came to be, through nothing other than random chance; unless, of course, it is in a situation, as Patricio has postulated, in which ALL Possibilities are tried. However, I have not yet heard (and do not expect to hear) a credible explanation of a scenario which would, randomly, be so scientifically conscientious, so as to exhaust every possible option. Diversity is not automatic. A random basis, can still result in a monoculture.
     
  7. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are having trouble with words, once again, to focus in such a needless way, on my leaving out a clause which I take as being a given-- obviously, we are only talking about all possible possibilities. That being the case, you should see that your pointing to this dissymmetry in my paraphrase, is irrelevant to my point; I was not confused as to what result you were predicting: the one we know, as existence. I was saying that boundless space & time (which is all that "infinity," automatically implies, to me) do not, in & of themselves, necessitate the creation of anything, much less, of everything that is possible. So, since I had apparently not been clear enough about this, for you, I was asking you to describe this base point of yours, which you are calling "infinity."

    To save us the time of another ridiculous clarification, on your part, I will explain that I understand that "infinity," by its very nature, is an unfolding, never-ending process; I am not confused in believing that you are saying it has fully elapsed, or whatever other strictly semantic reply you might come up with. I am simply trying to ascertain what is your conception of this pre-existing, yet completely random force, or state-- or however you care to define it-- which insures the manifestation of all that is "possible," and which is the ground- zero, of your philosophy.


    BTW, your comment, "Not all things are possible," is rather farcical, if you think about it; because there is no absolute truth, defining this. That is, whatever is "possible," is completely dependent, on the nature of the reality, in question. Am I losing you? What we consider "possible," is based on our own understanding of physical laws. However, those physical laws, are one of the "randomly- generated," results of your infinity machine. If it spits out a different set of laws, we get a different set of "what is possible."

    I have the sense that you feel that perhaps these laws were not random, but are immutable. If so, what would be your logical basis for that belief? And, if it were true, that these "abstract concepts," were the true basis of all that now exists, how could you really dismiss the possibility that they qualify as a "consciousness?" Perhaps they willed material existence, in order to play out ideas in a physical form, in which the depths of perceptive reality these ideas would touch, stir, unearth, & upend, would far exceed the experience of a purely conceptual interaction.

    Long ago, this possibility occurred to me, as a way that the Conceptual Truths, if these were the true Gods, would make the answers to their experiments, so much more MEMORABLE. Probably you are aware of the mnemonic device of remembering something, through associating it with a mental image. The advice that goes with that technique, is that the more bizarre the image, the more memorable, it will be. This principle often finds a natural, random, expression, in dreams.




     
  8. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is why your philosophy cannot possibly be accurately comprehended by others (even if they pretend to "get it"): you seem to be saying that all possible things will come into being, if there already are all the possible resources to create those things. IOW, if it is not your logic which is convoluted, then you are very poorly explaining your meaning.

    There is, from your description, one other possible interpretation -- though it would require a good bit of speculation by the interpreter, as it is not explained this way, in the least, by you-- that there exists some source, out of which has come, or manifested, all the required resources, and conditions, for the creation of all that is possible (so far). If this is your thinking, I would note that this source could simply be called God, and all that you have done is add an additional step, so as to (in self- delusion) not have to include "God," in your system.



    "In the abstract," means merely that it can be conceptualized. By the very same token, I could respond that God exists, in the abstract.
     
  9. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, I'm not having any trouble with words. But, you, most certainly are.
    Your writing is verbose, your articulation sloppy, and your syntax is horrific.
    I didn't focus on a 'needless way'. I took what you wrote at face value. That is all I'm going to do.

    As such, you wrote

    If you wish to know how well your ideas come across, to others, there are definitely some parts of it that beg for further explication
    For example, your underlying predicate-- given infinity, all possibilities will manifest (if my paraphrase is acceptable)-- is not as clear as you may imagine. For, if your postulate is simply that, given endless time, all things will occur, this is manifestly false.

    Your use of 'predicate' is odd. I think you mean 'premise', but the word 'predicate' doesn't mean that as a noun. Okay, I'll let that slide.

    However, your restating what I wrote as, 'given infinity, all possibilities will manifest' then you asked my permission if your paraphrasing is acceptable. No, it wasn't, and I explained that to you. After explaining it to you, you chide me for it? You tell me it wasn't necessary?

    Here's some advice for you. If you are going to paraphrase someone, the only time one normally paraphrases is if they don't have the exact quote handy and one takes one's best guess as to what was said. However, if you do do it, then do NOT change the meaning. But, in order to not change the meaning, it requires your understanding it in the first place.

    I most certainly did not say that, given infinity, all things will occur.

    You are correct that that is a false statement.

    However, that isn't what I wrote.

    Moreover, focusing on your misstatement of what I wrote isn't needless. IT IS NECESSARY.

    Do you understand?
    But, that isn't what you wrote when you paraphrased me, so it couldn't be obvious or you wouldn't be making such a mistake.
    Okay, it IS relevant if you are wrong, or you misstate something I wrote.
    You really do not know how to write easy, flowing, eloquent sentences. You try to, but you really don't know how to do it.
    Oh for christ's sakes. Could you at least try to be less verbose, pretentious, bombastic?

    Basically you are saying you understood what I meant, and I shouldn't have criticized you.

    Yes, I should have, because you asked me permission if your paraphrasing was acceptable.
    No, you are wrong. If I wrote 'everything is possible'. that is an absolute. The opposite cannot be, therefore, an absolute.

    The entire rationale for declaring 'not everything is possible' is derived from the notion that absolutes are unobtainable, the opposite of your claim.
    That is self - evident.
    No, 'possible' could fit in the context of any laws of physics, each universe of laws, be they the same, different, or whatever, would have it's own set of what is possible, and what isn't. It's a one-size-fit's-all statement. So, to say 'all that is possible' would work in any set of laws of physics.

    It would still be a true statement if nothing was possible, or everything possible, or somewhere in between. Of course, somewhere in between is the more logical reality we know.

    Therefore, our understanding of physics doesn't affect the precision of the statement.
    See above. I'll reiterate, if the laws are different, we could still say 'all that is possible' because it would apply to the new laws.
    It doesn't matter what the laws are, the statement still works with any law set. the only thing that would change it, is if infinity wasn't a true statement. My 'axiom' (not saying it is one) rises or falls on veracity of infinity. However, since infinity does exist in the abstract, that's enough for me to assert it is a true statement. But, I'm no genius. If one is out there, feel free to chime in.
    Okay, let's examine my statement. "Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable".

    Say you have a handful of dice, say six of them.
    If you kept tossing them, and there was no limit on time.

    Would you ever come up all sixes?

    Yes or no?

    The answer is yes. It might take all day, or more, or less, perhaps, but eventually you'd come up all sixes.

    There is the logical basis. Because a handful of dice, or a trillion things that have to be in place for life to occur, compared to infinity, are both infinitesimal numbers. All numbers are infinitesimal compared to infinity.

    Infinity is the logical basis.

    But, that's what is difficult to grasp. Infinity is difficult to grasp, the mind understands the finite, but the infinite is troubling to the mind.

    But, that is the logical basis
    You are basically asking me this question:

    How do I know that it's not a Supreme Being?

    Isn't that what your are, essentially, asking? Now be honest.

    Of course you are. And the answer is, 'The concept of a supreme being is not logical'.

    The problem is, most people cannot understand why it's not logical. To them, it's logical.

    To a few, it is not, and to those few it's not logical, we say to those who believe it is logical, 'we see something you do not'.
    Now you are off to somewhere else.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2022
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know you were replying to Willreadmore, but please understand than when I used the term 'infinity', I'm not necessarily ascribing any physical parameter to the concept, whatsoever.

    My sole logic for believing in the veracity of infinity is that (I believe that) time does not exist. Infinity and no time are two sides of the same coin.

    Yes, wrapping your brain around that is going to be a mind bender. But, toss it around.
     
  11. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    No, now that you have finally calmed down from all your ranting and attempted slinging of insults my way, and written something about your thread's topic, you have proven my point. Let's see if you have the capacity to grasp your error.

    Your thesis is that given nothing more than "infinity," anything that exists, seems to you as only inevitability. So let's see how you produce something much less complex than all Creation, but merely a roll of six sixes, on a set of dice, from the starting point of just, "infinity."

    But you immediately contradict your thesis, in each of your next two sentences-- it turns out that, to produce even this rather simple thing, you will require more than infinity, but also a set of 6 dice, and, on top of that, a person to keep rolling them. Under those conditions, FYI, you no longer need infinity, and you are not explaining anything that I do not understand, about probability. But this in no way supports your idea, because of the magically manifesting dice, and the person, to obediently roll them. Those might fall under your definition of "infinity," somehow, if not the standard understanding of it, but we won't know the answer to that question, until we find out whether or not you are ever going to define "infinity," as I have been waiting for you to do, in response to my request of this, from you. In truth, however, you should not have even required anyone's prodding, to understand that, for an assertion such as yours, a defining of your terms is called for, as the first order of business. But if you finally get around to doing this, your extreme slowness, in explaining what you mean, I'll let slide.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2022
  12. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Firstly, your addition of the words, all that
    is possible, is meaningless, as I had said. As this conversation was between just we two, I did not feel it necessary to quote you verbatim, and my depiction was completely accurate for the purpose of making my point, because my objection had
    nothing to do with the idea of all things, as if you had meant to include impossible ones. (Really? I feel like I am not having this discussion with another adult). I clearly had said that infinite time & space, on their own, get you nothing at all.

    Obviously, what was called for, and I had been asking for, was for you to define what you meant by "infinity." Yet, even your last allusion to the idea is just so much glitter & fluff, with no tangible, definitive information:
    Toss what around? You explain only what infinity, to you, isn't-- not what it is.


    Your attempts at correcting my writing are also, all wet. You claimed that I misused the word "predicate," which you claimed could not be used as a noun. Apparently you have much in common with Will Readmore, who also makes erroneous claims about language, based solely, it would seem, in both your cases, upon your presumptions of your own, superior knowledge. Well, here's a lesson for you:


    pred·i·cate

    noun
    /ˈpredəkət/
    LOGIC

    something that is affirmed or denied concerning an argument of a proposition.


    So, please spare me the "benefit," of your linguistic & literary observations, as I will only consider the source.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2022
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    God does exist in the abstract, and I've stated that many times in other posts.

    There are two abstract regions of the mind.

    1. The real, that which has real effects on the universe.
    2. The fanciful, purely imaginary, unreal.


    With #1, for example, mathematics. A number, or any math equation, exists solely in the abstract region of the mind, the 'effects reality' region.
    Math is used in engineering, it's used in accounting, it's used by statisticians, etc, but numbers actually do not exist in the physical universe, they exist in the abstract region of the mind. Same goes for words on a computer or paper, because, look closer, and all you'll ultimately discover is liquid Chrystal composed of molecules arranged in various ways on the computer screen. The 'meaning' we interpret the display, that exists in the abstract which we project upon paper or a computer, etc.

    This is easier to conceptualize, for example, if you do not know or read Chinese writing, and all it looks like is artful scribbles, lines. It has no meaning. So, the meaning you apply to words on paper, same goes for math, doesn't prove the words or math exists in the real world, because what is happening is the mind is projecting the meaning it summons from the abstract region of the mind onto the canvass, paper, or computer screen.

    Similarly, thinking about real things about our lives which are abstraction as they exist in the mind, but they are about real things. God, is also an abstraction, as is infinity, but both have real effects on the universe. God, as the spiritual source ( which in my philosophy, is not an intelligence) and infinity, whereupon infinity and God, in my philosophy, are two sides of the same coin.

    With #2, this is the unicorn region, stuff we imagine, fancy, which is not real.

    Yes, I do realize this might be difficult to understand for some people. But, I thought I would share it, anyway, for feedback.

    Thanks for contributing. And, remember, I never insist on any of my beliefs are fact, they are just opinions.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2022
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ahh, logic error. 'Infinity' is not a finite measure, so you can't say 'more than infinity'. "More' presupposes something finite.
    You missed the point, and as I explain below, if all we are talking about is a reasonable chance of success, then we never actually need infinity. All that's needed, in fact, is whatever finite period we can calculate to successfully allow the odds to play out, reasonably. Multiply any number, six dice, or whatever the astronomical number of things that have to be in place for life to occur, multiply that number times one trillion (or whatever number to use to assure the odds play out), and the odds 99.99999999999999999% it will play out. Now, one trillion might seem unreasonable, but it does get us closer to 100%, proving that infinity is not actually needed, if we are being reasonable, which is the point.

    I use infinity to cover all bases, and render the odds to 100%.
    I apologize for the insults, but bombastic writing, horrific syntax, verbosity, bothers me. I will try hard to contain my frustration with your writing style.

    Now then,

    You're making the mistake of pettifogging the argument.

    It's a metaphor, and that you point out that you don't need infinity for 6 dice (sorry, I forget what the plural of 'dice' is) is to misunderstand the the logic being used.

    Firstly, it's a metaphor. I used something simple as metaphor to understand something complex, a much large number.

    As long as the postulate works for both, the simpler metaphor works for the large number.

    See, with the dice, the statement, 'given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable', is still true.

    To assert that 'infinity is not necessary for 6 dice' is to completely misunderstand the simple fact that infinity is not needed for any finite amount of time to assure the odds play out. UNLESS, you want to claim '100%' assurance.

    Therefore:

    For any odds, short or long, you only need a finite period of time for the odds to play out (or rather, for a reasonable assurance of success, it will never be 100% if it's not infinity). However, even if the time used appears to be way more than necessary, the odds of success will always be less than 100% assurance.

    I use, 'infinity', therefore, to render assurance of success to 100%, which makes the postulate a true statement.

    Why? Because infinity exists in the abstract, the region of the mind that applies abstract concepts to the real world, such as math. If it exists in the abstract in math, I can use it to make a true statement, a mathematically true statement.

    See, if we used a large amount of time, the number times one trillion, making the odds of it playing out at 99.9999999999999% assured (I'm guessing at the actual percentages, but to get the idea, the precise percentage isn't needed), you still have a .000000000000001% chance of failure. To make 100%, viola, we use infinity. For postulate, we need 100% assurance of success for the postulate to be true 100% of the time. Therefore, we can use for ANY number, long or short, (for dice, or whatever) to make 100% by using infinity. Shorter than infinity, then the odds of success will be some number less than 100%.

    Therefore your argument fails.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2022
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,909
    Likes Received:
    16,935
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So far, there is no detection that would lead to a belief that the universe is decidedly different in its composition at some other location. So, an infinite universe may include large regions of little activity. But, those regions are not the real issue of whether this universe is infinite.
    Well, I don't think it has been suggested that random fluctuations are the only factor.

    And, it would have to be those other factors that forced a monoculture, as that's not how random works.
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say it couldn't be used as a noun. It's more often used to predict, but as a noun it's often used in grammar.. Now that you are declaring you are using it in logic, well, then, let's take a look.
    If you are going to use a term of logic, clue me in, because that's not common usage, okay? My postulate had a logic sense, to it, so, I guess I see your point.
    But, You could have mentioned it.

    Now that you are declaring you are using it in logic.....

    Well, I disagree that I'm using predicate logic. I would suggest that I'm using propositional logic, which has specific true or false values.

    A proposition has a specific truth value, either true or false. A predicate’s truth value depends on the variables’ value.

    Okay, let's take another look at the statement:

    Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

    There are no variables in the sentence upon which it's truth (true or false) is predicated, so it cannot be predicate logic, it has to be propositional logic.

    Therefore, I contest your usage of the term 'predicate' in the field of logic (only because you have declared that is how you are using the term, it does have other meanings in grammar. If you had simply used the word 'postulate' in place of 'predicate' we wouldn't be having this conversation).
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2022
  17. Injeun

    Injeun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    13,545
    Likes Received:
    6,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That you believe or have reasoned that God is everywhere and in all things is in line with Jesus Christ when he said, "I am the light and life of the world." You said that you don't think such a divine dispersal can come from or be sourced to a single entity. But yet if you turn on a single overhead light in a darkened room, it illuminates the entire room.
     
  18. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While you may realize that what you spoke about, is difficult for some people to understand, I doubt you realize that it is you who is obviously most puzzled by it. All I was doing was pointing out exactly what double- standard, you ended up repeating, in your response: namely, that you call "God," not real, but only "abstract;" and yet, other "abstract" things, like mathematics, you accept as real. I was saying, that you might consider that God, or the Gods, might be as real as mathematics.
    Of course, this was only a speculation, on my part; you may have considered the laws of physics to be merely random, like supposedly everything else. Instead, you are proposing that all is due to the laws of physics, though you give no rationale for what caused them to be, as they are. I can hear you saying, "they just are." Then why could they not also have a consciousness? Let me guess: they just don't? Kind of like the way that you just don't give any explanation for your certainties either that physics are eternal, and infinite-- i.e., there are no other dimensions, based on different physics, and never could have been-- nor that "God," is of the "unicorn region," of the abstract, unlike math?

    Don't flatter yourself, in thinking that you are able to consider ideas that are beyond my intellectual depth. The only thing that makes your ideas, "difficult...to understand," is that you do such a poor job, describing, specifying, and defending them.

     
  19. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are making a ridiculous argument-- I am not saying, "infinity plus one," as your juvenile response would suggest. Instead, you finally do what should have been your obvious first step, and that which I have been asking of you, since page one: define what you mean by, "infinity." Apparently, you define it to mean, "everything," which, FYI, is not the obvious translation, that you treat it to be. Hence, as I earlier stated, you are replacing the need for any conscious Will, in the Creation of the universe, through what seems the logical result of random coincidence, "given all things"-- your translation of "infinity"-- already existing.


    Brilliant.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2022
  20. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And your way of containing your frustration, is the incredibly verbose, meaningless remainder of your reply, which only shows that you did not understand, nor bother to try-- because, after all, you are never mistaken, right?-- my very succinct remark, that you were not telling me anything that I did not already understand about probability?

    Though it took you jawing on, horrendously long, for the truth to come out (elsewhere), it is now understood, that by "infinity," you did not mean simply a limitless canvas, but one which was being actively painted upon, by something you refer to as "Randomity," but which is assumed by you to be attempting to make things happen. I say that, based on the fact that you claim that this state will lead, eventually, to all "possible"
    * things, coming to be. If, though, your infinity were basically empty space, this would not be true. If it were all inert gases, it would not lead to all the things we now see, and so forth; so you are obviously starting with something, for which you have no explanation, and do not even bother to address, as the basis for your "logical," explanation, as to how "everything" came to be. Your unbelievable mistake seems to have been, in explaining how the universe came to exist, to start with the essence of our own universe, as a given. At the very least, beginning after the Big Bang.

    Your second seeming error-- though I do not doubt that you think differently, and just have not found the time, in six pages, to explain this basic element of your concept, either-- is to consider the age of our known universe to be an, "endless," amount of time (though, if this is true of your beliefs, feel free to follow your M.O., and make a meaningless argument about "time," not existing before the universe, so that the 13 billion years or whatever science estimates, is, therefore all time, and so, "infinity").




    * I referred to Creation the way you, previously, made such a stink over (specifying, only the "possible"), but I personally find it to be a silly way of thinking. That is, our conception of what is "possible," is greatly influenced by what is. This could be much more, in an active Creation, than in a sleepy, or lazy, "infinite" realm.

    I also find your comeback to that point, to be completely unreflective of your own subjectivity-- your own claims notwithstanding, of your viewing things with a dispassion that is beyond the "human," perspective. To wit, you will argue that no universe could be less lively than our own, and still qualify (in your own mind) as, "infinite." But what if there were another universe, which was more active than our own, and so had more within its borders than does ours? That would make our own,
    NOT infinite, thereby disproving your theory, even by your own, problematic, rationale.

    Please don't try to reply to this last argument-- it is clearly beyond your ability to correctly apprehend my point.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2022
  21. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Though this is an imbecilic argument you are making, I cannot, in this instance, put all the blame on you, because you seem to be following the lead of the writer of this thread. The problem with your statement, is that this argument was billed as an explanation of the creation of all things that exist. Well the current universe I, incredibly, seem required to remind some people, is part of Creation, one of the things that was created-- even science knows this to be true-- so one cannot logically use it as the basis of the "infinity," which was responsible for the creation of our own universe. Please show me that you understand the meaning of these rather basic- level words.



    In this case, I can blame you, fully, for getting all that, above, wrong. First, reread the OP: other than the undescribed state of "infinity," the only active participant in the development of all things, is "Randomity (sic)."

    Let me ask you: is our current world, a leaderless one, without any dominant species?

    If you recognize Man as having dominated his competition, then you must acknowledge, if you are to stay true to the OP, that randomness, leads to species which put their own, self interests ahead of others, and which compete with one another in, frequently, not just lethal but existential ways, and which produces some that do, from time to time, become utterly dominant over all others. When this occurs-- as coincidentally is currently the case-- diversity (bio- diversity, in our current example) is actually reduced. Once again, I will be very disappointed in you, if you cannot follow this simple example of the "randomness," of Nature producing a result which, on its face, does not look like just random occurrence; that is, it is a result, very much determined by the willful actions of the dominant force.

    This is the identical description to the rise of a monoculture.


     
  22. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any proof for anything you have written here? (And by proof, I don't mean an ancient tome of questionable origin)
     
  23. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    15,971
    Likes Received:
    7,607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is your funniest line, yet! We are in the middle, supposedly, of a discussion of the possiblity/probability of your speculative, existential theory, in a debate forum! There is hardly a more appropriate place for the use of the language of logic.
    Secondly, this is not such an arcane usage of the word, as you make it out to be--
    -- coincidentally, last night, after I had educated you on this use of "predicate," I heard it used, the same way, by Rachel Maddow, on her show (used at least twice, because you know how Rachel likes to repeat herself).

    Thirdly, you are the one who had never bothered to define your own, ambiguous-- though, of course, not to your own mind-- terms, like "infinity," so it would have been the utmost hypocrisy, to chide me on not announcing that I was going to be speaking in the terminology of logic, even had there been any reason, that this should not have been understood.

    Fourthly, your trying to make excuses-- after all your bold talk about how inferior was my writing, and then conceitedly acting as if I was misusing the word predicate-- for your own ignorant error, is just pathetic.

    And lastly,
    you still do not understand the word!


    OMG! I hadn't read to the end of your reply, before now-- I have to start a whole new list! First, you actually have the gall to act as if the misunderstanding was my fault!

    Here is the straightforward definition, I posted for you:

    pred·i·cate

    noun
    /ˈpredəkət/
    LOGIC

    something that is affirmed or denied concerning an argument of a proposition.

    Therefore, all that you are saying about "predicate logic," and "propositional logic," is utterly irrelevant to the context of my quote.
    And so, secondly, I will add how your previously accusing me of, among other things, "verbosity," makes you appear to be quite the hypocrite. In fact, here is another word you may not be familiar with, though it might be worthwhile for you to look it up, and then meditate on it: pedantic.

    By the way, your underlying predicate means merely, that which you stipulate, as the basis for your position.



     
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Have you not been reading my commentary? I've said as much many times. God exists in the abstract, like mathematics.

    But it's not an intelligence, it's something else, that's the only distinction.
    I'll make a deal with you.

    Stop insulting me, and I'll do the same for you.

    Believe me, I can match wits with you any day of the week, you're not as smart as you think you are.

    You're bombastic, and I've never met a bombast that was particularly intelligent. Oh, you might be the exception, but I doubt it.

    Proof? You misquote me, your paraphrasings are way off the mark and lazy, you misunderstand me, you tell me I say things I never did...

    Ad nauseum.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2022
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    35,219
    Likes Received:
    18,737
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wouldn't 'premise' be better? Why use a lesser used word when a more common word will do?

    But, bombasts do that, too often. No, Rachel does it, rarely.

    Anyway,

    You are pettifogging the debate.

    The debate is 'God is not an intelligence'.

    I've given my reasons.

    And your reasons to counter, are, what?

    As for 'given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable', I put that up for debate in another thread, I'll take it up with you there.
     

Share This Page