Greetings ,I'm back. Mythicism

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

God is traditionally invisible.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Simon, that is not knowledge.

[DavisModerator]

Oh I see unseen so how can you prove that you aren’t hallucinating or in a simulation or a brain in a vat and in reality something fantastical does exist and you don’t have access to this information. Please explain how you prove that reality is as it seems and you are magically able to say with 100% certainty that things are the way they appear to you?

You cannot prove the negative existence of anything (unless they have contradictory or logically impossible qualities). There are too many unknowns and too many possible fantastical explanations. I completely agree that on a practical level there is no reason to not say “I am certain there are no animals dancing in my bathroom”. But at an existential level I cannot prove the non-existence of something…nor do I have to. It is up to the other person to prove their thing exists. You shouldn’t even have to claim certainty to the non-existence of something…it’s not your responsibility and you don’t need to claim something you are not omniscient enough to prove beyond any possible doubt. It isn’t at all bogus when you are lacking information. I have never heard a mathematician use a mathematical proof to prove beyond doubt that a fantastical unicorn doesn’t exist on Pluto right now. How exactly would that proof look like?

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.
• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  Davis.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The reason god is traditionally invisible is that he does not exist. I would give that a very high probability rating rather that claim it as a certainty. Then I don’t have to endure the same arguments with theists every time they claim to “know” that their god exists in actuality.

At the Quantum level everything is a matter of probability.  I have decided to carry that idea forwards into everyday thinking to see how my perspective might change and forget about the idea of certainty (or maybe follow the idea of uncertainty). We are all made of those atoms which are made of smaller particles that act “UN-intuitively”.  I am determined to do so…….

[PopeBeanieModerator]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Omniscience is self-contradictory because it is a claim to knowledge without acquisition and verification, which cannot exist.

Unless the universe is just a module in God’s program.

Unseen wrote:

That whole “You can’t prove a negative” thing is bogus both in math/logic and real life. There’s no question A and Not-A is false and it can be proven false, though there should be no need to do so for any rational person.

Even if God is negative? Just binary, 0/1 logic, right?

[DavisModerator]

I have decided to carry that idea forwards into everyday thinking to see how my perspective might change

I certainty gained a lot by seeing things more as probabilities than absolutes when absolutes are not necessary or justified. It’s helped a lot with predictions, work and being extremely aware of what Nicolas Taleb called “Black Swan Events” (highly improbable or rare but very possible events that have a seismic effect). That includes minor Black Swans in your own life. I very much prefer a probability approach than false binaries.

[DavisModerator]

No I don’t see how omniscience is impossible (as long as it is not accompanied by conflicting qualities). Imagine you are an advanced human (with a stunning enhanced brain capacity) and the ability to create a simulation where you can create a realistic world with artificial intelligence so forward its as intelligent as humans. If you are the architect of this simulation you have access to all information and can know anything about the world you created at will. And this is just an analogous example. I certainly believe it’s far fetched and silly to entertain it without evidence, but impossible? No I don’t see why it is inherently impossible, especially if the omniscient agent is more complex than the created world.

[DavisModerator]

Negative god? Does he live in eternal debt and have a minus sign welded to his head?

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Yes, but you wouldn’t be able to see God with your eyes.

And of course he’d have to exist before trying to even make sense. And why would I try when as I’ve shown I know he doesn’t exist. For the same reason, I wouldn’t try to see a round square which supposedly is also invisible. I mean, that’s pretty much the ontological status of God, isn’t it? An impossible being who is also invisible.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis, you can write your lengthy diatribes but what I call knowledge is the sort of knowledge we rely on every day to get through life. It might not satisfy you or Descartes, but it’s Old Reliable for me. I say I’m posting from a table in my kitchen, I know this because I’m posting from a table in my kitchen. LOL

I know God doesn’t exist because the concept is nonsensical when you really take the proposed properties seriously. Sometimes two properties mutually exclude each other. Sometimes one property has paradoxical effects all on its own. If I were to say that my cat is both all knowing and all powerful, the same contradictions would apply. And I can see my cat! Wouldn’t that make it more likely that my cat is a god than the Abrahamic one? LOL

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

No I don’t see how omniscience is impossible.

But then he knows what he doesn’t know. Hmm…

I smell a logical paradox.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

There are some problems with what you are saying about omniscience.  One, imagining does not make it so.  Two, making a simulated world that you know perfectly can only be accurate by reference to perfect knowledge of the real world.  Your scenario assumes the very omniscience it is supposed to prove, hence it is begging the question.

There are yet other problems with omniscience that contradict other proported attributes of a deity.   A truly omniscient being would not only know everything, but would know _everything at once at all times with equal clarity and no need for recollection_, and also _would be incapable of forgetting, ignoring, or evading anything._  But if a being is incapable of forgetting, ignoring, or evading, the being is not omnipotent.

Also, if omniscience makes the future set and unchangeable, this also includes future natural or chosen evils in the world.  But if a god cannot change future evils and cannot or will not override the link between omniscience and a set future, doesn’t this also nullify that God’s omnibenevolence?

Pointing out contradictions in the idea of an omnific supernatural being is as fun as popping bubble wrap, and at least doesn’t waste renewable materials. 🙂

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  TheEncogitationer.

[DavisModerator]

No. There is no reason a being could achieve all of those qualities if it is more complex than the simulation itself and has an extremely complex mind. I’m not saying it is likely, however it is nonsense to say it is impossible.

You are also pointing out contradictory qualities which I never mentioned. I was speaking only about omniscience and not omnipotence. I could not agree more that those two qualities are incompatible (in fact omnipotence is literally impossible).

[DavisModerator]

There is nothing to “not know” if you have access to all information all the time all at once.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

You wrote:

Unless the universe is just a module in God’s program.

An assertion not found in evidence.

The poetry of Ogden Nash belongs on this particular thread.

“If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’

Were candies and nuts,

We’d all have

A Merry Christmas.” 🎄🎅🤶

 

• This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  TheEncogitationer.

[Author]

Posts