Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of GOD
rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 241 of 312 (456346)
02-17-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Modulous
02-14-2008 4:49 PM


Dear Modulous,
quote:
You've certainly asserted it. You haven't shown that it must be true though.
I haven't asserted it, the whole of my thesis went though in stages showing how so and so was true, then based on thoughs truths came to the conclusion.
quote:
I am not the one making claims about the ultimate possible being. You don't know what the ultimate possible being is, and so you cannot know what that being is capable of.
Well we can deduce what GOD is capable of by using logic, Part 5 of my thesis deals with that.
quote:
No, but ideas can show why the theory does not do what it purports to.
that may be, but no idea has as yet shown why the theory does not do what it purports to.
quote:
And I have shown that you have not shown how your theory corresponds to reality. Abstract entities are not necessarily possible.
You have not. What are "Abstact entities" anyway? If they are not possible, then they are impossible, which doesn't affect anything in my theory, which deals with possible things.
quote:
I am more certain of the possibility I am sat on a leather chair than we can be of God.
Sitting on a leather chair is not a possibility IF you ARE sitting on a leather chair. Maybe this is why you are having problems, please see my definitions of possibility and existence for a clearer understanding of the words.
quote:
I wouldn't dream of making such a claim without evidence. Your thesis relies on an infinite reality and you haven't demonstrated that this exists.
My thesis does not rely on infinite reality. Reality can be finite, only possibility need be infinite.
quote:
There are an infinite number of hypothetical abstract possibilities. That has no bearing on how many actual possibilities there are.
Hypothetical possibilities DO have a direct bearing on actuality, because existence IS possibility made real.
quote:
I have shown that the answer must be NO. Possibilities cannot affect other possibilities, only things that actually exist can do that. That's why it presents a terminal problem to your theory and it needs to be answered.
Well you have taken the quote out of its context, The context was talking about possibility spaces, notice that the definition I use for YES and NO-GOD spaces assumes that the space exists, so when I go on to explain how possibilites can affect eachother it was in the context of, to use your words, "actual possibilities".
But not only that but if my theory is true, that G,P and E are irreducibly dependent, then possibilities can exist in a metaphysical realm and the same rules still apply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2008 4:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2008 12:33 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 242 of 312 (456347)
02-17-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Stile
02-15-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Imagination is not the same as reality
Dear Stile,
quote:
No, this is not how things are done in science. This is what Chiroptera has been trying to tell you all along. You're missing an important part. A scientist proposes a theory based on observations of the real world. You have no observations from the real world in order to base your theory on. You're not doing science. In science, theories are not just imagination, they are imagination based on observations of the real world. Until you have observations of the real world that suggest God, you won't have any science concerning God.
So theories are based on observations more than imgination are they, well lets see,
Oort cloud = All the comets in our solar system came from a big cloud of comets really, really far away. What obervations have been made to support this theory?
Big Bang theory = well none of use were there, so everything about this incident is guess work and extrapolation.
Evolutionary theory = Well this whole forum is a good example of arguments concerning whether evolution is observed in the real world or not.
string theory = Is totally theoretical at the moment.
My theory has the whole of existence and the world of possibilities to experiment on. We have time, space and matter to test for irreducible dependency. Infact my theory is grounded in the real world. For example, I could be considered a possibility space, and by making you read this sentence, I am affecting you who is also a possibility space. That little experiment proves a part of my theory.
quote:
You need to include your God as the Ultimate God of Identity if you claim your God to be the Ultimate possible being/thing. Otherwise, this God isn't the Ultimate possible being/thing. The Ultimate possible being/thing certainly would be the Ultimate God of Identity as much as it would be the Ultimate God of Power or Wisdom.
Well before we can include Ultimate God of Identity within the qualities of God we must first ask some questions to see if it's valid and doesn't conflict with the other qualities.
quote:
A God of ultimate identity, that leaves no confusion as to the possibility of His existence.
1. Is leaving no confusion as to the "possibility" of his existence, ultimate identity? should it really be, leaves no confusion as to his existence.
2. does this quality conlfict with any other qualities, such as Absolute love and supreme justice. Does this affect freedom of choice for example.
3. Does this quality assume that GOD needs us to know that he exists, or that we need to know that he exists. If so why?
4. Why should a God of ultimate identity actually be better than a god without it?
5. Is a God of ultimate identity possible?
6. IS there really confusion as to the possibility of Gods existence? Or is it based on some other misunderstanding like the definition OF God or possibility?
7. Why should God have to prove that he is a possibility?
8. Why should God have to prove that he exists?
9. Why should an ultimate possible being/thing not exist if it was not a God of ultimate identity?
Those are a few questions that need to be answered before A God of ultimate identity can be considered as a quality of the ultimate being/thing.
Stile writes:
The main reason for this is because you're equivocating between 'possibility in imagination' and 'possibility in reality'. They are two entirely different definitions, and using them interchangeably results in the kind of confusion that is all over this thread.
ROTU writes:
Before any reality existed, was there a possibility of it existing?
Now I'm going to answer that question for you as there are only 3 answers, YES, NO, or the universe has always existed.
YES = Then the possibility definition here is "possibility in imagination" as reality doesn't exist. But then the question becomes in who's imagination is the possibility in? May I suggest GOD!
NO = This answer is wrong simply by the fact that reality exists now, which means one of the other answers is true.
The universe has always existed = which means the universe is infinite, which would then mean that there are an infinite number of possibilities.
And your reply,
quote:
You may suggest God all you like. Anyone else can suggest anyone they can imagine as well, with equal validity (none, as none of you would have any observations of the real world). You could even suggest "no one" as there's no limit on possibilities existing that says they have to be in someone's imagination.
There are plenty of things that possibly exist (and do) without regard to anyone's imagination of that possibility. That's what new discoveries are, discovering something that no one has ever imagined before. They certainly could be imagined, but they don't have to be.
Funny how you avoided answering the question. "Before any reality existed, was there a possibility of it existing?" But which "type" of possibility was there before reality existed, "possibility in imagination" or "possibility in reality"? I'll give you a clue it's not possibility in reality because reality doesn't exist yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Stile, posted 02-15-2008 11:05 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Stile, posted 02-17-2008 12:02 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 243 of 312 (456348)
02-17-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by dogrelata
02-16-2008 3:34 AM


Dear dogrelata,
quote:
I think you’ll find that I wasn’t changing the subject; I was attempting to develop the argument. Using your very own reasoning, there are only two possibilities/opposites - you can either run at 100mph or you can’t. Please explain to me how proof by contradiction helps me to determine that possibility?
Again you ARE indeed changing the subject, you well know that proof by contradiction doesn't work for ALL things opposite. You are setting up a straw man argument. What I am saying is that if something is shown to be possible, you have also shown that it is NOT impossible. That is a form of proof by contradiction.
quote:
The probability curve does indeed tend towards zero, but it never actually reaches zero. The definition of ”arbitarily’ in my dictionary is based on personal choice or chance, rather than reason. By your own admission then, the idea that a value is too small to count is a subjective judgement - making it up as you go along. If only somebody could help you see that this is symptomatic of your whole thesis - subjective, wishful thinking, making it up as you go along.
Well I think you should get a better dictionary, because in mathematical terms arbitrary means, "undetermined; not assigned a specific value". Which kind of ruins the point you were going for.
quote:
Let’s examine what probability theory actually has to say about this. It says that for any given outcome, the sum of the probabilities must always equal 100% - when we flip a coin there is a 50% chance of a head and a 50% chance of a tail. If we flip the coin twice, the number of possible outcomes increases to four, each having a 25% chance of occurring, once again resulting in a sum of probabilities of 100%. Further, in the coin-flipping scenario you have chosen for your thesis, because the initial probability is 50/50, all probabilities thereafter have an equal chance of occurring. So in the case of an infinite number of flips, we get the equation (100% / infinite flips) x infinite flips = 100%. This can be simplified to say 100% = 100%. It’s not me who says that, it’s probability theory.
Thats not quite right,
Actually it's (100% / infinite flips) x infinite flips = infinity
Any equation that contains infinity, must be infinite in the answer. But because in mathematics it is clear that it's actually impossible to divide 100% into infinity, the possibility cannot really exist.
quote:
How does this compare with what you and your brother tell me? According to you, there is 0% chance of an infinite number of heads being flipped. Probability theory tells us that the chance of any of the infinite sequences occurring are equal, so based on that, you are telling me, the sum of probabilities for an infinite number of coin flips equates to 0% x infinite flips = 0%, not 100%. This is in direct conflict with what probability theory tells us, so it looks like you may want to sit down with your brother again and see if you can’t get your stories straight.
Well first off probability theory doesn't tell us what you think it does. But what my thesis tells us is that because a NO-GOD space which requires a specific sequence to succeed (all coins need to flip to the same side), in mathematical terms has a chance of 1 to INFINITY against. But on the opposite side a YES-GOD space requires ANY OTHER sequence to succeed, which means it has a chance of INFINITY to 1 for. You see we are not just dealing with the chance of just the NO-GOD spaces we must include the YES-GOD space possibilities as well, because they represent the other side of the coin.
quote:
So let’s start with something we can probably agree upon. Theoretically there are an infinite number of integers. So in the coin flipping scenario, we can keep on flipping it forever, the number of possible outcomes doubling with each flip - 2, 4, 8, etc. Each sequence of possible outcomes will have a reciprocal decimal - 2 & 0.5, 4 & 0.25, 8 & 0.125, etc. When we multiply the number of possible outcomes with its reciprocal decimal we always get 1, or unity.
However when we multiply infinity with its reciprocal decimal we always get infinity.
quote:
If you wish to assert that some numbers are so large that they produce reciprocal decimals that are so small as to be considered zero, then these numbers when multiplied by their reciprocal decimals must also equal zero, which means that they cannot exist. You therefore do not have the infinite number of possibilities you claim exist in your thesis. This then becomes a ”proof by contradiction’, your assertion of possibilities being so small as to be non-existent precludes the possibility of an infinite number of possibilities existing.
I have no idea what your trying to say here as your equations have been in error upto this point.
If something cannot exist, it's impossible, but that doesn't effect infinite possibilities.
WOW after all this you write a whole lot of stuff that really shows your lack of understanding of logic and maths and you throw in a few staw man arguments too.
quote:
Put plainly, these two conditions refer to whether any part of the natural world as we know it comes into contact with sunlight. An underground cave into which no sunlight can penetrate would be a NO-SUNLIGHT condition. YES-SUNLIGHT conditions would apply to any part of the globe onto which the sun shines during the day. During the hours of darkness, these same YES-SUNLIGHT conditions will become NO-SUNLIGHT conditions.
What has any of this got to do with whether GOD exists or not? Does GOD exist in these YES, NO-SUNLIGHT possibilities? If NO then they are NO-GOD spaces, if yes then they are YES-GOD spaces.
quote:
It can be shown, on the other hand that the NO-SUNLIGHT condition has a very great bearing or influence on the nature of reality. Further, we do not need to imagine sunlight, or no sunlight, because we can observe and measure both these conditions and the effects they have on reality.
So a NO-SUNLIGHT condition has great bearing and influence on the nature of reality. That's great, but you didn't answer whether a NO-SUNLIGHT condition has any bearing on any other NO-SUNLIGHT condition.
quote:
So let’s discuss the nonsensical notion that a NO-GOD possibility cannot affect anything.
Oops here comes the straw man rearing its head again, because I never said that did I.
quote:
So what you are effectively saying is that if there is no god, nothing else changes.
Nope that not what I'm saying.
quote:
Let’s try to break this down into smaller steps so you might have a chance of understanding it. You assert that the NO-GOD possibility “could be placed ANYWHERE as it is only one possibility in an infinity of other possibilities, and this particular space wouldn't have much, if any, affect on any other space.” This allows us to formulate a very simple equation, x - y = x, where x represents the composition of the possibility spaces and y represents the possibility of your god existing or not. Using your favoured ”proof by contradiction’ method, we can then formulate the YES-GOD possibility as x + y = x, as you have already determined that x must equal zero, or very close to zero. The result of the two equations is identical - the existence or otherwise of your god makes no difference to the other possibility spaces. So applying your ”proof by contradiction’ argument to your own premise results in what you like to call an “internal inconsistency”, i.e. you cannot substantiate your “overwhelming mathematical advantage” claim for the YES-GOD possibility over the NO-GOD.
"Using your favoured ”proof by contradiction’ method". My favourite method? I don't think so, infact it's you that seems to be using it at every opportunity, even when it can't be used, seems like your using that man of straw again. Of course going by your previous attempts at forming an equation, this is your worst yet. x + y = xy.
quote:
It’s unclear to me whether you are familiar with conditional probability. On the one hand your arguments and reasoning are almost childlike, reducing the possibility that you are able to deal with the complexity of conditional probability - this is me applying conditional probability to try to deduce what you may be capable of given the abilities you have so far displayed. On the other hand, the unsubstantiated contrivances that appear in “The Realms of Possibility” section of your thesis hint at somebody who needs to ”load the deck’ in their favour for their argument to prevail.
Funny I could say the same about you, but I don't use straw man arguments like you do.
quote:
See, this is the problem with everything you have done. Despite your claims to be ”scientific’ in your search for ”truth’, you have very clearly started with your conclusion and worked your way backwards through various contrived conditions, developing your own ”logic and rationale’ system along the way, whilst carefully avoiding any references to anything that exists in actuality, thereby negating the need for you to produce any ”hard’ evidence.
Doesn't EVERYBODY have a preconceived belief system, yours appears to be that I worked my way backwards.
quote:
You haven’t even attempted to suggest otherwise. The very first sentence of your thesis reads, “The purpose of this essay and thesis is to determine the definite existence of a supreme intelligence. To find absolute evidence for the existence of God . ”. So the existence of your god was determined before you started, but because you wanted to classify your ”proof’ as ”scientific’, you had to pay lip service to the possibility that god might not exist. Hence we see the hopeless contrivances contained within “The Realms of Possibility” - there’s your NO-GOD, but it can’t affect anything, so let’s discount it.
So I am not supposed to introduce what my thesis is all about in the "introduction"? Is that the proof you have in claiming I worked backwards, please.
quote:
So let’s look at the possibility spaces in light of the YES-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY, NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY evidence. In your own words, the NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility has an “overwhelming mathematical advantage” based on our empirical observations of the thread thus far. Following on from that, the NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility must be “MAXIMALLY PROBABLE” . and given that condition, this allows us to replace the words “God” and “YES-GOD” in you thesis to read, “This means that at the most fundamental level no validity is really the ONLY POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY, and that any possibility that becomes actuality must therefore be a NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY space by necessity.”
How many straw men do you have? Interestingly this time you try to use a mathematical argument but strangly for you, you haven't done any mathematical calculations based on your so called empirical observations. One of the reasons is of course because you can't really get MAXIMALLY PROBABLE out of what you say. Which ruins your idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by dogrelata, posted 02-16-2008 3:34 AM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by dogrelata, posted 02-17-2008 2:40 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 248 by dogrelata, posted 02-17-2008 3:55 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 312 (456357)
02-17-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-17-2008 11:13 AM


Message #239
To make accurate observations the universe NEEDS to be logical....
Logic is simply a set of rules that humans have developed to help us keep our thought processes orderly. The universe doesn't need to be anything, and in fact the universe often confounds our logical deductions. That is why the pure application of logic does not lead to new knowledge, and that we must always resort to observation.
-
Message #240:
And please lets not play "I am smarter than thee" games.
I'm not playing any games. It is a fact that you don't really understand what you are talking about and that you are out of your depth here.
-
This is why I came to this forum, to see if I need to improve on anything....
Yet you don't listen to what anyone is trying to tell you.

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-17-2008 11:13 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 245 of 312 (456358)
02-17-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-17-2008 11:17 AM


Imagination is not the same as reality
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
1. Is leaving no confusion as to the "possibility" of his existence, ultimate identity? should it really be, leaves no confusion as to his existence.
2. does this quality conlfict with any other qualities, such as Absolute love and supreme justice. Does this affect freedom of choice for example.
3. Does this quality assume that GOD needs us to know that he exists, or that we need to know that he exists. If so why?
4. Why should a God of ultimate identity actually be better than a god without it?
5. Is a God of ultimate identity possible?
6. IS there really confusion as to the possibility of Gods existence? Or is it based on some other misunderstanding like the definition OF God or possibility?
7. Why should God have to prove that he is a possibility?
8. Why should God have to prove that he exists?
9. Why should an ultimate possible being/thing not exist if it was not a God of ultimate identity?
Those are a few questions that need to be answered before A God of ultimate identity can be considered as a quality of the ultimate being/thing.
I hope this will help you realize just how arbitrary you are being with your definition. All 9 of these questions can be asked about any of the other attributes you've proposed the ultimate being/thing would have. Let's try Power:
1. Is being infinitely strong ultimate power?
2. does this quality conlfict with any other qualities, such as Absolute love and supreme justice. Does this affect freedom of choice for example.
3. Does this quality assume that GOD needs us to know that he's all powerful. If so why?
4. Why should a God of ultimate power actually be better than a god without it?
5. Is a God of ultimate power possible?
6. IS there really a need for ultimate power? Or is it based on some our own subjective desires?
7. Why should God have to prove that he is all powerful?
8. Why should God have to prove that he is all powerful?
9. Why should an ultimate possible being/thing not exist if it was not a God of ultimate power?
You're arbitrarily answering these questions in the positive for ultimate power, and in the negative for ultimate identity. When thinking about ultimate power, you think it's obvious that more is better, and infinite is best. But that's simply your own subjective opinion. There's really no reason for you to answer for or against any of these definitions. They are all subjective. Ultimate Power is equally subjective as Ultimate Identity. The problems you see with Ultimate Identity being an attribute of an Ultimate being/thing are exactly the same problems any objective viewer will see with Utimate Power being an attribute.
That's the problem.
You say Ultimate Power. Why not Ultimate Weakness? Because you think power is better.
You say Ultimate Love. Why not Ultimate hate? Because you think love is better.
You say Ultimate Wisdom. Why not Ultimate stupidity? Because you think wisdom is better.
You say Ultimate Justice. Why not Ultimate Chaos? Because you think justice is better.
You say Ultimate Good. Why not Ultimate Bad? Because you think good is better.
Your subjective opinion is only persuasive to those who already subjectively agree with you. It has no persuasive power to an objective viewer.
Your entire thesis relies on everyone agreeing with your arbitrary asnwers to these questions. When you don't have someone agree (like those in this thread) you can't prove it otherwise (as shown in this thread) because it's arbitrary. No proof exists, because it's subjective and arbitrary. If you had observations of the real world, then this subjectiveness would be removed. That's what science does. This is not science. This is a thought exercise. One that doesn't pass the test of reality because it is so arbitrary.
Funny how you avoided answering the question. "Before any reality existed, was there a possibility of it existing?" But which "type" of possibility was there before reality existed, "possibility in imagination" or "possibility in reality"? I'll give you a clue it's not possibility in reality because reality doesn't exist yet.
But I did answer the question. My answer is that "possibility in imagination" and "possibility in reality" aren't the only kinds of possibilities. You're making a duality where none exists. And your inability to see so in my answer proves that you're forcing your mind into a hole and not allowing any alternative explanations. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Possibilities do not rely on our ability to think about them, imagine them, or reality's ability to support them.
Possibilities can exist without any being, or any reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-17-2008 11:17 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:17 PM Stile has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 312 (456362)
02-17-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-17-2008 11:15 AM


I haven't asserted it, the whole of my thesis went though in stages showing how so and so was true, then based on thoughs truths came to the conclusion.
I'm aware of what you think you have done, if it wasn't clear already I argue that you haven't shown anything of the sort. There is no reason you have provided which suggests that existence and God are mutually dependant. You started with the premise that God is the only possible possibility, which is obviously untrue. My leather chair is a possible possibility.
Well we can deduce what GOD is capable of by using logic
No we can't deduce what is God is capable of using logic. If god exists, we can only deduce what God is capable of using evidence and logic. Our premises are dependant on the evidence.
However, this doesn't address my point. You still don't know what the ultimate possible being is - or whether or not this ultimate possible being qualifies as being God under your complete definition (the ultimate possible being might not be able to affect all possibilities).
that may be, but no idea has as yet shown why the theory does not do what it purports to.
It's obvious that you don't think any idea has shown the flaws in your reasoning -otherwise you'd have conceded. Now that you have accepted that ideas can show the flaws in your thinking you can now go back to the original thing I said:
What we need to do is to find out what the ultimate possible being actually is. What is the most ultimate thing that could exist in this reality? Not hypothetically speaking, but actually speaking. What constraints does reality have and within those constraints what is the ultimate. For all we know, it could be us. It certainly might be the case that this being exists and is not aware of its status as 'ultimate'. It is also possible that it is possible to exist but doesn't. Once we get that information we need to then see if this being would be able to affect all possibilities. After that, we'd need information as to whether this possible being actually does exist.
And tackle that and show why it isn't a problem for your thesis.
What are "Abstact entities" anyway?
Abstract Entity
quote:
set - (mathematics) an abstract collection of numbers or symbols; "the set of prime numbers is infinite"
God might just be an imaginary being, something that exists in a set of imaginary entities most of which have no possibility of actually existing.
If they are not possible, then they are impossible, which doesn't affect anything in my theory, which deals with possible things.
And yet your theory rests on the fact that an abstract collection of numbers represent an infinite number of actual possibilities. If abstract collections with infinite members are not actually possible, then your theory is in big trouble.
Sitting on a leather chair is not a possibility IF you ARE sitting on a leather chair.
But I don't know that I am sat on a leather chair, do I? It certainly feels like I am, but maybe it is an induced hallucination- or maybe I've been scammed and it is fake leather. Maybe someone switched chairs after I initially bought it. All of these are possible, but I'm confident that it is, actually, a leather chair that I am sat in.
My thesis does not rely on infinite reality. Reality can be finite, only possibility need be infinite.
And you have not shown that a finite reality will definitely have infinite possibilities. Nor have you shown that reality contains an infinite number of possibilities.
Hypothetical possibilities DO have a direct bearing on actuality, because existence IS possibility made real.
No - hypothetical possibilities do not have any bearing on actuality . Only actual possibilities would qualify. I said that the number of hypothetical possibilities is irrelevant to the number of actual possibilities.
Well you have taken the quote out of its context, The context was talking about possibility spaces, notice that the definition I use for YES and NO-GOD spaces assumes that the space exists, so when I go on to explain how possibilites can affect eachother it was in the context of, to use your words, "actual possibilities".
The context wasn't talking about possibility spaces, if that is what you meant the problem still remains. A possibility space cannot affect other possibility spaces based only on its possibilities. What matters is what actually is.
To quote you:
quote:
that even in the theoretical world of possibility a YES-GOD space transends all other possibilities
In the theoretical world of possibility a YES-GOD space cannot transcend all other possibilities. The only time God can affect other possibilities is if it actually exists. Since this is what you set out to prove, you cannot assume it to be the case here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-17-2008 11:15 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:18 PM Modulous has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 247 of 312 (456371)
02-17-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-17-2008 11:20 AM


rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Again you ARE indeed changing the subject, you well know that proof by contradiction doesn't work for ALL things opposite. You are setting up a straw man argument. What I am saying is that if something is shown to be possible, you have also shown that it is NOT impossible. That is a form of proof by contradiction.
If you recall, this whole line of debate started when I refused to accept the statement you made way back in Message 143 that “It can be stated as fact that God exists as a possibility”. You have been asked to bring forth the evidence that backs up this fact, but over a week has passed and I’m still waiting. In Message 175 you said, “First of all it is easy to show how something is possible, the very fact that if something is not impossible makes it possible”, which sounds very much like you were saying that proof by contradiction does work for ALL things possible - but now you aren’t.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Well I think you should get a better dictionary, because in mathematical terms arbitrary means, "undetermined; not assigned a specific value". Which kind of ruins the point you were going for.
Not assigned a specific value, which would invalidate your assigning the specific value of 0% in your thesis. This entirely supports the point I was making.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Thats not quite right,
Actually it's (100% / infinite flips) x infinite flips = infinity
Any equation that contains infinity, must be infinite in the answer. But because in mathematics it is clear that it's actually impossible to divide 100% into infinity, the possibility cannot really exist.
You chose the flipping of coins scenario, so we’re kind of stuck with it. You have fixated on one particular sequence of outcomes, as you believe it suits your purpose. Forget that sequence for a moment and concentrate solely on the probabilities.
If a coin is flipped is has a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails. Flip it again and it has another 50/50 chance and so on. Every single time you flip the coin, it always has a 50/50 chance. You can keep on flipping that coin forever and it still has a 50/50 chance, regardless of what the sequence of heads and tails has been to that point. So for any possible sequence, the probability is 2^n, where n is the number of flips. It doesn’t matter what the sequence is, the probability is always the same. That includes every possible sequence that is not ”all heads’ - exactly the same rules apply. So if we take a completely random sequence and ask the question, what are the chances that the next flip will be a head?, the answer is 50% - exactly as it is in the ”all heads’ sequence.
But if your argument is that the ”all heads’ sequence is impossible, then so are all the other possible sequences, as they are subject to exactly the same ”halving of chance’ as the ”all heads’ sequence. So if you claim the ”all heads’ sequence is impossible, so are all the others, which include all your possibility spaces containing your YES-GOD possibilities. Sorry to be mixing examples here, but you did choose the flipping of coins to represent your possibility spaces scenario.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
What has any of this got to do with whether GOD exists or not? Does GOD exist in these YES, NO-SUNLIGHT possibilities? If NO then they are NO-GOD spaces, if yes then they are YES-GOD spaces.
It is simply an illustration to show you that the idea you propose that the NO-GOD possibility has no bearing or influence on any other possibility is quite ludicrous, as I will demonstrate now.
You have introduced your idea of possibility spaces to the world. In your thesis you define them as, “2. POSSIBILITY SPACE(S) = Anything that can include possibilities, i.e., a universe, a dimension, or thought itself.” There must therefore be possibility spaces which include possibilities such as a) the god created the universe or b) the god did not create the universe. Using conditional probability, the NO-GOD possibility directly affects a), in that they are mutually exclusive - if the god does not exist, it cannot create anything. Interestingly, the YES-GOD possibility does not necessarily mean that b) is impossible - the god could exist, but may not have created the universe.
It is clear therefore that the NO-GOD possibility must affect as many of the possibility spaces as the YES-GOD possibility, because everything that exists in actuality can be said to have at least two possible causes - created by the god or not created by the god. It only becomes possible to start dismissing some possibility spaces as impossible after the NO-GOD or YES-GOD possibility has been determined. You have attempted indirectly to dismiss half the possibility spaces by claiming NO-GOD has no influence before anything has been determined.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Doesn't EVERYBODY have a preconceived belief system, yours appears to be that I worked my way backwards.
I was brought up to believe in the existence of a god, but I grew out of it by the time I was 10 years old. Do you think you’ll have grown out of yours by the time you’re 10 years old?
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
How many straw men do you have? Interestingly this time you try to use a mathematical argument but strangly for you, you haven't done any mathematical calculations based on your so called empirical observations. One of the reasons is of course because you can't really get MAXIMALLY PROBABLE out of what you say. Which ruins your idea.
Like I said, I was having some fun here, which isn’t to say that if I changed your term to be HIGHLY PROBABLE, the YES-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility of your thesis having any validity is already looking like a really long shot . and part of the fun of this thread is to see what happens every time someone yanks your chain.
Which reminds me, I think I forgot to ask you what we should conclude if your definitions, which “must be agreed upon by all parties” are not in fact agreed by all parties? Or in this case not agreed by any parties, with the possible exception of PurpleYouko. Is the validity of your thesis entirely dependant on acceptance of your definitions?
Edited by dogrelata, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-17-2008 11:20 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:19 PM dogrelata has replied

dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 248 of 312 (456379)
02-17-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-17-2008 11:20 AM


As an afterthought, I'd be really interested to know what your take on the Monty Hall problem is. If you're not familiar with it - Google it.
It has no direct relevance to this thread, but I'd be interested all the same. Go on, humour me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-17-2008 11:20 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:20 PM dogrelata has replied

pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 249 of 312 (456739)
02-19-2008 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-12-2008 9:44 PM


Re: will the real god please stand up
Potential is almost but not quite the same as possibility. It has capacity for growth, development etc, but this itself relies on possibility. With possibility it either is or is not, there is no room for improvement. For example the ultimate being would not need to improve.
po·ten·ti·al·i·ty (p-tnsh-l-t)
n. pl. po·ten·ti·al·i·ties
1. The state of being potential.
2.
a. Inherent capacity for growth, development, or coming into existence.
b. Something possessing such capacity.
Using this definition, "could god be potentiality?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-12-2008 9:44 PM rulerofthisuniverse has not replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 250 of 312 (456754)
02-19-2008 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Chiroptera
02-17-2008 11:59 AM


Dear Chiroptera,
quote:
Logic is simply a set of rules that humans have developed to help us keep our thought processes orderly.
That is an opinion not a fact, I content that EVERYTHING is logical from the start. Infact our thought processes are orderly from the start, our thoughts determine how we order things, not the other way round.
quote:
The universe doesn't need to be anything, and in fact the universe often confounds our logical deductions.
A universe doesn't need to be anything, but THIS universe IS logical.
Can you name ONE thing that the universe does that confounds your logical deductions. And if there is, then what are the implications to the logical scientific method?
quote:
That is why the pure application of logic does not lead to new knowledge, and that we must always resort to observation.
REALLY? How do you observe human thoughts again? We can observe the processes going on sure, but can you observe the sound and visions of the mind, like dreams? I contend logic comes before observation, and observation is dependend on a logical universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2008 11:59 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by dogrelata, posted 02-20-2008 5:43 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied
 Message 258 by Chiroptera, posted 02-20-2008 9:50 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 251 of 312 (456755)
02-19-2008 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Stile
02-17-2008 12:02 PM


Re: Imagination is not the same as reality
Dear Stile,
Funny how you didn't answer any of my questions, instead you switched it to something else. The thing is I have already explained why GOD has ultimate power but I will answer your questions because they are so easy to answer.
1. Is being infinitely strong ultimate power?
No, certainly not in the weight lifting sense, as GOD's power is more like energy or a force to get things done.
2. does this quality conlfict with any other qualities, such as Absolute love and supreme justice. Does this affect freedom of choice for example.
No.
3. Does this quality assume that GOD needs us to know that he's all powerful. If so why?
No.
4. Why should a God of ultimate power actually be better than a god without it?
Because a god without any power is not a god.
5. Is a God of ultimate power possible?
Yes.
6. IS there really a need for ultimate power? Or is it based on some our own subjective desires?
The GOD I have defined needs ultimate power, because he needs to control all possibilities.
7. Why should God have to prove that he is all powerful?
GOD doesn't doesn't
9. Why should an ultimate possible being/thing not exist if it was not a God of ultimate power?
Because if GOD hasn't got ultimate power over all possibilities, then the ultimate being as I defined it doesn't exist.
quote:
You're arbitrarily answering these questions in the positive for ultimate power
It turns out it turns out to be about half each.
quote:
and in the negative for ultimate identity.
Erm I haven't answered the ultimate identity questions, I asked you to do that.
quote:
When thinking about ultimate power, you think it's obvious that more is better, and infinite is best. But that's simply your own subjective opinion. There's really no reason for you to answer for or against any of these definitions. They are all subjective.
Nope all the qualities are REQUIRED for GOD to BE GOD, it has nothing to do with my opinion.
quote:
Ultimate Power is equally subjective as Ultimate Identity.
Not really, I can logically explain why GOD has ultimate power, but you seem to be struggling to explain why GOD should be a GOD of ultimate identity.
quote:
The problems you see with Ultimate Identity being an attribute of an Ultimate being/thing are exactly the same problems any objective viewer will see with Utimate Power being an attribute.
No they are not. One of the most agreed upon attributes of God is that he would have power of some kind.
1. You say Ultimate Power. Why not Ultimate Weakness? Because you think power is better.
Well this is a misunderstanding of what is meant by power. But still a God that can't get things done is really no God at all.
2. You say Ultimate Love. Why not Ultimate hate? Because you think love is better.
Well this is explained in my thesis. But a God of hate would most likely destroy itself.
3. You say Ultimate Wisdom. Why not Ultimate stupidity? Because you think wisdom is better.
Well my definition of GOD knows and sees all possibilities, and this is how GOD would pretty much know everything. But a God that's stupid, again wouldn't be able to do anything, because it wouldn't know what to do.
4. You say Ultimate Justice. Why not Ultimate Chaos? Because you think justice is better.
Well not much gets done if things are chaotic. But ultimate justice, allows freedom, and right and wrong, truth and false, and the order that's necessary for life.
5. You say Ultimate Good. Why not Ultimate Bad? Because you think good is better.
Well again this is explained in my thesis, but this is just another version of love and hate.
quote:
Your subjective opinion is only persuasive to those who already subjectively agree with you. It has no persuasive power to an objective viewer.
It's not about opinion, it's all down to logic.
quote:
Your entire thesis relies on everyone agreeing with your arbitrary asnwers to these questions. When you don't have someone agree (like those in this thread) you can't prove it otherwise (as shown in this thread) because it's arbitrary.
Actually I have been proving otherwise, but sometimes people just disagree for the sake of disagreeing here. Also not many people here seem to be answering any of the questions I put forward.
quote:
No proof exists, because it's subjective and arbitrary. If you had observations of the real world, then this subjectiveness would be removed. That's what science does. This is not science. This is a thought exercise. One that doesn't pass the test of reality because it is so arbitrary.
The whole of existence is proof. I have given lots of observations of the real world that support my thesis.
quote:
But I did answer the question. My answer is that "possibility in imagination" and "possibility in reality" aren't the only kinds of possibilities.
Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, I find that statement strange as you said earlier;
Stile writes:
Possible has two meanings - we can imagine something, or something can actually exist. They are different, and you know the difference
Now your claiming a third meaning? Nice one.
quote:
You're making a duality where none exists.
That's another funny one, as it was you who defined it up into two in the first place. The definition of possibility to me has always been Something (A concept, prospect or potential), that has a capability of being true, happening or existing.
quote:
And your inability to see so in my answer proves that you're forcing your mind into a hole and not allowing any alternative explanations.
Actually I am showing how illogical your argument is.
quote:
Possibilities do not rely on our ability to think about them, imagine them, or reality's ability to support them.
Thats right they don't, I have been saying that from the start.
quote:
Possibilities can exist without any being, or any reality.
Now that I disagree with.
Lets say there are 3 meanings to possibility, "possibility in imagination", "possibility in reality", and the third possibility that you haven't defined yet. So before we can move on could you please clearly define what you think this 3rd type of possibility is, don't forget it can't be any type of imagination or any kind on reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Stile, posted 02-17-2008 12:02 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Stile, posted 02-20-2008 8:49 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 252 of 312 (456756)
02-19-2008 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
02-17-2008 12:33 PM


Dear Modulous,
quote:
I'm aware of what you think you have done, if it wasn't clear already I argue that you haven't shown anything of the sort. There is no reason you have provided which suggests that existence and God are mutually dependant. You started with the premise that God is the only possible possibility, which is obviously untrue. My leather chair is a possible possibility.
Well actually I started with the premise that there are a infinite number of possibilities. So as you have started with a false assumption, your credibility at judging the evidence is shakey at best.
quote:
However, this doesn't address my point. You still don't know what the ultimate possible being is - or whether or not this ultimate possible being qualifies as being God under your complete definition (the ultimate possible being might not be able to affect all possibilitie).
A being that can control ALL possibilities WILL be GOD, because it WILL BE the CREATOR of ALL that EXISTS. This GOD WILL be the ultimate being because no other being can do more than controling all possibilities.
quote:
What we need to do is to find out what the ultimate possible being actually is. What is the most ultimate thing that could exist in this reality?
I think my definition is quite adequate, it explains what the ultimate being is.
What do you mean "this reality", GOD in my definition creates reality.
quote:
What constraints does reality have and within those constraints what is the ultimate.
Again GOD is not constrained to our reality.
quote:
For all we know, it could be us. It certainly might be the case that this being exists and is not aware of its status as 'ultimate'. It is also possible that it is possible to exist but doesn't. Once we get that information we need to then see if this being would be able to affect all possibilities. After that, we'd need information as to whether this possible being actually does exist.
Well I think all these questions have been answered in this topic and in my thesis.
quote:
And yet your theory rests on the fact that an abstract collection of numbers represent an infinite number of actual possibilities. If abstract collections with infinite members are not actually possible, then your theory is in big trouble.
Nope not at all, I simply used numbers as one example to show how possibilities within possibility spaces could work. I could of used letters, or letters and numbers. How many possible sentences are there anyway, and how many words can you fit into a sentence?
You know it's funny how you seem to think numbers are absract anyway, as I have just started reading a book called "God's Secret Formula" by Peter Plichta, and on page 11 he states, "without the existence of numbers as objects in reality there could not be a universe". It will be interesting to see how he proves his statement, which he claims to be able to do.
quote:
And you have not shown that a finite reality will definitely have infinite possibilities. Nor have you shown that reality contains an infinite number of possibilities.
I have never said a finite reality will definitetly have infinite possibilities, please read what I write more carefully.
Here is an example of how a finite possibility space can have an infinite number of possibilities;
Take one chess board, one chess piece, and continue moving chess piece around the board in any direction for any number of squares you choose, until no more moves are possible.
quote:
No - hypothetical possibilities do not have any bearing on actuality . Only actual possibilities would qualify. I said that the number of hypothetical possibilities is irrelevant to the number of actual possibilities.
All possibilities are hypothetical, actual possibilities are called existence. possibility is always relevant to existence.
quote:
The context wasn't talking about possibility spaces, if that is what you meant the problem still remains. A possibility space cannot affect other possibility spaces based only on its possibilities. What matters is what actually is.
Exuse me but I wrote the thing, I know what context it was in, "and this particular space wouldn't have much, if any, affect on any other space."
You clearly have some sort of word filter on, I already answered you, "notice that the definition I use for YES and NO-GOD spaces assumes that the space exists, so when I go on to explain how possibilites can affect eachother it was in the context of, to use your words, "actual possibilities".
quote:
In the theoretical world of possibility a YES-GOD space cannot transcend all other possibilities. The only time God can affect other possibilities is if it actually exists. Since this is what you set out to prove, you cannot assume it to be the case here.
Again I already answered this in my last post to you.
This is why GOD, Possibility and existence are irreducibly dependent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2008 12:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 11:03 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 253 of 312 (456757)
02-19-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by dogrelata
02-17-2008 2:40 PM


Dear dogrelata,
quote:
If you recall, this whole line of debate started when I refused to accept the statement you made way back in Message 143 that “It can be stated as fact that God exists as a possibility”. You have been asked to bring forth the evidence that backs up this fact, but over a week has passed and I’m still waiting. In Message 175 you said, “First of all it is easy to show how something is possible, the very fact that if something is not impossible makes it possible”, which sounds very much like you were saying that proof by contradiction does work for ALL things possible - but now you aren’t.
Well the fact that we are arguing about the possibility of GOD proves that GOD is a possibility, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing would we.
quote:
Not assigned a specific value, which would invalidate your assigning the specific value of 0% in your thesis. This entirely supports the point I was making.
Oh there you go again, I don't see anything in my thesis that has the specific value of 0%
quote:
Forget that sequence for a moment and concentrate solely on the probabilities.
Sorry you can't forget the sequence, the flips will always need to be multiplied against the other flips, regardless of the individual flip.
Oh and once again you calculations are wrong again, it shoukd be: 1/2^n
quote:
But if your argument is that the ”all heads’ sequence is impossible, then so are all the other possible sequences, as they are subject to exactly the same ”halving of chance’ as the ”all heads’ sequence. So if you claim the ”all heads’ sequence is impossible, so are all the others, which include all your possibility spaces containing your YES-GOD possibilities. Sorry to be mixing examples here, but you did choose the flipping of coins to represent your possibility spaces scenario.
You know you've gone full circle because a while ago you said the opposite "As the number of attempts increases, then so does the likelihood that at least one successful result will come into being. If the number of attempts is infinite, the probability of at least one successful result is so great that it can be seen as almost inevitable." Well actually thats half a circle.
remember when I talk about coin flips it's as an example of YES and NO-GOD possibility spaces, so they are not ordinary coins, because one side wins the game, the other side means you have to flip the coin again. It's like a game where you just keep flipping a coin until it flips to the other side, and then the game is over. All sequences are possible until the coin gets flipped to the other side which ends the game, making all other sequences impossible.
quote:
It is simply an illustration to show you that the idea you propose that the NO-GOD possibility has no bearing or influence on any other possibility is quite ludicrous, as I will demonstrate now.
Funny how you don't answer my NO-SUNLIGHT question, but I forgot to point out that your YES and NO SUNLIGHT spaces rely on SUNLIGHT, your NO-SUNLIGHT space is determined by the lack of sunlight, making the YES space the dominant space.
quote:
You have introduced your idea of possibility spaces to the world. In your thesis you define them as, “2. POSSIBILITY SPACE(S) = Anything that can include possibilities, i.e., a universe, a dimension, or thought itself.” There must therefore be possibility spaces which include possibilities such as a) the god created the universe or b) the god did not create the universe. Using conditional probability, the NO-GOD possibility directly affects a), in that they are mutually exclusive - if the god does not exist, it cannot create anything. Interestingly, the YES-GOD possibility does not necessarily mean that b) is impossible - the god could exist, but may not have created the universe.
It is clear therefore that the NO-GOD possibility must affect as many of the possibility spaces as the YES-GOD possibility, because everything that exists in actuality can be said to have at least two possible causes - created by the god or not created by the god. It only becomes possible to start dismissing some possibility spaces as impossible after the NO-GOD or YES-GOD possibility has been determined. You have attempted indirectly to dismiss half the possibility spaces by claiming NO-GOD has no influence before anything has been determined.
What are you going on about? How has any of your spaces affected any other spaces? mutually exclusive means they are all separate. Having at least two possible causes, doesn't affect other possibility spaces. I mean just beacause God doesn't exist in this universe, how would that effect any other universes. It is interesting that you keep coming up with these possibility spaces, and not realising that you are making yourself God in them all. Infact all your possibility spaces can be called YES-DOGRELATA spaces.
quote:
Like I said, I was having some fun here, which isn’t to say that if I changed your term to be HIGHLY PROBABLE, the YES-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility of your thesis having any validity is already looking like a really long shot . and part of the fun of this thread is to see what happens every time someone yanks your chain.
Is someone yanking my chain? I didn't notice.
quote:
Which reminds me, I think I forgot to ask you what we should conclude if your definitions, which “must be agreed upon by all parties” are not in fact agreed by all parties? Or in this case not agreed by any parties, with the possible exception of PurpleYouko. Is the validity of your thesis entirely dependant on acceptance of your definitions?
I don't ultimately think so, I think the most important bit is my conclusion. From what I have read about the actual definition, the criticism has been mostly due to misunderstanding of the words, as nobody has actually falsified the definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by dogrelata, posted 02-17-2008 2:40 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by dogrelata, posted 02-20-2008 11:58 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

rulerofthisuniverse
Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 106
Joined: 02-03-2008


Message 254 of 312 (456758)
02-19-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by dogrelata
02-17-2008 3:55 PM


Dear dogrelata,
quote:
I'd be really interested to know what your take on the Monty Hall problem is.
Very interesting, although the host because he must know which door not to open, messes with the natual probabilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by dogrelata, posted 02-17-2008 3:55 PM dogrelata has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by dogrelata, posted 02-20-2008 11:33 AM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 255 of 312 (456764)
02-19-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by rulerofthisuniverse
02-19-2008 10:18 PM


Well actually I started with the premise that there are a infinite number of possibilities. So as you have started with a false assumption, your credibility at judging the evidence is shakey at best.
I don't follow. In your proof of the dependency of God and existence you say "As we proved earlier God is the only possible possibility, therefore we can see that God and possibility are themselves irreducibly dependent."
I argue that your premise to this proof (that God is the only possible possibility) is false. Are you suggesting that your thesis contradicts itself by saying that God is the only possible possibility and there are an infinite number of possibilities?
A being that can control ALL possibilities WILL be GOD, because it WILL BE the CREATOR of ALL that EXISTS. This GOD WILL be the ultimate being because no other being can do more than controling all possibilities.
I understand what the ultimate being is in your imagination. It is a being that controls all possibilities and is the creator of all that exists. Great. Is such an entity actually possible? If not, what is the most ultimate being that is possible?
What do you mean "this reality", GOD in my definition creates reality.
By this reality I mean in the reality that actually exists. God doesn't create reality, I use reality to encompass all that exists - which would include God.
Again GOD is not constrained to our reality.
There is only one reality that exists. Whatever the ultimate possible being can be, is constrained by whatever rules of reality exist. It is your burden to show that there are no limits within any rules that might exist (or to show that no rules exist!).
Nope not at all, I simply used numbers as one example to show how possibilities within possibility spaces could work. I could of used letters, or letters and numbers. How many possible sentences are there anyway, and how many words can you fit into a sentence?
More abstract entities. Try finding an infinite set of entities that can possibly exist.
You know it's funny how you seem to think numbers are absract anyway, as I have just started reading a book called "God's Secret Formula" by Peter Plichta, and on page 11 he states, "without the existence of numbers as objects in reality there could not be a universe". It will be interesting to see how he proves his statement, which he claims to be able to do.
Those objects in reality are not abstractions though. The numbers in an infinite set are abstractions from actual quantities in reality. If there is a limited number of quantifiable things in reality or their quantities can only take on a finite amount - then your infinite sets of numbers are not really real - they are just abstractions.
I have never said a finite reality will definitetly have infinite possibilities, please read what I write more carefully.
Yes I know you haven't said that. But you need to show that, otherwise you are in trouble.
Here is an example of how a finite possibility space can have an infinite number of possibilities;
Take one chess board, one chess piece, and continue moving chess piece around the board in any direction for any number of squares you choose, until no more moves are possible.
So there is no limit on the number of moves? If so, then is this not an infinite possibility space?
All possibilities are hypothetical, actual possibilities are called existence. possibility is always relevant to existence.
We're getting all confused. Let me try again.
I flip a coin. It could either:
1. land heads up
2. land tails up
3. turn into a griffon
4. engage in political discourse
5. change your name
6. sleep furiously in a field of green
7. solve Fermat's last Theorem
8. create a universe
9. kill Kennedy
10. collapse into a black hole, emit 10100100 carbon atoms at 400 times the speed of light, with a rest mass of -4tonnes whilst composing 100 years worth of European classical music.
Now, let's say that some of those are impossible. At least two of them are actually possible. Now, it isn't both heads and tails. Only one of them comes into existence.
Now - you have to show that God is a heads/tails type possibility (one that can actually happen in this reality) and not a faster than light absurd number of carbon atoms composing music type hypothetical possibility (which for the sake of argument is not possible in this reality).
You clearly have some sort of word filter on, I already answered you, "notice that the definition I use for YES and NO-GOD spaces assumes that the space exists, so when I go on to explain how possibilites can affect eachother it was in the context of, to use your words, "actual possibilities".
But actual possibilities still can't affect reality. They don't exist, they only possibly exist. They only exist if they exist. Unless they do, they can't affect anything. Possibility spaces, possibilities, whatever you talk about...cannot do anything unless they actually exist. If you want to assume that a possibility space exists within which God exists, then you are just assuming God exists. That would make for a lousy argument and you'll excuse me if I gave you the benefit of the doubt about what you were trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-19-2008 10:18 PM rulerofthisuniverse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by rulerofthisuniverse, posted 02-21-2008 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024