|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Knowing God proves problematic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Taz writes: Composition fallacy. It's not just the composition Taz. But have it your way - i don't want to dissuade you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Here's how one site describes the fallacy of composition:
The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification is provided for the inference. When you claim that material reality at our own macro level must have the same qualities as material reality at the quantum level, you're committing the fallacy of composition. And as someone else said, fields at the quantum level *are* material and real. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Percy writes: When you claim that material reality at our own macro level must have the same qualities as material reality at the quantum level, you're committing the fallacy of composition. And as someone else said, fields at the quantum level *are* material and real. This was disproven more than 40 years ago by John S. Bell. His theorem states that no hidden variable could match the experiments in quantum mechanics. Nature is non-local.Second, I find the statement about the quantum fields being real and "material" devoid of all meaning. It's true that fields are more fundamental than "partilces", but those are quantised fields, which only exhibit particle-like features under certain circumstances, but not in others(this is the disturbing part and the nightmare of the physicists). Some aspects of quantum field theory appear even more mind-boggling. One such feature is that, in quantum field theory, there necessarily must exist long-range correlations in any state, and even the vacuum. This was addressed by James Bell's theorem which is hailed as the most profound and important theorem of all physics. If you are still holding on to hidden variables, incompleteness of QM and other fairytales, think about this - What distance travels a photon emitted 5 billion years ago from Alpha Centauri that reaches the Earth from its frame of reference? And in what time? And why do you think the frame of reference of the photon should be invalid? Give it some thought. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by "material and real". I did not mean solid like a table top. I meant in the same way as anything else in our universe. Table tops, radio waves, and quantum fields are all material and real.
But looking back through your posts, like Message 50, I see that you are using "material" when referring to objects of the macro world, so I'll stop using that word to describe the quantum world. I'll just say that quantum fields are as real as table tops. Quantum uncertainty is just as real as a stubbed toe. The mistake that you're making *is* the fallacy of composition. You've concluded that the qualities of quantum fields which do not have the quality of solidity must be extended to the macro level of our perception without offering any justification. But isn't this is a diversion from this thread's topic. I don't see the tie in. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5552 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Percy writes: I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by "material and real". I did not mean solid like a table top. I meant in the same way as anything else in our universe. But looking back through your posts, like Message 50, I see that you are using "material" when referring to objects of the macro world, so I'll stop using that word to describe the quantum world. I'll just say that quantum fields are as real as table tops. Quantum uncertainty is just as real as a stubbed toe. The mistake that you're making *is* the fallacy of composition. You've concluded that the qualities of quantum fields which do not have the quality of solidity must be extended to the macro level of our perception without offering any justification. But isn't this is a diversion from this thread's topic. I don't see the tie in. No, i wasn't talking about solidity, and those 2 worlds are really one and the same, just seen through an interface that we call human body. I was talking about how physicists tried to pull the curtain on you with ambiguous terms like: Nature is non-local Space and Time are not fundamental Shut up and calculate QM is incomplete The universe is based on the Holographic Principle ...all this just to steer the public away from the enormous philosophical implications of its findings. Maybe it's for a good reason - there may be mass hysteria, religion will start to dominate all life, people might lose interest in life,... I myself was on tranquilisers for a few days.
Percy writes: Table tops, radio waves, and quantum fields are all material and real. This was proven to be wrong by the Double slit experiment multiple times. Did you figure out what distance the photon travelled from its point of reference? PS. Yes, it's very offtopic, if you find the need to reply, you can do so in another thread. But if you are not in an absolute stable state of mind, don't even try to look into these matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Okay, now it's obvious, you're nowhere near the topic. If quantum reality is what you want to talk about then you should find another thread.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The weatherman can "know" what will happen tomorrow, the spy can "know" where the Nazis are going to bomb tomorrow, an alligator can "know" where the zebras are going to cross the river, and I can "know" that my baby is about to take off walking across the room while my wife isn't looking, but none of these imply that the observer's knowledge has any control over the actor's actions.
This has also been my position all along. It is irrelevant if God knew what I was going to do before I did it. I still made the decisions and choices to follow a specific course. To me it is irrelevant if God foreknew it or not. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
After reading all of the posts in this thread it is clear to me that if there is a God, then that God simply set the clock in motion and has no control over what is actually going to happen. i.e., a truly compassionate, loving, personal God cannot be omniscient and allow man to die in truly awful ways unless he has no control over how things are going to work out. I might add that I believe that God chooses to have no control. Humanity is a grand experiment and is responsible for our collective destiny. God may well know and yet not interfere with this process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I could end world hunger by snapping my fingers but I choose not to.
I might add that I believe that God chooses to have no control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
There is another alternative to this. But in order to explain, I must invoke godwin's law... just kidding.
Imagine a native from the deep Amazon Forest talking to a man from New York City. The man tells the native that where he comes from people have the power of flight. The native thinks about it and asks the man if people from New York are half-birds. The man from NY says no. The native then says in order for a man to fly he must be half bird to have wings. If people from NY are not half-birds, then they cannot fly. What I'm trying to get at is you people are playing with logic as if you know everything about everything. Assuming an all-powerful and all-knowing god exists, it surely thinks on a level far above our own that we, at least at the moment, can't comprehend the logic that's involved. For all we know, it makes perfect sense for god to be all-knowing and for people to still have choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I could end world hunger by snapping my fingers but I choose not to. You have given them enough food to go around, yet they choose to hoard it for a few of them. They will never learn to share if you simply give everyone food. That is their job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Assume God is omniscient and man has free will. God therefore knows what a person will do before he does it, and a person is free to choose what he wants to do. But if a person decides to do something different than what God knows he will do, then by simple logic the part of the initial assumption about God's omniscience is incorrect. Or if a person always ends up doing precisely what God knows he will do, then by simple logic the part of the initial assumption about free will is incorrect. There cannot be Godly omniscience and free will by God's subjects in the same universe. First of all, how would we test it? How would we know what Godknew and did not know before the fact? Second, if free will is defined as "doing something other than what God knows" I would argue that yes, we don't have true free will nor should we. You don't get to out think God. Ain't gonna happen. Whether or not you judge Him evil for foreknowing your damnation, for example, matters not since even if He did foresee it, you chose it. The protest that you simply couldn't have done anything nor chosen any way to avoid it is whining after the fact at best.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
They wouldn't have to share if everybody had enough. Think manna. They will never learn to share if you simply give everyone food. But my point was that anybody can say, "I could do that but I don't wanna." The evidence that you can is that you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18310 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
And if God simply existed to provide for our needs, we would never grow. Besides...God owes us nothing, anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Then what good is He? Besides...God owes us nothing, anyway. And my point, again, is that anybody can say he's omnipotent - but if he doesn't demonstrate his abilities, his words are empty. The same applies to ominscience, as per the topic. I can say I know everything there is to know about geology but unless I can demonstrate that I know something about geology, my claim is empty. So I'll ask, yet again, why is it that those who claim to commune with God, He Who they claim to be omniscient, don't seem to know anything special? If He isn't communicating something that requires omniscience to know, what good is communion?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024