Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Knowing God proves problematic
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 61 of 82 (491785)
12-21-2008 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taz
12-21-2008 2:17 AM


Re: No evidence in reality
Taz writes:
Composition fallacy.
It's not just the composition Taz. But have it your way - i don't want to dissuade you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 12-21-2008 2:17 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 12-21-2008 8:59 AM Agobot has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 62 of 82 (491797)
12-21-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Agobot
12-21-2008 4:47 AM


Re: No evidence in reality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 4:47 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 9:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 63 of 82 (491803)
12-21-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
12-21-2008 8:59 AM


Re: No evidence in reality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 12-21-2008 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 12-21-2008 1:23 PM Agobot has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 64 of 82 (491817)
12-21-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Agobot
12-21-2008 9:34 AM


Re: No evidence in reality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 9:34 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 2:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5610 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 65 of 82 (491818)
12-21-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Percy
12-21-2008 1:23 PM


Re: No evidence in reality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Percy, posted 12-21-2008 1:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 12-21-2008 5:49 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 66 of 82 (491829)
12-21-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Agobot
12-21-2008 2:06 PM


Re: No evidence in reality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Agobot, posted 12-21-2008 2:06 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 67 of 82 (733803)
07-21-2014 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
12-11-2008 10:49 AM


Foreknowledge & Freewill(or lack of)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 12-11-2008 10:49 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 68 of 82 (733804)
07-21-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by caldron68
12-17-2008 7:46 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
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.

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by caldron68, posted 12-17-2008 7:46 PM caldron68 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 12:39 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 69 of 82 (733873)
07-22-2014 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Phat
07-21-2014 1:47 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
Phat writes:
I might add that I believe that God chooses to have no control.
I could end world hunger by snapping my fingers but I choose not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Phat, posted 07-21-2014 1:47 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 07-23-2014 5:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(2)
Message 70 of 82 (733895)
07-22-2014 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
12-11-2008 11:15 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 11:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 71 of 82 (733984)
07-23-2014 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
07-22-2014 12:39 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
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.

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 07-22-2014 12:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 07-23-2014 6:07 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 72 of 82 (733985)
07-23-2014 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Percy
12-11-2008 11:15 AM


Special Pleading?
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 God
knew 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.

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 11:15 AM Percy has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 73 of 82 (733987)
07-23-2014 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
07-23-2014 5:10 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
Phat writes:
They will never learn to share if you simply give everyone food.
They wouldn't have to share if everybody had enough. Think manna.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 07-23-2014 5:10 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 07-24-2014 10:47 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 74 of 82 (734006)
07-24-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
07-23-2014 6:07 PM


Re: a simple hand-wave
And if God simply existed to provide for our needs, we would never grow. Besides...God owes us nothing, anyway.

...."When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 07-23-2014 6:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 07-24-2014 11:43 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 76 by Diomedes, posted 07-24-2014 1:41 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 75 of 82 (734007)
07-24-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
07-24-2014 10:47 AM


Re: a simple hand-wave
Phat writes:
Besides...God owes us nothing, anyway.
Then what good is He?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 07-24-2014 10:47 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024