Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises were...

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:07 am

Ecmandu wrote:Eternal means: never begins or ends
Infinite means: begins but doesn't end

Definitions can be whatever we want them to be, but I'd argue that the definitions should not be as you posited because eternity is colloquially considered a special type of infinity that has to do with time. Furthermore, something that begins, but doesn't end, doesn't make sense to me because something cannot come from nothing, which is what would be required in order to have a something that began, but never ends.

I generally regard infinity as boundless and eternity as timeless (absence of time instead of infinite amounts of it, which is really the same thing). If there were infinite oranges, oranges would be in every location possible to the extent that there would be nothing but oranges because the condition would have to be satisfied that no more oranges could be added to the universe and that would only be possible if oranges were ubiquitous, and if that were the case, then there would be nothing that is not-orange and therefore no contrast or context in which oranges could be said to exist and therefore the oranges would not exist. So the infinite cannot be something that exists.

Certainly real wrote:Existence

Hello. :obscene-drinkingcheers:

I'm not convinced you have a concept of what existence is.

This dot exists --> .

The dot only exists because there is a contrasting background giving it context in which to exist. If there were no background, there could not be a dot and no dot could be said to exist.

So existence is a relation of one thing to another thing.

Abstract existence is not anything we can conceptualize or speak about as real because it would have no contrast or context, unless you could demonstrate how nothingness can be a thing such that we could have something in the context of nothing. But if nothingness were made into a thing, then we're back to square one because something would exist in terms of the thing that is nothing and, once again, existence is relational instead of abstract.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:09 am

Ecmandu wrote:Two things of note: you confuse infinity and eternity


Eternal means: never begins or ends
Infinite means: begins but doesn't end


Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension.
Eternal is infinity in relation to the dimension of time.

You still use the word paradox incorrectly


Ok, so how have I been using it incorrectly?

So, existence is doing everything that is being done in existence, and knowing everything that is known in existence. You take a further leap of logic, by defining this as perfect!


The argument which I laid out in premises tells me that Existence is perfect. So I've shown why Existence being imperfect is paradoxical. You tell/show me why Existence existing/doing perfectly, which is the same as Existence being perfect, is paradoxical. I've proven my point, you keep providing the same counter-arguement. I counter you argument by highlighting the fact that: Being a part of something and being something are entirely different things. Are they not? You do not say yes or no to this question. You always avoid it whereas I never avoid any of your questions.

I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates, probably because the argument of evil is the most damaging argument against such a being.

We have had this conversation before. Look back to the first page. You said omnibenevolence was a problem in my argument, I asked you for your definition of omnibenevolence, you gave it to me, I addressed your point directly. I always address everything you say. You either forget or avoid/ignore this and then just either say something else entirely or repeat the same thing.

Per your argument, though we may not be god, god still commits every sin in existence.


We're not God and we never will be. We're a part of God. Again, I'm gonna use your own example to directly address your point. You gave an example about a human and a liver, I will give you an example about a human and God:

Think of it this way. We know what a healthy liver is.

Yes. We have a clear definition of a healthy liver.
Think of it this way. We know what a healthy/morally good human is.
Our liver is inside of us, when it is unhealthy, we are sick.

Yes, you're right. Now consider this:

(paradoxical version) A human is inside of God. When it is unhealthy or morally bad, God becomes unhealthy and morally bad. Do you not see how this is paradoxical? If you don't see the paradox, consider the non-paradoxical version of the sentence:

(non-paradoxical version) A human is inside of God. When it is unhealthy or morally bad, it does not alter God's infiniteness/omnipresence/omnipotence/omniscience

Do you think what things/beings do in Existence/God or how they change in Existence/God has any effect on the nature of Existence/God itself? Do you see how I've addressed every point you made directly?
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:23 am

Serendipper wrote:Hello. :obscene-drinkingcheers:


Hi :obscene-drinkingcheers:

I'm not convinced you have a concept of what existence is.


Can the concept be defined or understood as anything other than that which is omnipresent/all-existing?

This dot exists --> .

The dot only exists because there is a contrasting background giving it context in which to exist. If there were no background, there could not be a dot and no dot could be said to exist.

So existence is a relation of one thing to another thing.


That there are things in relation each other is an aspect of Existence. Denying Existence as omnipresent/all-existing is paradoxical is it not?

Abstract existence is not anything we can conceptualize or speak about as real because it would have no contrast or context, unless you could demonstrate how nothingness can be a thing such that we could have something in the context of nothing. But if nothingness were made into a thing, then we're back to square one because something would exist in terms of the thing that is nothing and, once again, existence is relational instead of abstract.


Paradoxes and absurdities like a square-circle are things that we cannot conceptualise or speak about. If Existence was like this, I would not be able to give a clear definition of it.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:05 am

Certainly real wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Hello. :obscene-drinkingcheers:


Hi :obscene-drinkingcheers:

:obscene-drinkingdrunk:

I'm not convinced you have a concept of what existence is.


Can the concept be defined or understood as anything other than that which is omnipresent/all-existing?

How can existence = all-existence? It seems like instead of defining existence, you described an implementation of it. What does "everywhere-existing" mean if there is no spacial construct to give it meaning? Maybe you mean "spacially saturated" ;)

I think you're onto something, but don't know how to put it in words. I suspect you're driving at "objectivity", the observerless object, the abstract existence that we know is there, because it has to be: something has to be the fundamental existence or there would be nothing to relate to in order for us "construct beings" to be able to speak about it. Unfortunately, that's self-inspection which is like a knife cutting itself. I remember once I had a dream that a cat had its head in its mouth and, as stupid as I am, didn't realize that was absurd until my school buddies laughed about it. Looking back I'm not sure if I was perceptive or stupid because who is really to say that absurdities are absurd?

This dot exists --> .

The dot only exists because there is a contrasting background giving it context in which to exist. If there were no background, there could not be a dot and no dot could be said to exist.

So existence is a relation of one thing to another thing.


That there are things in relation each other is an aspect of Existence. Denying Existence as omnipresent/all-existing is paradoxical is it not?

You're reifying existence into a thing which is then something that exists everywhere, which is also a thing (a construct of spacetime). That's just moving the goal posts I think.

What is the heads side of a coin? Well, it's the heads side. It's not the tails side, it's not the thin side, it's not the inside, it's not your chair, it's not your [insert everything in universe except the heads-side]. IOW, a heads side of a coin cannot exist, or be conceptualized, except in terms of what it is not. Existence itself is a synonym for relational. Relational doesn't have to exist before existence because it is existence. Dualities are all that we can know because we will always need a contrast in order to speak of existence.

Abstract existence is not anything we can conceptualize or speak about as real because it would have no contrast or context, unless you could demonstrate how nothingness can be a thing such that we could have something in the context of nothing. But if nothingness were made into a thing, then we're back to square one because something would exist in terms of the thing that is nothing and, once again, existence is relational instead of abstract.


Paradoxes and absurdities like a square-circle are things that we cannot conceptualise or speak about. If Existence was like this, I would not be able to give a clear definition of it.

That probably is the case since, ultimately, reality is self-inspection which is just as absurd as square-circles.

This is why some theologians surmised there was conceptual and nonconceptual knowledge. We can describe something by adding concepts like a painter paints a picture or we can describe something by remotion like a sculptor removes stone to reveal an image.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Certainly real » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:39 am

Serendipper wrote:How can existence = all-existence? It seems like instead of defining existence, you described an implementation of it. What does "everywhere-existing" mean if there is no spacial construct to give it meaning? Maybe you mean "spacially saturated"


It's all-existing as opposed to all-existence. Essentially I mean some X has to be omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite. Some say X is energy but I doubt it. Whatever it is, it must not contradict the aforementioned definition.

who is really to say that absurdities are absurd?


Reason dictates it. We sometimes don't immediately recognise something as amounting to a paradox because we don't fully pay attention to the way we use semantics/meaningful words. Much like your cat example.

Dualities are all that we can know because we will always need a contrast in order to speak of existence.

We rationally distinguish between things in Existence and Existence itself. We know Existence is omnipresent and infinite. We know rejecting it would be paradoxical. These are things we know for certain.

That probably is the case since, ultimately, reality is self-inspection which is just as absurd as square-circles.


What do you mean? If non-conceptual amounts to the negation of meaning, then there is no such thing. There's no such thing as a square-circle or a married bachelor because the way those words/semantics have been used is such that it generates absurdity. It negates all meaning. It's like non-existence. Impossible and absurd.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:20 pm

Surreptitious, infinity of oranges could mean one orange on an infinite number of planets, your example was omnipresent oranges.

Certainly real,

You're not using paradox correctly, you have only used proof through contradiction, to which it must be established whether the premises are correct.

Answer me this, an argument you did avoid, I can address all of your replies, but I want your answer to this.

God has never known what it's like to not know someone's middle name. Every being besides god, which is probably infinite in number, has known what it's like to not know someone's middle name.

This means that there are an infinite number of subjective states that god, by definition, has no access to.

This is the same as the liver argument.

Your replies are circular, and these facts make them false.

Platonic forms explain existence better with the facts, than god .
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:36 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Perfection cannot be imperfection (as it cannot be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within
it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection
does not result in the end of perfection being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient in any way

That makes no sense since perfection by definition has to be free of all imperfection no matter how tiny
How much imperfection can perfection have before it becomes imperfect ? Logically it can be any at all
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:45 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension

Temporal infinity can have either a beginning with no end or no beginning with an end
And it can of course be infinite in both directions though this is not actually necessary
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:54 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates

I mentioned omnibenevolence but he ignored it because it is not compatible with omnipotence
A perfect being can conceivably be one or the other but not both as they contradict each other
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:48 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Serendipper wrote:How can existence = all-existence? It seems like instead of defining existence, you described an implementation of it. What does "everywhere-existing" mean if there is no spacial construct to give it meaning? Maybe you mean "spacially saturated"


It's all-existing as opposed to all-existence. Essentially I mean some X has to be omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient/infinite. Some say X is energy but I doubt it. Whatever it is, it must not contradict the aforementioned definition.

But omnipresent in what? All-existing in what? If you say something exists everywhere, then you have to define what "where" is, and so something else must exist first (ie spacetime fabric, aether, xyz coordinates).

who is really to say that absurdities are absurd?


Reason dictates it. We sometimes don't immediately recognise something as amounting to a paradox because we don't fully pay attention to the way we use semantics/meaningful words. Much like your cat example.

I see what you're saying and it's sensible, but sometimes I wonder. I mean, we have quantum superposition where one thing exists in two positions, which is absurd; we have quantum tunneling where one thing travels through another thing; Michio Kaku gives his phd students the absurd problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and reappear on the planet Mars viewtopic.php?f=4&t=193940

It seems as if the designation of logical impossibility is not sufficient to relegate something to truly being impossible. Heat can also flow from the cold to the hot, but as a matter of odds, it practically never does.

Dualities are all that we can know because we will always need a contrast in order to speak of existence.

We rationally distinguish between things in Existence and Existence itself. We know Existence is omnipresent and infinite. We know rejecting it would be paradoxical. These are things we know for certain.

Existence in this case would be a concept rather than a thing. And we still need to define what omnipresent means outside of the spacetime construct.

That probably is the case since, ultimately, reality is self-inspection which is just as absurd as square-circles.


What do you mean? If non-conceptual amounts to the negation of meaning, then there is no such thing.

What I mean is the universe is trying to figure itself out and it can't because an object cannot be subject to itself. One point cannot inspect itself and infinities result from trying, like the infinite regression seen from pointing a camera at its own monitor.

There's no such thing as a square-circle or a married bachelor because the way those words/semantics have been used is such that it generates absurdity. It negates all meaning. It's like non-existence. Impossible and absurd.

Yes that's true from within the construct of language and logic, but the nonconceptual is the set of things that are not conceptualized, which would (presumably) include absurdities. I'm not saying absurdities exist or are possible, I'm just not sure that they aren't.... because ultimately, at least one absurdity has to be or we wouldn't be here.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:59 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Surreptitious, infinity of oranges could mean one orange on an infinite number of planets, your example was omnipresent oranges.

That was me, the other S-man :)

We can't have infinite planets if there is room for one more planet. To say there are infinite planets means infinity has been realized/actualized and that could only happen when infinity found a boundary (the extents of the universe) which would make it impossible to add one more.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:04 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Perfection cannot be imperfection (as it cannot be anything other than infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) but it can have imperfection within
it. It can have imperfection within it because perfection containing imperfection does not alter perfection in any way. Perfection containing imperfection
does not result in the end of perfection being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient in any way

That makes no sense since perfection by definition has to be free of all imperfection no matter how tiny
How much imperfection can perfection have before it becomes imperfect ? Logically it can be any at all

I was listening to Bart Erhman the other day where he was describing the argument that the Father God could not have created the Jesus God because that which is perfect cannot change or it would either have not been perfect before the change or it would not be perfect after the change and therefore the Jesus God would have to have been eternal. Kinda clever. I don't remember his rebuttal to it :(
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:22 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension

Temporal infinity can have either a beginning with no end or no beginning with an end
And it can of course be infinite in both directions though this is not actually necessary

I disagree. I don't think a timeline can have a start and no end. First of all, what started it and why should the starting point be an arbitrary demarcation in causality? Second, there would never be a point in time where we could say it is infinite because we'd have to wait for the end to do so, but the end never comes. However if time had no beginning, then it would always be infinite and infinite time cannot end lest it have a boundary and therefore not be infinite. Eternity can't have a beginning.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:22 am

Serendipper wrote:
we have quantum superposition where one thing exists in two positions which is absurd we have quantum tunneling where one thing travels through another
thing. Michio Kaku gives his phd students the absurd problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and reappear on the planet Mars

It seems as if the designation of logical impossibility is not sufficient to relegate something to truly being impossible. Heat can also flow from the cold to the
hot but as a matter of odds it practically never does

What the human mind deems absurd or logically impossible is not absolutely reliable. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. There will always be gaps in our knowledge and some of those gaps will contain things that are initially at least beyond comprehension. That though is a problem for us not the Universe
If something exists it should be acknowledged. Understanding will probably take longer but our natural curiosity does not mean we have a right to know and we can
not always be certain anyway
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:28 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates

I mentioned omnibenevolence but he ignored it because it is not compatible with omnipotence
A perfect being can conceivably be one or the other but not both as they contradict each other

What does omnibenevolence mean? Good and bad are relative and codependent. Good cannot exist without bad and love cannot exist without hate. The being that loves must also hate that which threatens what he loves.

What does omnipotence mean? How can something have all the power? Can he be both big/strong and small/nimble at the same time? Every advantage is also a disadvantage in other contexts and there is no way to be all-powerful.

Both of those concepts are not possible unless absurdities are possible.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:30 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
we have quantum superposition where one thing exists in two positions which is absurd we have quantum tunneling where one thing travels through another
thing. Michio Kaku gives his phd students the absurd problem of calculating the probability that they will vanish and reappear on the planet Mars

It seems as if the designation of logical impossibility is not sufficient to relegate something to truly being impossible. Heat can also flow from the cold to the
hot but as a matter of odds it practically never does

What the human mind deems absurd or logically impossible is not absolutely reliable. The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. There will always be gaps in our knowledge and some of those gaps will contain things that are initially at least beyond comprehension. That though is a problem for us not the Universe
If something exists it should be acknowledged. Understanding will probably take longer but our natural curiosity does not mean we have a right to know and we can
not always be certain anyway

I agree :obscene-drinkingcheers:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:36 am

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Infinity is that which has no beginning and no end in any dimension

Temporal infinity can have either a beginning with no end or no beginning with an end
And it can of course be infinite in both directions though this is not actually necessary

I disagree. I do not think a timeline can have a start and no end. First of all what started it and why should the starting point be an arbitrary demarcation
in causality? Second there would never be a point in time where we could say it is infinite because we would have to wait for the end to do so but the end
never comes. However if time had no beginning then it would always be infinite and infinite time cannot end lest it have a boundary and therefore not be infinite

We do not know if time extends infinitely into the past or not because physics breaks down at the Big Big although no cosmological model rules it out absolutely
Mathematical infinity only requires infinity at one end because while the number line extends to infinity in both directions it can begin or end at any point at all
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:46 am

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
I notice you always leave omnibenevolence out when you list omnistates

I mentioned omnibenevolence but he ignored it because it is not compatible with omnipotence
A perfect being can conceivably be one or the other but not both as they contradict each other

What does omnibenevolence mean? Good and bad are relative and codependent. Good cannot exist without bad and love cannot exist without hate
The being that loves must also hate that which threatens what he loves

What does omnipotence mean? How can something have all the power? Can he be both big / strong and small / nimble at the same time ?
Every advantage is also a disadvantage in other contexts and there is no way to be all powerful

Both of those concepts are not possible unless absurdities are possible

God cannot possess even one omni because all omnis are examples of perfection and absolute perfection simply cannot exist in reality
So those who claim omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence for God are therefore unaware of the logical impossibility of them
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:59 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Mathematical infinity only requires infinity at one end because while the number line extends to infinity in both directions it can begin or end at any point at all

Start at 0 and extend to infinity with the positive integers
Start at 0 and extend to infinity with the negative integers
Both have a start point and both extend to infinity in different directions
It does not have to be 0 but that is the obvious place to start because it is the exact centre of the number line
There is also an infinity of numbers between every two reals on the number line no matter how close they are
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:12 am

surreptitious75 wrote:We do not know if time extends infinitely into the past or not because physics breaks down at the Big Big although no cosmological model rules it out absolutely

Something would have to cause the big bang and therefore that's not the beginning, but the genesis is outside of time because time is a construct existing as an artifact of space that was created at the big bang. We can't have space without time nor time without space, but even within that construct, light observes neither time nor space and since every photon emission and reception were events that took no time, then the big bang isn't anything that happened, except from our point of view. The construct must be finite because none of it took any time and it's already done, but not from our point of view as beings constructed of spacetime itself.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... a-receiver

Richard Feynman's PhD thesis was about just this topic, if I am understanding your question rightly. Here is an earlier question about Feynman's thesis that addresses some of the fascinating issues involved with this.

At the suggestion of his thesis adviser John Wheeler, Feynman explained photon emission as a two-way interaction in which the regular photon is emitted and follows the "retarded" solutions to Maxwell's equations. "Meanwhile" (in some rather abstract sense of the word indeed) a target atom or particle in the distant future emits its own photon, but a very special one that travels backwards in time -- a type of solution to Maxwell's equations that had been recognized since Maxwell's time but had been ignored. These solutions were called the "advanced" solutions. This advanced photon travels back in time and "just happens" to arrive at the source at the exact instant when the regular photon is emitted, causing the emitting atom to be kicked backwards a tiny bit.

Amazingly, Wheeler and Feynman were able to write a series of papers showing that despite how mind-boggling this scenario sounded, it did not result in violations of causality, and it did provide a highly effective model of electron-photon interactions. From this start, and with some important changes, Feynman eventually produced his Feynman-diagram explanation of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. The curious time relationship continue in Feynman's QED, where for example a positron or anti-electron simply become an ordinary electron traveling backwards in time.

Staying fully consistent with his own ideas, Feynman himself described photon interactions as always having an emission and a reception event, no matter how far apart those events occur in ordinary time. In his view, if you shone a flashlight into deep space, the photons could not even be emitted until they found their "partner" advanced photon emission events somewhere in the distant future. The proof of it is in the very slight push back on your hand that happens when you shine the light, that kick coming from the advanced photons arriving from that distant point in the future and nudging the electrons in your flashlight filament.


The universe is a closed loop where something is emitted and something is returned for energy conservation both in terms of space and in terms of time; therefore it's not infinite. A photon can't even be emitted until its partner is found in distant space and time.

Mathematical infinity only requires infinity at one end because while the number line extends to infinity in both directions it can begin or end at any point at all

I see what you're saying, but I think that's better described as a segment because all lines are infinite. Placing the origin at zero on Cartesian coordinates is really an arbitrary placement as we could have the x and y intercepts anywhere. We could start counting at zero: 0, 1, 2, 3.... or we could start from -2: -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3... To say it has a beginning is an arbitrary segmentation because it really doesn't have a true intrinsic beginning and neither does it have a true intrinsic ending (although the size of the universe should cap it off).
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:21 am

surreptitious75 wrote:God cannot possess even one omni because all omnis are examples of perfection and absolute perfection simply cannot exist in reality
So those who claim omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence for God are therefore unaware of the logical impossibility of them

Yes I think you're right although I'm less sure of the omnipresence because I can't find a reason that god couldn't exist in every place there is to exist within the construct of spacetime. Can you think of a reason that couldn't be so?

I'm not sure what perfection means and I can only imagine it as relative, like: a short sword is perfect for close-quarters combat within buildings, but maybe not so good in the open field. Perfection is relative to a situation and not something that can exist objectively/abstractly.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:31 am

Omnipresence can exists as a state as well as a being because it can also apply to the Universe
The other three omnis however are exclusively characteristics of God so they are not the same
God by nature is perfect but that is a meaningless concept because it has no actual reference
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:50 am

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:God cannot possess even one omni because all omnis are examples of perfection and absolute perfection simply cannot exist in reality
So those who claim omnipotence / omniscience / omnibenevolence for God are therefore unaware of the logical impossibility of them

Yes I think you're right although I'm less sure of the omnipresence because I can't find a reason that god couldn't exist in every place there is to exist within the construct of spacetime. Can you think of a reason that couldn't be so?

I'm not sure what perfection means and I can only imagine it as relative, like: a short sword is perfect for close-quarters combat within buildings, but maybe not so good in the open field. Perfection is relative to a situation and not something that can exist objectively/abstractly.


I already have the refutation of omnipresence in this thread.

If a being cannot know what it's like to not know someone's middle name, it's not present in any of us.

It's right here: viewtopic.php?p=2710106#p2710106

An omniscience disproof is an omnipresence disproof.

Certainly real will understand that
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Serendipper » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:26 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Omnipresence can exists as a state as well as a being because it can also apply to the Universe
The other three omnis however are exclusively characteristics of God so they are not the same
God by nature is perfect but that is a meaningless concept because it has no actual reference

Oh I see. You differentiated an attribute of the universe from an attribute of a person (god). That might work. Spacetime exists everywhere there is spacetime and outside of spacetime, there is nowhere to exist, so spacetime is omnipresent, but spacetime isn't god.

Ecmandu wrote:I already have the refutation of omnipresence in this thread.

If a being cannot know what it's like to not know someone's middle name, it's not present in any of us.

It's right here: viewtopic.php?p=2710106#p2710106

An omniscience disproof is an omnipresence disproof.

Certainly real will understand that

That makes sense. How can god know what it's like to not know something? So that would be something he cannot know and if he could know it, then it would mean there is something else he did not know.

But how you do connect omniscience to omnipresence?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Descartes' conclusion on God was right. His premises wer

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:49 am

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:Omnipresence can exists as a state as well as a being because it can also apply to the Universe
The other three omnis however are exclusively characteristics of God so they are not the same
God by nature is perfect but that is a meaningless concept because it has no actual reference

Oh I see. You differentiated an attribute of the universe from an attribute of a person (god). That might work. Spacetime exists everywhere there is spacetime and outside of spacetime, there is nowhere to exist, so spacetime is omnipresent, but spacetime isn't god.

Ecmandu wrote:I already have the refutation of omnipresence in this thread.

If a being cannot know what it's like to not know someone's middle name, it's not present in any of us.

It's right here: viewtopic.php?p=2710106#p2710106

An omniscience disproof is an omnipresence disproof.

Certainly real will understand that

That makes sense. How can god know what it's like to not know something? So that would be something he cannot know and if he could know it, then it would mean there is something else he did not know.

But how you do connect omniscience to omnipresence?


Because God has to know all subjective states of ignorance to know all that is known in existence, if god doesn't know them all, then it demonstrates a lack of omnipresence for intelligent beings, thus, a lack of omnipresence in general, or as far as we are concerned
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron