I call it scientific reasoning VOID, because it's the search for material justification of the immaterial. The hypothesis isn't applicable to the subject. It's really as simple as that.

Theology is entirely reasonable. Your quest here isn't.

2. So your "good reason not to believe" is irrelevant?

The founding fathers didn't simply assert it, they made detailed accounts of their reasoning. You're completely dismissing the notion of divine simplicity, and I'm just pointing out your error to you. Hopefully you'll see that you need look into that before dismissing it without consideration.

Good stuff there TheVoid, although a lot of it was over the top of my head

(February 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm)Rayaan Wrote: What if that "least amount of information" to describe everything IS God?

It's not, which is what I just demonstrated. To describe the universe with an omniscient deity is to describe something complex with something more complex - Just like a series of 5 words is more complex than a series of 4, a state of affairs with all knowledge is more complex than a state of affairs as proposed by naturalism.

Quote:The information would be "omniscient" in a sense because it contains all the information about the state of the universe at t0. So, could that be a definition of omniscience?

I'm not sure what you mean - To be omniscient is to know everything, is that what you were getting at?

(February 19, 2011 at 7:40 pm)theVOID Wrote: What definition do you prefer?

One that accords with the attributes of God (such as omnipresence)—but only if you want the argument to have any bearing on this omniscient God. (For example, see God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl Henry, and especially Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time by Paul Helm.)

theVOID Wrote:Let's be careful here. Are you saying that God exists in one state of affairs eternally? If that is the case, how do you propose his thoughts work? After all, thought is a process and, common to all process, there is necessarily more than one state of affairs.

First, I am saying that God exists in all states of affairs eternally; that is, there is never a state of affairs that escapes God's existence. He describes himself as "the alpha and omega" (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet), such that God is before everything else and he is after everything else (from which all things exist and for which all things exists). In fact, his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience; thus by separating them one risks constructing a weak straw man.

theVOID Wrote:The temporal issue is really a sideline here. I don't think it's overly important.

According to your argument it is crucially important, such that you posit an omniscient deity with complete knowledge about all things from t0. Your argument works for a temporally bounded omniscient deity, but that leaves the God of Christianity out of the analysis.

theVOID Wrote:

Ryft Wrote:It is not as though God knows in sum "the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence" at the initial t0.

So he doesn't have knowledge of everything?

Of course he does. That is what omniscient means. Read what I said again and notice what my objection is predicated on. "God exists in all states of affairs eternally ... his omnipresence has a great deal to do with his omniscience." In other words, God knows in sum the position and momentum of every particle in the universe at every moment of time throughout existence at tn (which obviously includes the initial t0).

(February 19, 2011 at 8:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I call it scientific reasoning VOID, because it's the search for material justification of the immaterial. The hypothesis isn't applicable to the subject. It's really as simple as that.

It's NOT 'Scientific reasoning', it's just reasoning.

Where did I attempt a material justification of the immaterial? I am simply talking about information and for the sake of argument granting that information CAN be immaterial. Does god know things? If yes he has information. A state of affairs with an omniscient deity takes more information to describe than a state of affairs without - No science there, no attempt for a 'material justification', just reason.

Quote:Theology is entirely reasonable. Your quest here isn't.

Do you see a flaw in my thinking or are you just going to moan? I've more than made my case, you've done naught to refute it.

Quote:2. So your "good reason not to believe" is irrelevant?

No, for instance;

Event x takes place, there are two possible explanations, A and B, A is an explanation that can be described with half of the amount of information as B, thus A is the explanation that should be preferred - This in and of it's self is a good reason not to believe that explanation B is the case.

Suppose event x is as follows "Bob hears hooves", Ex A is "it was a horse" Ex B is "it was an escaped circus Zebra" - Based on hearing the hooves Bob should conclude that it was A rather than B, why? Because explanation A is the simpler explanation, the state of affairs can be described with less information - It would be irrational for Bob to believe that it was B.

Quote:The founding fathers didn't simply assert it, they made detailed accounts of their reasoning. You're completely dismissing the notion of divine simplicity, and I'm just pointing out your error to you. Hopefully you'll see that you need look into that before dismissing it without consideration.

Right, because the idea of divine simplicity is at odds with the requirements of omniscience and the reality that the more information you have the more complex you are. The more of anything you have actually, but for this I only need to focus on knowledge - A being can not be both simple and all knowing, they are an impossible combination.

Quote:Math is pure reason for instance, and we also have the option of finding probabilities of certain things being true.

Jaded? ME? Certainly not! I'm merely a romantic who's been in a very bad mood for 30 years.


OF course,for all practical purposes I accept mathematical proofs as true and a probability of 1 as true. Many premises on which I actually base my behaviour are not really all that sound if examined. We humans are not very rational beings in essence..

About 35 years ago,I sat drinking ghastly coffee, at the philosophy club at Adelaide university,while an honours student gave his paper on the impossibility of motion. (with no apologies to Zeno of Elea)

Today I just tend to get a headache as my brain seizes.

Ive got an even better argument of why you should not believe in a god..

People read Spiderman comic books and dont believe that spiderman exists because he does fantastical things..... the same mentality should be applied to all works of fiction, such as the bible and Jebus.

(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Where did I attempt a material justification of the immaterial?

You're trying to solve the problem of pre existence - a material consideration, are you not? In your thinking, are you allowing for a non material answer?

(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Do you see a flaw in my thinking or are you just going to moan?

Yes I saw flaws. That's why I listed them.

(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: Suppose event x is as follows "Bob hears hooves", Ex A is "it was a horse" Ex B is "it was an escaped circus Zebra" - Based on hearing the hooves Bob should conclude that it was A rather than B, why? Because explanation A is the simpler explanation, the state of affairs can be described with less information - It would be irrational for Bob to believe that it was B.

I would agree that B contains irrelevant information. Thus the two scenarios are unequal, not simple and complex.

You said "That's because the simple solution isn't necessarily the correct one". I respond: then an argument from simplicity is irrelevant.

(February 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm)theVOID Wrote: A being can not be both simple and all knowing, they are an impossible combination.

You're arguing without looking into the subject. Go find out what Divine Simplicity entails first before dismissing it.

Devine simplicity boils down to god not being a thing but a collection of 'properties' and so just an abstract concept.

God is not just good but IS Goodness is an example of this absurd concept.

(February 20, 2011 at 8:42 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Devine simplicity boils down to god not being a thing but a collection of 'properties' and so just an abstract concept.

God is not just good but IS Goodness is an example of this absurd concept.

There is wisdom in this post. Funny how the modern Christians pu down their Roman pagan ancestors for anthropomorphing concepts into human like deities, yet their deity is anthropomorphic as well; God is love, god is a man of war, god is wisdom (sophia), God is justice, etc...

Funny thing about the Sophia thing. Sophia is feminine, and much written evidence shows that Earlier Christians worshipped Sophia as the bride of Christ, or as Christs sister, well, it gets confusing on purpose.. being based on mystical mystery religions, a deity could be a concept and a being at the same time, and those related to the concept could be a sister, daughter, mother, and wife all at the same time..just as God can be his own father and son at the same time. Thus concepts such as the trinity that defy even basic mathematics could be accepted as "proof". Its nothing more than mystery cult mind fuck that seemed to mean something to those at the time, but now that we have materialistic science explaining things we no longer have need to express confussion of the cosmos with such symbolic concepts.