On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

Here lies StuntedSteves credibility and intelligence on this forum it died a slow withering death  .May it rest in peace .

[polymath257]

In this context, a multiverse *would* be considered the universe. it is the sum of all physical things.

First, that's called equivocating.

Not at all. When discussing multiverses, physics uses a very specific definition of the term universe. The multiverse is what *most* people would call the universe.

The *only* reason to even consider multiverses is that quantum gravity seems to suggest them. To the degree they are untestable (and some varieties are), they should be considered at least suspect and certainly NOT part of 'accepted science'.

No, the number 4 does NOT objectively exist. Nor does a triangle nor an implication. Those are *all* language constructs and have no independent existence.

Hmm. 'Objective' is not the opposite of 'independent'. The number 4 is objective because it refers to a concept this is the very opposite of subjective. The same for a triangle, it is very much objective. So I will restate my answer to your assertion that "objectiveness requires science": that's bunk. There is nothing incoherent with the concept of God "having objective reality or being" aka: exist.  

No, the number 4 is NOT objective. It very much depends on the assumptions in the language that allow its construction. And different systems will give very different 'specifics' of what '4' should be. The closest you can get is that 4 is what you get when you apply the successor function to 0 (or 1) the appropriate number of times.

The *only* sense in which 4 exists is as a language construct (hopefully, even a formal language at that). if you want to accept that deities are also simply language concepts, you might avoid the label of delusion.

And no, the concept of a triangle is NOT objective. It again is based on many assumptions (including the nature of lines and points) that must be *assumed*. Again, it is primarily a *language* construct.

There is NO sense in which any deity has objective existence.

No, and quite the contrary. In fact, the way that modern science actually works simply doesn't fit into your philosophy.

You keep saying that. Since you don't expound, I will ignore it.

Well, let's start by saying the concept of 'contingency' is *never* even addressed in actual sciences. At most it is considered among philosophers, but even then only by those from a very perverse bent that seems to consider Aristotle as having significant relevance for modern science.

What you don't seem to understand is that we *do* understand QM. The 'quantum energy field' isn't anything that *actual* quantum mechanics mentions. You may find it in some popular accounts, but that phrase doesn't appear in, say Peskin&Schroder, one of the standard texts for fundamental particle physics.

What *does* appear is the concept of a quantum field (not a quantum *energy* field). And those quantum fields are fundamentally *non-causal*. They are probabilistic and do NOT obey any law of classical causality.

Before we go on, just how much quantum mechanics have you studied? have you ever solved a differential equation? Gone through the solution of the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen atom? Calculated a reaction cross section for QED?

I have.

Congrats. But my point is perhaps you should have taken the time to study philosophy before trying to derive philosophy from QM. The indeterminacy of quantum particles does not turn the idea of cause and effect in the macro world on its ear. You would have to show how quantum indeterminacy affects the macro world. Do you have those conclusions? In their absence we have every reason ever, always, forever to think that cause/effect are objective features of reality. 

How does quantum indeterminacy (and lack of causality) affect the macroscopic world? Since the vast majority of macroscopic phenomena are the product of very large numbers of quantum (and hence probabilistic) phenomena, mostly through the law of averages. Just as an ideal roll of a die cannot be predicted, but the average result of rolling a billion dice can be, the same is seen on the macroscopic world. The apparent causality is the result of large numbers of non-causal events.

Simply false.

Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.

This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.[/quote]

You are completely ignoring the crucial part: having testable hypotheses. Induction alone is very unreliable because there are always infinitely many possible ways to induct from a finite amount of evidence. Testability is the only thing that allows us to push further than that.

You are correct, mere deduction is also seldom reliable. That's because deduction *always* requires assumptions and those assumptions may well be in error. Again, that is why we require testability for any idea we want to classify as 'knowledge' outside of a formal system.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of deities is riddled with errors and assumptions that are provably false. The *only* reason the whole subject is still alive is because people like to maintain their delusions.

[Amarok]

First, that's called equivocating.

Not at all. When discussing multiverses, physics uses a very specific definition of the term universe. The multiverse is what *most* people would call the universe.

The *only* reason to even consider multiverses is that quantum gravity seems to suggest them. To the degree they are untestable (and some varieties are), they should be considered at least suspect and certainly NOT part of 'accepted science'.

Hmm. 'Objective' is not the opposite of 'independent'. The number 4 is objective because it refers to a concept this is the very opposite of subjective. The same for a triangle, it is very much objective. So I will restate my answer to your assertion that "objectiveness requires science": that's bunk. There is nothing incoherent with the concept of God "having objective reality or being" aka: exist.  

No, the number 4 is NOT objective. It very much depends on the assumptions in the language that allow its construction. And different systems will give very different 'specifics' of what '4' should be. The closest you can get is that 4 is what you get when you apply the successor function to 0 (or 1) the appropriate number of times.

The *only* sense in which 4 exists is as a language construct (hopefully, even a formal language at that). if you want to accept that deities are also simply language concepts, you might avoid the label of delusion.

And no, the concept of a triangle is NOT objective. It again is based on many assumptions (including the nature of lines and points) that must be *assumed*. Again, it is primarily a *language* construct.

There is NO sense in which any deity has objective existence.

You keep saying that. Since you don't expound, I will ignore it.

Well, let's start by saying the concept of 'contingency' is *never* even addressed in actual sciences. At most it is considered among philosophers, but even then only by those from a very perverse bent that seems to consider Aristotle as having significant relevance for modern science.

Congrats. But my point is perhaps you should have taken the time to study philosophy before trying to derive philosophy from QM. The indeterminacy of quantum particles does not turn the idea of cause and effect in the macro world on its ear. You would have to show how quantum indeterminacy affects the macro world. Do you have those conclusions? In their absence we have every reason ever, always, forever to think that cause/effect are objective features of reality. 

How does quantum indeterminacy (and lack of causality) affect the macroscopic world? Since the vast majority of macroscopic phenomena are the product of very large numbers of quantum (and hence probabilistic) phenomena, mostly through the law of averages. Just as an ideal roll of a die cannot be predicted, but the average result of rolling a billion dice can be, the same is seen on the macroscopic world. The apparent causality is the result of large numbers of non-causal events.

Simply false.

Again, testability is the crucial aspect. Evolution is, in fact, a testable theory which is *why* it is a scientific one. it is NOT purely inductive in any way that isn't true of any area of science. In fact, it is precisely the issues surrounding the problem of induction that force the requirement of testability and repeatability to be a valid scientific theory.

This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.

You are completely ignoring the crucial part: having testable hypotheses. Induction alone is very unreliable because there are always infinitely many possible ways to induct from a finite amount of evidence. Testability is the only thing that allows us to push further than that.

You are correct, mere deduction is also seldom reliable. That's because deduction *always* requires assumptions and those assumptions may well be in error. Again, that is why we require testability for any idea we want to classify as 'knowledge' outside of a formal system.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of deities is riddled with errors and assumptions that are provably false. The *only* reason the whole subject is still alive is because people like to maintain their delusions.
[/quote]

Theists constantly confuse symbols with existent things 4 is just a description of a quantity

[polymath257]

Not at all. When discussing multiverses, physics uses a very specific definition of the term universe. The multiverse is what *most* people would call the universe.

The *only* reason to even consider multiverses is that quantum gravity seems to suggest them. To the degree they are untestable (and some varieties are), they should be considered at least suspect and certainly NOT part of 'accepted science'.

No, the number 4 is NOT objective. It very much depends on the assumptions in the language that allow its construction. And different systems will give very different 'specifics' of what '4' should be. The closest you can get is that 4 is what you get when you apply the successor function to 0 (or 1) the appropriate number of times.

The *only* sense in which 4 exists is as a language construct (hopefully, even a formal language at that). if you want to accept that deities are also simply language concepts, you might avoid the label of delusion.

And no, the concept of a triangle is NOT objective. It again is based on many assumptions (including the nature of lines and points) that must be *assumed*. Again, it is primarily a *language* construct.

There is NO sense in which any deity has objective existence.

Well, let's start by saying the concept of 'contingency' is *never* even addressed in actual sciences. At most it is considered among philosophers, but even then only by those from a very perverse bent that seems to consider Aristotle as having significant relevance for modern science.


How does quantum indeterminacy (and lack of causality) affect the macroscopic world? Since the vast majority of macroscopic phenomena are the product of very large numbers of quantum (and hence probabilistic) phenomena, mostly through the law of averages. Just as an ideal roll of a die cannot be predicted, but the average result of rolling a billion dice can be, the same is seen on the macroscopic world. The apparent causality is the result of large numbers of non-causal events.



This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.

You are completely ignoring the crucial part: having testable hypotheses. Induction alone is very unreliable because there are always infinitely many possible ways to induct from a finite amount of evidence. Testability is the only thing that allows us to push further than that.

You are correct, mere deduction is also seldom reliable. That's because deduction *always* requires assumptions and those assumptions may well be in error. Again, that is why we require testability for any idea we want to classify as 'knowledge' outside of a formal system.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of deities is riddled with errors and assumptions that are provably false. The *only* reason the whole subject is still alive is because people like to maintain their delusions.

Theists constantly confuse symbols with existent things 4 is just a description of a quantity
[/quote]

Well, that's partly because they want to make deities, which are primarily metaphors, into actually existing things. Symbols are a type of metaphor, so if they can get symbols to be real, they might be bale to argue that deities are real also.

Among the many problems they have is how such a deity could actually have any causal action on anything physical. But that difficulty is also ignored, typically by muttering something about omnipotence.

[RoadRunner79]

Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.

Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable.  Those which are arrived at through inductive logic.  We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional.  This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional.   Would this work for you?

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

Ok, I will concede the things of evolution that you can demonstrate.    Which would not count your just so story in the other thread concerning morality and evolution, as well as most any claim of common descent.  It excludes historical sciences as well, as history, cannot be repeated.   It also seems that your assertions for an actual infinity cannot be demonstrated by the methods that you suggest here. I believe you defined math as a set of assumptions based on assumed rules, to reach a conclusion.    So we will just replace them with "garden gnomes" and call them delusional.  

Note:   I can see the appeal of this method, it takes very little thought, understanding or effort really.

[The Grand Nudger]

Common descent is based on the same facts that paternity tests are based on. Somehow, I doubt that your compelling need to defend your own delusions calls into question the results of any such test.

Genetics is just one of the ways that historical claims can be and indeed are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

[RoadRunner79]

Common descent is based on the same facts that paternity tests are based on.  Somehow, I doubt that your compelling need to defend your own delusions calls into question the results of any such test.

Genetics is just one of the ways that historical claims can be and indeed are subject to rigorous scrutiny.

If you can demonstrate common descent across divergent species, then have at it. Otherwise gnomes and unicorns mate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Two things going on in that response.

Firstly, what makes you think that common descent has not been demonstrated between species?

Secondly, are you now on board with the delusional nature of gnomes and unicorns, and by extension, gods?

[polymath257]

Inductive logic is inherently risky. That is why science (including biology) requires testability of its theories (including evolution). Any part that cannot (even in theory) be tested cannot be held as verified. At *best* such ideas should be eliminated. At worst, they should be acknowledged as useful fictions for building our models.

Ok, I will concede the things of evolution that you can demonstrate.    Which would not count your just so story in the other thread concerning morality and evolution, as well as most any claim of common descent.  It excludes historical sciences as well, as history, cannot be repeated.   It also seems that your assertions for an actual infinity cannot be demonstrated by the methods that you suggest here. I believe you defined math as a set of assumptions based on assumed rules, to reach a conclusion.    So we will just replace them with "garden gnomes" and call them delusional.  

Note:   I can see the appeal of this method, it takes very little thought, understanding or effort really.

Yes, those who think the number 4 actually exists in the real world are delusional. it is a language construct in a formal system.

Historical sciences also base their techniques on hypothesis formation, testability, etc. Repeatability isn't required for the specific events, but rather for the success of the techniques used.

The question of the existence of an actual infinity cannot be resolved in a purely philosophical way. That is part of my point. It has to be based on observation and testable predictions. There is no self-contradiction of the concept.

I would suggest your problem is that religion 'takes little thought, understanding, or effort'. Maybe you would benefit by putting a bit more effort into your studies of other subjects.

[RoadRunner79]

I'll wait for your demonstrations.

---

Historical sciences also base their techniques on hypothesis formation, testability, etc. Repeatability isn't required for the specific events, but rather for the success of the techniques used.

Logic would be similar.... so far, the argument from gnomes doesn't seem to successful.  Probably why I don't find it used by much of anyone.