Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

And here are my posts that you could not address because you got in way over your head:

I know you like to think that I couldn't address your points, despite the effort and patience it took me to respond to pretty much all your responses to me in that thread. And I also know how much you love to project. It's you who gets in way over your head, and you see it in others instead.

1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them.
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true.
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.

And here we're at it again. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to try responding again (because why not).

The problem, Steve, is that indeterminacy does NOT mean logical contradiction.

0/0 is indeterminate. Does this mean an actual zero of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

Math is one thing, "plain English logic" is another thing. If you conflate both systems, you're just going to get yourself confused. How about using "plain English logic", via some reductio ad absurdum argument, you demonstrate to us that an actual infinity of things is logically impossible?

You also have to remember that infinity is not a real number (in the sense that it is an element of the set of real numbers). It's a concept that is related to quantities of things, just like "finity". So when you're doing addition or subtraction or whatever on infinity, it's not really the same as doing these operations on real numbers. It's more like doing operations on ideas that could mean a lot of things without context.

If you look at the concept of "finity", for example, "finity" - "finity" could be any real number as well. But we don't know which one until we have a clearer context. Similarly, we can't know what "infinity" - "infinity" is exactly without context. Mathematically speaking, we say the answer is indeterminate.

Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects.

What do you mean by "fundamentally different"?

If I have four apples, and you take two away from me, I'm left with two apples, right?

In this case, "finity" - "finity" = 2.

If, on the other hand, I have four apples, and RR took three apples from me, that's "finity" - "finity" = 1.

You have two different answers to "finity" - "finity". Does this mean that a finite number of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

What in the world are you talking about? I know you get kudos for some of your posts--but that's usually just because you replied to me--not that you made a point that anyone actually understands.

Your whole counter argument is:

A. Let's not call them logical contradictions--let just say they are 'indeterminate'. 
B. Indeterminate is not the same as logically impossible
C. Therefore an actual infinite is possible.

That is HORRIBLE logic. 

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present.
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

Again, this implies the A-theory of time is true. So even if you have successfully shown a problem in this argument against traversal of actual infinity, you're making the wrong assumptions on time.

I mean, I've told you this so many times, Steve. I don't know why you keep bringing this up like a broken record, lol. 

NOPE. Answered that too:

B THEORY OF TIME
Another argument that has been made is that if the B Theory of Time is correct, spacetime is infinite in extent. But there is nothing in the theory that says our spacetime is infinite in the past. To get that, you must also posit an infinite cosmology model. But such models are not thought to be the best candidates for our universe, so, while possible (broadly speaking), there are not good reasons to believe this to be the case. But, such a combination of theories seems possible, so then doesn't that show that an actual infinity is possible. No, not at all.

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen. We will never arrive at the present.

To illustrate it with a thought experiment, imagine a being who is counting down from eternity past to the present: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, now. How is that possible? Wouldn't he have an infinite amount more numbers to get through to get down to 3, 2, 1? If you insist that this could be done, why didn't he get done 1000 years earlier or for that matter, an infinite time ago?

[possibletarian]

Then it should be impaired when placed inside a Faraday Cage.

It won't help if quantum mechanics is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

---

Seriously ? in 100% of cases where we have evidence of conscious 

We don't have any such cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

 Solipsism maintains that no matter how sophisticated someone's behavior is, behavior on its own does not guarantee the presence of mentality.

But it does guarantee the presence of matter, now there are two questions you have not answered..

1) How do you know that qualia are not simply part of how the brain works
2) Have you any evidence of the a consciousness without a brain ? , if not can you give reasons why it would be otherwise ?

If you answer is, there may be some other philosophical or idealistic reason, then sure there may be, but why do you think that ?

[Mister Agenda]

You don't believe God is actually infinite. Good on you. It's a trap that can only catch weasels.

What you said, I think means something different from what I said.   So I'll ask again, is your intention here rhetoric or discussion?  
Perhaps you should clarify what you are trying to say, if you're not just trolling.

You claim that an actual infinite can't exist. It necessarily follows that if God exists, it is not an actual infinite. Maybe potentially infinite in some ways, but not an actual infinite. It's only a trap if you're trying to have it both ways and won't admit that your positions contradict each other. It's a binary question that can be answered simply: either God is not an actual infinite (in any way), or God is an actual infinite (in at least some way or ways). If it's the latter, in your case, there's a contradiction with your position that no actual infinites can exist, while the first option would be consistent with your position on actual infinites.

The question is genuine, I just want to find out your position on the matter; because there's an apparent contradiction between an infinite God and 'no actual infinities'; which can be resolved if God is only infinite in ways that aren't actual. I'm also curious about whether you will choose to answer forthrightly or evade giving a real answer. You won't 'lose points' if you don't believe God is an actual infinite, it would only establish your consistency. And I'm presuming here that you don't believe in a God that is incomplete in any way, which is why I haven't pressed on that issue'; feel free to correct me on that if I'm mistaken.

[Rahn127]

Let's see if this god answers prayers.

Hey godly god, how's it hangin' ?

I pray that Stevell will no longer reply in this thread.
How you accomplish this is all up to you.
Broken fingers, piano dropped on his head, anvil accident. I'm really good with any Road Runner / Wile E. Coyote episode you might bring to life.

Should you do nothing, I will take it as a sign that you don't exist.

Good luck Stevell

You couldn't help yourself Stevo. For several pages you tried to not reply, but the urge was too much.

I made this post back on page 13

Trolling is in your blood. Trolls gotta troll.

Based upon my highly scientific experiment (cough), this proves without a doubt that your god doesn't exist.

[SteveII]

If each premise is 90% likely to be true, with 11 premises, the inductive conclusion is 31.38%. And that's being quite generous with the probability of each premise. Inductive arguments don't work well with many uncertain premises.

You do NOT multiply probabilities together to come up with a net probability in a syllogism. The conclusion's probability is equal to the lowest of the premise probabilities. Think about it--the more premises you have that are likely true would reduce the net probability if you multiplied them together.

EDIT: The conclusion's probability cannot be higher than the lowest of the premise's probabilities that must be true for the conclusion. There are many premises that do not have to be true

[Dmitry1983]

It won't help if quantum mechanics is involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

---

We don't have any such cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

1) How do you know that qualia are not simply part of how the brain works
2) Have you any evidence of the a consciousness without a brain ? , if not can you give reasons why it would be otherwise ?

1) Artificial qualia must be reproduced in a computer
2) Why do you assume that consciousness exists inside brain if consciousness doesn't exist scientifically?

[polymath257]

I know you like to think that I couldn't address your points, despite the effort and patience it took me to respond to pretty much all your responses to me in that thread. And I also know how much you love to project. It's you who gets in way over your head, and you see it in others instead.


And here we're at it again. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to try responding again (because why not).

The problem, Steve, is that indeterminacy does NOT mean logical contradiction.

0/0 is indeterminate. Does this mean an actual zero of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

Math is one thing, "plain English logic" is another thing. If you conflate both systems, you're just going to get yourself confused. How about using "plain English logic", via some reductio ad absurdum argument, you demonstrate to us that an actual infinity of things is logically impossible?

You also have to remember that infinity is not a real number (in the sense that it is an element of the set of real numbers). It's a concept that is related to quantities of things, just like "finity". So when you're doing addition or subtraction or whatever on infinity, it's not really the same as doing these operations on real numbers. It's more like doing operations on ideas that could mean a lot of things without context.

If you look at the concept of "finity", for example, "finity" - "finity" could be any real number as well. But we don't know which one until we have a clearer context. Similarly, we can't know what "infinity" - "infinity" is exactly without context. Mathematically speaking, we say the answer is indeterminate.


What do you mean by "fundamentally different"?

If I have four apples, and you take two away from me, I'm left with two apples, right?

In this case, "finity" - "finity" = 2.

If, on the other hand, I have four apples, and RR took three apples from me, that's "finity" - "finity" = 1.

You have two different answers to "finity" - "finity". Does this mean that a finite number of real objects is logically impossible? Of course not.

What in the world are you talking about? I know you get kudos for some of your posts--but that's usually just because you replied to me--not that you made a point that anyone actually understands.

Your whole counter argument is:

A. Let's not call them logical contradictions--let just say they are 'indeterminate'. 
B. Indeterminate is not the same as logically impossible
C. Therefore an actual infinite is possible.

That is HORRIBLE logic.

Fortunately, that is NOT the logic. We define addition and multiplication in very specific ways. Addition by the cardinality of a disjoint union and multiplication by the cardinality of the collection of ordered pairs. These are the fundamental definitions and are common to both finite and infinite quantities.

Subtraction and division are defined in terms of addition and multiplication *in those cases where the result is well-defined*. So, we say that 5-3=2 because 3+2=5 and the only number with 3+x=5 is the number 2. We say that 15/3=5 because 3*5=15 and the only number with 3*x=15 is the number 5.

Now, there are cases where the existence and uniqueness of the required solution are not true and in those cases *we do not define subtraction and division*. So, 3*0=0 and 5*0=0, so we do not define 0/0. It is a case where there is more than one solution to 0*x=0, so division is not defined in this case.

In the same way, subtraction of infinite cardinals is not always defined. So, if A is the cardinality of the set of counting numbers, it is true that A+2=A and A+5=A and A+A=A. All this means is that A-A is not well defined.

On the other hand, if C is the cardinality of all decimal (real) numbers, then the only cardinal with A+x=C
is x=C, so in this case, C-A is defined and, in fact, C-A=C.

Technically, when we say that a certain operation is indeterminate, we really mean it isn't well defined. And logic requires something to be well defined *before* we can say anything about it.

The demonstration that infinities are consistent (no *logical* problem) is a different one and is substantiated by the math of the past 150 years.

Again, this implies the A-theory of time is true. So even if you have successfully shown a problem in this argument against traversal of actual infinity, you're making the wrong assumptions on time.

I mean, I've told you this so many times, Steve. I don't know why you keep bringing this up like a broken record, lol. 

NOPE. Answered that too:

B THEORY OF TIME
Another argument that has been made is that if the B Theory of Time is correct, spacetime is infinite in extent. But there is nothing in the theory that says our spacetime is infinite in the past. To get that, you must also posit an infinite cosmology model. But such models are not thought to be the best candidates for our universe, so, while possible (broadly speaking), there are not good reasons to believe this to be the case. But, such a combination of theories seems possible, so then doesn't that show that an actual infinity is possible. No, not at all.

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen. We will never arrive at the present.

No, at any point in that sequence, there are only finitely many more steps to take to get to 0. So, if I am at 100, there are only 100 steps to take to get to 0. At no stage in this process are there infinitely many steps to get to 0.

To illustrate it with a thought experiment, imagine a being who is counting down from eternity past to the present: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, now. How is that possible? Wouldn't he have an infinite amount more numbers to get through to get down to 3, 2, 1? If you insist that this could be done, why didn't he get done 1000 years earlier or for that matter, an infinite time ago?

In this, you are assuming there is a *start*. That is the faulty assumption. What happens is that this being is simply always counting. At any point in time, there is a definite place in the counting that is being done.

Your problem is simply that you don't understand that an infinite regress has no start. It is simply always going.

[possibletarian]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1828927' dateline='1539187211']

1) How do you know that qualia are not simply part of how the brain works
2) Have you any evidence of the a consciousness without a brain ? , if not can you give reasons why it would be otherwise ?

1) Artificial qualia must be reproduced in a computer

Why? You still havn't explained why you think it's not just a property of the brain, nobody is claiming a computer can have similar experiences.

2) Why do you assume that consciousness exists inside brain if consciousness doesn't exist scientifically?

Do you know of anywhere else other than a material brain being present where you can establish the presence of a consciousness ?
If the answer is no, then what are your reasons to believe it is 'non brain' ?

If the answer is yes, then explain why you believe that.

It's not my job to prove you wrong, you are the one claiming it is extra brain, now provide your reasons for believing that, then we can have a proper informed discussion.

[Dmitry1983]

Why?  You still havn't explained why you think it's not just a property of the brain, nobody is claiming a computer can have similar experiences.

Actually many atheists claim that brain is just complex computer

Do you know of anywhere else other than a material brain being present where you can establish the presence of a consciousness ?

Parallel universe, some supernatural realm, etc.

[Mister Agenda]

A hypothesis is not evidence unless it has withstood testing. Without experimentation or useful predictions to support it, a hypothesis is no more than a 'maybe'.

It's just as valid as hypothesis that consciousness exists inside brain

We certainly can't detect any signs of consciousness where a brain is not present. Things that affect the brain affect consciousness, e.g., specific memories and feeling 'a presence' can be invoked by electrical stimulation of the brain, 'qualia' can be altered by drugs or damage that affect the brain, and the more we understand the brain, the more supported the hypothesis that consciousness resides there becomes. And the alternative hypotheses all seem to rest on effects that can't even be shown to bein effect. All of the evidence that is available points to consciousness being generated by the brain, there's no evidence of outside signals, quantum effects that alter brain activity, or any mechanism that would allow for a possibility of either of those options. Consciousness residing in the brain is the only hypothesis that has any evidential support at all.

I have no dog in this race. If 'quantum consciousness' is ever experimentally confirmed, I'm on board. Until then, it seems perverse to reject the explanation than not only has the most evidence, it explains the most while still being consistent with the evidence.

I'm curious, do you doubt that God could have designed us to function in the way that we apparently do, without requiring remote control or inherently random quantum events to think and feel? There's nothing about us being puppets of our souls in the Bible, it contradicts nothing in the Bible for our bodies and souls to be one while we're alive. Pardon me for assuming your Abrahamic, just playing the odds.

---

Do you know of anywhere else other than a material brain being present where you can establish the presence of a consciousness ?

Parallel universe, some supernatural realm, etc.

Those aren't things you can 'know', at least a present.