On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

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.

You are confusing terms. There is no debate. These are definitions.

Exist: having objective reality or being

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Does not depend on the context. Anchored in some concept or fact
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Depends on the context

Concrete Object: having physical referents and/or affecting those that do
Abstract Object: having no physical referents and no causal powers

The groupings I listed are binary classifications. A thing has to be one or the other. So, the number 4 is an objective concept. It is also an abstract object. So is a triangle. Abstract objects exist. Perhaps they are dependent on the mind to exist, but they do exist. Perhaps they do not depend on a mind. Doesn't matter, they still exist. 

No, the number 4 *does*, in fact, depend on context. As does the concept of a triangle. Neither is objective by your definition.

But, I would point out that your abstract objects only exist because there are brains that think them, not because of some independent existence.

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

I suspect you are still confusing definitions so I will be clear. Using the terms above, if God exists, he would have "objective reality or being" and he would be a Concrete Object because he can affect physical things. 

And anything that affects something physical is physical, by definition of the concept of 'physical'.

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.

That's because you have not looked back far enough. Contingency is a metaphysical concept that unpins the Philosophy of Science. Science cannot operate without a philosophy of science. Therefore contingency underpins science. This is not hard. You have this thing about Aristotle and see him under every rock. Deal with the argument, not what you think someone thought millennium ago that you read somewhere does not apply. 

I see the contingent/necessary division a false one that has limited utility. The philosophy of science is that ideas are tested by observation and modified or discarded when observations negate them. That means ideas need to be testable to be scientific. Contingency is irrelevant to that (yes, it is possible to test in the absence of it).

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.

Wait. You have extrapolated the indeterminacy of quantum particles to a lack of causation in the macroscopic world. That means we should see at every stage, moving from the very small to the large, a certain level of randomness in each level. Do we see molecules behaving unpredictably? Do we see groups of molecules (say a block of marble) behaving unpredictably? My car seems to always be where I put it. You seem to be saying that it is actually possible (albeit a small chance) that it not be.  

No, I have used the fact that quantum mechanics is non-causal, but rather probabilistic to *explain* how regularity of the type that is interpreted as classical causality arises through averages.

The spread of randomness from quantum effects is inversely related to the mass. That means for things larger than an atom (in most cases--not all), the range of randomness is small. That said, at very low temperatures, we can and do see these quantum effects becoming apparent at the atomic and small-molecular levels. The point? Planck's constant is small.

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.

Things like Common Decent, the evolution of complex organs, the evolution of biological networks/feedback loops, are not testable hypothesis--ever--BUT are required for the full theory. These steps are completely unknown, are not testable and are inferred. Glad to have you admit that the big overall grand theory of evolution is "unreliable". 

Yes, in fact, they *are* testable hypotheses: they allow for predictions that can be tested, including things like how populations can change over time due to genetic changes, etc. And yes, many of these things *are* known.

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.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of God is an inductive argument with only a couple of premises that are way more likely than not to be true. Seems to me, based on the above, that the arguments are on much firmer ground than say...evolutionary theory.

And you would be wrong. Evolutionary theory *is* testable and not simply based on induction, as you claim. And the assumptions made in 'proofs' of existence of deities are uniformly likely to be *wrong*.