I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

God is not just there "from the beginning". That is not the transcendent God, anyway; he is wholly transcendent to temporal dimension, and therefore not limited by it or by temporal designations.

Then you still lack an explanation for him, and require evidence. There's still no reason to believe he exits as well as the universe.

Human minds are complex, because it is part of the universe that it is composite, that it can contain multiplicities and complex entities. But that does not mean the kind of mind that we speak of when we speak of God is actually complex. After all, God is not a mind in the human sense, but in the sense of having an intellectual nature.

You still haven't provided evidence for him though. And if he's capable of creating the universe or manipulating any of it, he has to be concept. It does no good to just say "He isn't because he's transcendent!" that's a copout. To be able to do those things he's by definition complex.

And however complex he is, he's extra to believe in than simply believing in the universe, extra that doesn't need to be postulated. I still need evidence for him.

What we actually mean with Gods absolute simplicity can be clearly understood by a single consideration. Gods absolute simplicity means that all his attributes are ultimately equal to the same fact of his being, meaning that his ontology is entirely noncomposite and singular, and composition is the source of the complexity in the universe. God, being noncomposite, is then totally noncomplex, and absolutely simple.

In which case he's impotent, not omnipotent. If you call that God, fine. But I call that the blind forces of the universe. If he's so simple and noncomplex then he can't be so powerful and intelligent. He's in that case, as I say - impotent, not omnipotent.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Making a claim based on unproven assertions and untestable assumptions is not a reasonable hypothesis, especially when your argument contains less reality and more practically useless conceptual descriptors to explain properties that may or may not exist.

You would have to actually point to what you mean with "practically useless conceptual descriptors" in my argument.

For instance, how is it useless to distinguish between a potential reality and an actual reality?

It might be potential for lake to evaporate, since water can evaporate given enough energy; but does that make it so that the lake, right now, has actually evaporated? No, because that is only potential, not actual, and for it to become actual, it would require a certain amount of energy (actuality).

Whereas, you might look up at a or climb up a tall scyscraper building or a mountain and, does that mean that the scyscraper or mountains existence is only potential, not actual? No, because it actually exists, though it didn't exist always, it was a potential reality before it became actual, and since it now is actual, it's not just a potential but an actual thing now.

I gave also Heisenbergs example in quantum mechanics, of the probability function, which represents several potentialities out of which a certain potentiality will become actual; and the act of observation and subsequent wavefunction collapse, in which a certain potentiality becomes actual, and not certain other potentiality which remained merely potential.

[amw79]

The whole issue of whether 'logical truth' can exist independent of subjective minds is a meaningless question. 'Logical truth' is an explanatory tool to explain human-defined concepts. Its akin to asking "does the theory of evolution by natural selection" exist independently of subjective minds.

If there was an answer, it would have to be no, as the theory of evolution by natural selection is a human-defined explanatory tool which explains a wholly natural mindless mechanism.

Even if we could prove one way or another that logical truth does or doesn't exist independently of subjective minds (which we can't as its an axiom), it can then explained as a natural mindless mechanism, such as natural selection, the law of gravity etc.

You don't need to posit a transcendent objective mind, to explain such natural mechanisms - if you do so, the evidence must follow.

[Jon Paul]

Then you still lack an explanation for him, and require evidence. There's still no reason to believe he exits as well as the universe.

First of all, I do have evidence of a transcendent God. Second of all, that's not what I was dealing with, I was dealing merely with the conceptual signification of "transcendent", which you hadn't understood by temporally limiting it. It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it - Aristotle.

You still haven't provided evidence for him though.

I have provided evidence, the argument from potentiality/actuality, and the several forms of transcendental argument, both the orthodox TAG and my own versions of a transcendental argument which builds on knowledge of the natural world after the effect.

And if he's capable of creating the universe or manipulating any of it, he has to be [complex]. It does no good to just say "He isn't because he's transcendent!" that's a copout. To be able to do those things he's by definition complex.

Not so. Pure actuality, which itself implies absolute simplicity, implies omnipotence without complexity, because pure actuality is the actual principle in every potential reality which we see has become actual in the form of this universe. The more complex issuing forth from the less complex is not a problem, anyway; even in naturalistic metaphysics, most cosmogonies ultimately suggest (for instance, in quantum physics) that the universe issued forth from something much smaller and simpler than what exists now, which had the potence to produce everything in existence now. And, don't forget, that even that is not absolute simplicity, but limited simplicity within an already existing composite reality, such that the potence of absolute simplicity is even greater than this.

---

The whole issue of whether 'logical truth' can exist independent of subjective minds is a meaningless question. 'Logical truth' is an explanatory tool to explain human-defined concepts. Its akin to asking "does the theory of evolution by natural selection" exist independently of subjective minds.

No. It's akin to asking, "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?". That is, does the truth of the theory of evolution exist independently of the human conception of it? Are conceptual realities that apply to natural phenomena, such as the truth of the theory of evolution, or the logical behaviour of reality at various levels, realities limited to the human conception of them, which are thus defined by humans conceptions of them or are they realities wholly apart from human conceptions of them? Read my argument again.

What does that even mean? Whether you call me a 'mind' or a 'body', what does that change? What is your point?

Mind is simply the English term for a knowing or thinking entity. In other words, a nous, or an intellect.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exists independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

You don't need to posit a transcendent objective mind, to explain such natural mechanisms - if you do so, the evidence must follow.

I have evidence in favour of a transcendent God who is an omniscient, intellectual being - read above.

[LukeMC]

Question: is an infinite regress of causality a hard idea to accept in an infinite universe?

Somewhere a few pages back (might have been page 2) you (Jon Paul) stated that there MUST be an uncaused cause, uncreated transcendent being, etc, otherwise there would be an infinite regress of causality. I just wonder...

[Edwardo Piet]

I was dealing merely with the conceptual signification of "transcendent", which you hadn't understood by temporally limiting it.

I understand that you have failed to provide evidence for something transcendent. That's what I understand.

It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it - Aristotle.

Yes. I entertain the notion of transcenence, of there being some 'objective mind' that you speak of, that somehow 'transcends this universe', but you have failed to provide evidence for it. And I have done just that, entertained an idea without having to accept it, and I haven't accepted it - because there's no evidence.

That's one of my favouite quotes by the way, it's awesome.

I have provided evidence, the argument from potentiality/actuality, and the several forms of transcendental argument, both the orthodox TAG and my own versions of a transcendental argument which builds on knowledge of the natural world after the effect.

There is evidence for the universe. Where is the evidence for God? I've heard these semantics again and again.

The more complex issuing forth from the less complex is not a problem, anyway; even in naturalistic metaphysics, most cosmogonies ultimately suggest (for instance, in quantum physics) that the universe issued forth from something much smaller and simpler than what exists now, which had the potence to produce everything in existence now.

Yes, something simple....not a mind. Blind random forces, (near) impotence not a mind! It's only (much more) potent over a long course of time when the stuff gets together. You get minds from blind random forces, you don't have intelligence, minds from the beginning, right from the outset. In the beginning there is just blind processes, any intelligence just comes forth like from an algorithm, not from an intelligent mind, never mind a superintelligent so-called 'objective' one.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

No, my post-supposition after looking at the evidence is not brought into arguments containing new evidence. That would be a foolish way to look at things.

But you have not refuted any of my arguments; and so, you are either suspending judgement (clearly not; you have directly rejected them, at least judging from your posts I've read so far), or presupposing that they are wrong (for you have not refuted them).

[amw79]

I have read the argument, its utterly unconvincing for the reasons given.

Whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or, as you have trivially changed it to "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?", is irrelevant, and a meaningless question as we are talking about a natural mindless mechanism, or as EVF has phrased it "not a mind. Blind random forces, (near) impotence not a mind!"

[Jon Paul]

Question: is an infinite regress of causality a hard idea to accept in an infinite universe?

The idea of an infinite regression of time, or of an inifinite causal regression, is not a "hard" idea, but an idea which is, a) possibily incoherent since it is irrational to say that there is an infinite regression when we have clearly reached this point in time, and it is a mathematical fact that you cannot transverse infinity, b) unverifiable and undemonstrable, c) excluded per Occams razor because there are better cosmogonies which do not invoke infinite regression.

[Edwardo Piet]

Logic doesn't need to exist outside our subjective minds for objective reality to exist. Logic is how we measure the reality we experience through our own experience.

Conceptual logic is fine, as with whatever you mean by 'Truth', unless you're talking about whether something 'does or does not exist', in which case that's an objective matter according to the evidence of it being the case due to our own experience on this planet.

EvF