Sentience

[Captain Scarlet]

Is the argument from sentience sound?

1. All sentient beings are caused
2. God,if he exists, is said to be sentient
3. God, if he exists, is caused

Support for Premise 1. Sentience must necessairly be caused as its a quality that exhibits complexity. Complexity necessairly has antecedent simplicity and is therefore caused. Sentience is a property that does not exist in all beings and is thus not a necessary by itself, is therefore contingent and requires a cause.

Atatcking Premise 1 by saying God is an example would be question begging.

[Zen Badger]

Is the argument from sentience sound?

1. All sentient beings are caused
2. God,if he exists, is said to be sentient
3. God, if he exists, is caused

Support for Premise 1. Sentience must necessairly be caused as its a quality that exhibits complexity. Complexity necessairly has antecedent simplicity and is therefore caused. Sentience is a property that does not exist in all beings and is thus not a necessary by itself, is therefore contingent and requires a cause.

Atatcking Premise 1 by saying God is an example would be question begging.

Chaos theory shoots premise one dead at the beginning.

Next

[theVOID]

1. Is flawed. By it's self it's a black swan fallacy, your support has more problems.

Firstly, what is your proof for complexity being necessarily caused? What is your proof that something that is complex was necessarily simple at an earlier time? If complexity is posited at t0 (which God is) then it cannot possibly have an antecedent simplicity, Thus far these points remain bare assertions.

Also, just because Sentience does not exist in all creatures does not necessitate that it is caused. You would also have to establish this.

Chaos theory shoots premise one dead at the beginning.

Um, just specifically what in Chaos theory includes the existence of uncaused sentience?

[Zen Badger]

Basically that complex systems will spontaneously arise from simple systems.

Complexity necessairly has antecedent simplicity and is therefore caused

So this statement is incorrect.

[Captain Scarlet]

Basically that complex systems will spontaneously arise from simple systems.

Complexity necessairly has antecedent simplicity and is therefore caused

So this statement is incorrect.

Doesn't that support the point? I would not argue that complex systems do not arise spontaneously from simpler ones, I'm just saying that complex systems always follow from simpler ones, whatever the antecedent caustion is (spontateous caustion, mutation, deliberate acts all count).

---

1. Is flawed. By it's self it's a black swan fallacy, your support has more problems.

If I can support P1 and show it to be neceasirly true, I would hope to escape this fallacy.

Firstly, what is your proof for complexity being necessarily caused? What is your proof that something that is complex was necessarily simple at an earlier time? If complexity is posited at t0 (which God is) then it cannot possibly have an antecedent simplicity, Thus far these points remain bare assertions.

Complexity is a result of simpler systems compounding over time. It is a process; a causal sequence. To be sentient requires conciousness; to be conscious is to be aware; being aware of something presupposes awareness; awareness, is itself a causal sequence. That sequence is more complex than the preceding 'parts'. But even still, if God is conscious, then he must have some means of consciousness and be dynamic. If he is dynamic then he must himself be subject to causality.

Also, just because Sentience does not exist in all creatures does not necessitate that it is caused. You would also have to establish this.

If sentience is not present in all beings, then it is not necessary, it is therefore contingent and from the law of cauality it is caused.

[theVOID]

Firstly, what is your proof for complexity being necessarily caused? What is your proof that something that is complex was necessarily simple at an earlier time? If complexity is posited at t0 (which God is) then it cannot possibly have an antecedent simplicity, Thus far these points remain bare assertions.

Complexity is a result of simpler systems compounding over time. It is a process; a causal sequence.

That is the same assertion. Complexity is not defined as a compounding of simple things over time, it is usually defined as a composite of interrelated parts. Can you prove that there are no composites that form spontaneously or have always existed? That is what you are required to do if you assert that definition of complexity.

To be sentient requires conciousness; to be conscious is to be aware; being aware of something presupposes awareness; awareness, is itself a causal sequence.

You still can't show that awareness is necessarily a causal sequence, all you can say is that we only know of awareness coming about through causal sequence. You still have the black swan fallacy, you've just dumped a layer of obfuscation upon it.

That sequence is more complex than the preceding 'parts'.

A sequence refers to the change over a dimension (in this case time), not the aggregate of the change. You might want to rephrase this because at the moment I can only guess what you mean.

But even still, if God is conscious, then he must have some means of consciousness and be dynamic. If he is dynamic then he must himself be subject to causality.

I'm not aware of any requirement in theism that he not be causal, William Lane Craig's theology makes God subject to time once he created it, so he goes from an acausal being to a causally influenced one.

Also, just because Sentience does not exist in all creatures does not necessitate that it is caused. You would also have to establish this.

If sentience is not present in all beings, then it is not necessary, it is therefore contingent and from the law of cauality it is caused.

Your black swan has risen again. You can only maintain that assertion as it relates to physical beings, the definition of God as an uncaused sentience necessitates that the constraints on sentience in physical things do not apply. You again are implying that because our experience/understanding of sentience is x there cannot be sentience y.

[Captain Scarlet]

That is the same assertion. Complexity is not defined as a compounding of simple things over time, it is usually defined as a composite of interrelated parts. Can you prove that there are no composites that form spontaneously or have always existed? That is what you are required to do if you assert that definition of complexity.

Spontaneously isn't a problem as its still causal. If complexity has always existed, then it would not be complex, as things are only complex by reference to simpler forms. Sentience is more complex than non-sentience, thus as it is contingent it needs a cause. This is confirmed by all emperical observation and reality.

You still can't show that awareness is necessarily a causal sequence, all you can say is that we only know of awareness coming about through causal sequence. You still have the black swan fallacy, you've just dumped a layer of obfuscation upon it.A sequence refers to the change over a dimension (in this case time), not the aggregate of the change. You might want to rephrase this because at the moment I can only guess what you mean.

I mean that it is both a causal chain and an aggreagtion of that chain. Sentience is not an irreducible primary as it can be broken down into pre-existing concepts. Thus it depends on prior truths and is therefore coningent and therefore needs a cuase.

I'm not aware of any requirement in theism that he not be causal, William Lane Craig's theology makes God subject to time once he created it, so he goes from an acausal being to a causally influenced one.

But what does this mean?, how can an atemporal god be concious, act, think, plan, do, cause? A rough sketch is required to show how this god can do the things claimed if he is atemporal. Otherwise its special pleading for a 'magic man' who can escape contingency yet still be sentient and concious. PS I'm not qasking you to provide one, I don't think WLC has.

Your black swan has risen again. You can only maintain that assertion as it relates to physical beings, the definition of God as an uncaused sentience necessitates that the constraints on sentience in physical things do not apply. You again are implying that because our experience/understanding of sentience is x there cannot be sentience y.

So I didn't mention physical beings, just beings. Sentience is a quality of an extant being. Excluding a god from this is special pleading

[theVOID]

That is the same assertion. Complexity is not defined as a compounding of simple things over time, it is usually defined as a composite of interrelated parts. Can you prove that there are no composites that form spontaneously or have always existed? That is what you are required to do if you assert that definition of complexity.

Spontaneously isn't a problem as its still causal. If complexity has always existed, then it would not be complex, as things are only complex by reference to simpler forms. Sentience is more complex than non-sentience, thus as it is contingent it needs a cause. This is confirmed by all emperical observation and reality.

You're making up a definition of complexity to suit your argument. There is absolutely no necessity for some simpler thing to compare it to.

Complex:
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.

Some would argue that God is not complex, but for this argument I'll maintain that God is a being of multiple attributes that are interconnected. He has knowledge, perception, creativity, personality etc. These are interconnected parts, therefore he is complex.

Your argument attempts to prove that such a being cannot exist because he is sentient and sentience is complex, yet your definition of complex is made to suit. With the normal definition your argument does not work.

You still can't show that awareness is necessarily a causal sequence, all you can say is that we only know of awareness coming about through causal sequence. You still have the black swan fallacy, you've just dumped a layer of obfuscation upon it.A sequence refers to the change over a dimension (in this case time), not the aggregate of the change. You might want to rephrase this because at the moment I can only guess what you mean.

I mean that it is both a causal chain and an aggreagtion of that chain. Sentience is not an irreducible primary as it can be broken down into pre-existing concepts. Thus it depends on prior truths and is therefore coningent and therefore needs a cuase.

This hasn't resolved the black swan, your argument is still that awareness x is contingent upon causality therefore all awareness is contingent upon causality. You get to this via "Sentience is complex" and "awareness is causal". The "sentience is complex" idea relies on a wrong definition of complex, the "awareness is causal" relies on a black swan fallacy.

I'm not aware of any requirement in theism that he not be causal, William Lane Craig's theology makes God subject to time once he created it, so he goes from an acausal being to a causally influenced one.

But what does this mean?, how can an atemporal god be concious, act, think, plan, do, cause? A rough sketch is required to show how this god can do the things claimed if he is atemporal. Otherwise its special pleading for a 'magic man' who can escape contingency yet still be sentient and concious. PS I'm not qasking you to provide one, I don't think WLC has.

I don't have a clue, but saying it's not possible based on that is incredulity which is fallacious. You are fully justified in saying that any explanation that depends on an atemporal mind is a bad explanation because it is inconsistent with all background knowledge, but beyond that you're out of luck.

Your black swan has risen again. You can only maintain that assertion as it relates to physical beings, the definition of God as an uncaused sentience necessitates that the constraints on sentience in physical things do not apply. You again are implying that because our experience/understanding of sentience is x there cannot be sentience y.

So I didn't mention physical beings, just beings. Sentience is a quality of an extant being. Excluding a god from this is special pleading

No it's not. You are ruling out a God because one of his properties is sentience. Your argument for sentience being necessarily causal is fallacious. Sentience is contingent upon an extant being because a non extant being does not exist, so I don't know what you thought the point of bringing that up was... Also, You cannot use the conclusion of the argument to justify one of the premises, it's circular reasoning.

You should focus on justification for belief that a sentient being does not exist, rather than a statement of fact, it would work well in some form like:

1. All observed instances of sentience are part of a causal process
2. God is a sentience that is not part of a causal process
3. An acausal sentience is inconsistent with all background knowledge
4. Belief in a proposition that is inconsistent with background knowledge is unjustified, Therefore:
5. Belief in God is unjustified.
6. Belief that God does not exist is justified.

[Captain Scarlet]

No I don't agree, how would you recognise complexity without pre-existing simplicity? It is a comparitive quality. Qualities are qualities of something and sentience is a complex quality of extant beings. Qualities require means and the means to sentience necessitates a causal relationship between the means and the sentience.

As for gods properties, I don't feel an onus to prove atemporal beings cannot act dynamically? The law of causality would make that axiomatically true as all effects are preceeded (in time) by their causes. If that is to be a successful rejoinder then a rough sketch of how an atemporal being acts dynamically is needed, and I don't feel that i'm being incredulous asking for it.

[theVOID]

No I don't agree, how would you recognise complexity without pre-existing simplicity?

By comparing the thing being examined to the definition of complexity, a composite of interrelated parts, or something to that effect - There is no need for a reference to simple.

You are proposing that you cannot understand what complex is without a simplicity to compare it to, but that would also make it true that you can only determine something to be simple relative to something that is complex - You could just as easily say that simple things cannot exist before complex things because nothing is simple without being judged relative to something that is complex.

The only way to avoid that paradox is if the definitions are descriptive and not relative to each other.

It is a comparitive quality. Qualities are qualities of something and sentience is a complex quality of extant beings. Qualities require means and the means to sentience necessitates a causal relationship between the means and the sentience.

It can be used as a comparison relative to something that is more or less complex or simple relative to something else, but it is it's self a description and not a comparison - I've pointed out the paradox you run into with that line of thinking.

As for gods properties, I don't feel an onus to prove atemporal beings cannot act dynamically? The law of causality would make that axiomatically true as all effects are preceeded (in time) by their causes. If that is to be a successful rejoinder then a rough sketch of how an atemporal being acts dynamically is needed, and I don't feel that i'm being incredulous asking for it.

That's a really good point as far as an atemporal god is concerned - If a god was atemporal then he exists in his current state indefinitely, he cannot motion to change the current state of affairs as change in thought necessarily realises a different state of affairs, and that is two moments. An atemporal existence is necessarily a single moment therefore an atemporal God could not have created the universe - Are we on the same page? I think we have slightly different ways of looking at it.

But again not all concepts of God are atemporal.

However, an acausal (and not atemporal) god would then necessarily have to began existing with time(his own or ours) because he necessarily couldn't have existed in a moment before time as those are two states of affairs, making it something that he can neither create nor control. If that is true then omnipotence isn't possible for this being as he wouldn't have the power to control his own temporal experience.