Is God a logical contradiction?

[comet]

As it pertains to the term “immaterial”. It’s a material component of an explicitly material theory.

That’s what makes the objection of protons (and relationship of protons to marble) a non starter.

yeah, i agree.  objecting to discussing the difference between a marble and a proton in order to explain what we really mean is a non starter.   That tells me I am talking to a person that understand less than I do.  and thats pretty hard to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

There just isn’t going to be any part of that exploration that doesn’t refer to explicitly material things and the explicitly material theories that explain them, is all I’m suggesting. There may be some way to discuss a relevant and meaningful immateriality, but nothing about protons, marble, and protons->marble is that way, thing, or relationship.

“Material” has become a large tent.

[Tom Fearnley]

Anomalocaris: What it seems to mean is "nothing" or if we're being charitable "non-matter" like memory, energy, thoughts. Either way immaterial cannot be intelligent. "Nothing intelligence" or "non-matter intelligence" is a logical contradiction. To produce the non-matter thoughts, dreams etc you would need material neurons and if immaterial means nothing then we are in trouble, because how can intelligence come from nothing?


comet: If we're taking material to mean matter then things are material, no?

[Anomalocaris]

Is God a “him”?

A dick can't very well be a "her".

[Tom Fearnley]

Hehe.

When I think of God I think of Yahweh or Allah who is supposed to be male.

[Anomalocaris]

Anomalocaris: What it seems to mean is "nothing" or if we're being charitable "non-matter" like memory, energy, thoughts. Either way immaterial cannot be intelligent. "Nothing intelligence" or "non-matter intelligence" is a logical contradiction. To produce the non-matter thoughts, dreams etc you would need material neurons and if immaterial means nothing then we are in trouble, because how can intelligence come from nothing?


comet: If we're taking material to mean matter then things are material, no?

 Again, what is "matter"?    Are all particles "matter"?   Are virtual particles matter?    


For sake of argument, let's say material is a subset of what exists.   There are thing we know to exist but which we would not call matter.   Since all we know to exist are particles, let's say some of those particles are by our definition not matter.    Otherwise intelligence based on immaterial would be excluded not by reason or logic, but by definition.   Argument by definition is futile.

Neuron is a thing which we know could facilitate the emergence of intelligence.   However, we are not particularly good yet at predicting what emergent properties are possible in large system over long time horizons, it seem premature to exclude the possibility that intelligence like behavior can emerge from systems of particles and virtual particles that bear little resemblance or analogy to neurons.       

We don't see how it can, at least we don't think it easily can.   But given very large systems and very long time spans, what doesn't happen easily still can't be excluded.   So where does that leave us?

To say it definitely can and we may bet on it, that would be wrong.  But to say it is absolutely impossible would also be wrong.

[comet]

Anomalocaris: What it seems to mean is "nothing" or if we're being charitable "non-matter" like memory, energy, thoughts. Either way immaterial cannot be intelligent. "Nothing intelligence" or "non-matter intelligence" is a logical contradiction. To produce the non-matter thoughts, dreams etc you would need material neurons and if immaterial means nothing then we are in trouble, because how can intelligence come from nothing?


comet: If we're taking material to mean matter then things are material, no?

 Again, what is "matter"?    Are all particles "matter"?   Are virtual particles matter?    


For sake of argument, let's material is a subset of what exists.   There are thing we know to exist but which we would not call matter.   Since all we know to exist are particles, let's say some of those particles are by our definition not matter.    Otherwise intelligence based on immaterial would be excluded not by reason or logic, but by definition.   Argument by definition is futile.

Neuron is a thing which we know could facilitate the emergence of intelligence.   However, we are not particularly good yet at predicting what emergent properties are possible in large system over long time horizons, it seem premature to exclude the possibility that intelligence like behavior can emerge from systems of particles and virtual particles that bear little resemblance or analogy to neurons.       

We don't see how it can, at least we don't think it easily can.   But given very large systems and very long time spans, what doesn't happen easily still can't be excluded.   So where does that leave us?

To say it definitely can and we may bet on it, that would be wrong.  But to say it is absolutely impossible would also be wrong.

describe the system we are in to the best of our ability.  What word or notion describes the system we are immediately surrounded by?  

List a few ideas and put them side by side to see what ones are more valid.  This validity scale would not be absolute.  The scale would have to be relative.  That being, what ones are more/less valid than others.  not that there is even a single answer.

I stay with in earth/sun system.  its simple and empirical. 

Words or notions that offer an explanation, make repeatable predictions, and have a mechanism are more valid than ones that don't ... period.  it doesn't matter how we feel about the word god or the universe.

[Anomalocaris]

 Again, what is "matter"?    Are all particles "matter"?   Are virtual particles matter?    


For sake of argument, let's material is a subset of what exists.   There are thing we know to exist but which we would not call matter.   Since all we know to exist are particles, let's say some of those particles are by our definition not matter.    Otherwise intelligence based on immaterial would be excluded not by reason or logic, but by definition.   Argument by definition is futile.

Neuron is a thing which we know could facilitate the emergence of intelligence.   However, we are not particularly good yet at predicting what emergent properties are possible in large system over long time horizons, it seem premature to exclude the possibility that intelligence like behavior can emerge from systems of particles and virtual particles that bear little resemblance or analogy to neurons.       

We don't see how it can, at least we don't think it easily can.   But given very large systems and very long time spans, what doesn't happen easily still can't be excluded.   So where does that leave us?

To say it definitely can and we may bet on it, that would be wrong.  But to say it is absolutely impossible would also be wrong.

describe the system we are in to the best of our ability.  What word or notion describes the system we are immediately surrounded by?  

List a few ideas and put them side by side to see what ones are more valid.  This validity scale would not be absolute.  The scale would have to be relative.  That being, what ones are more/less valid than others.  not that there is even a single answer.

I stay with in earth/sun system.  its simple and empirical. 

Words or notions that offer an explanation, make repeatable predictions, and have a mechanism are more valid than ones that don't ... period.  it doesn't matter how we feel about the word god or the universe.

It is one thing to evaluate which proposition is more immediately subject to validation, and so can contribute more immediately to advancing the state of the art in knowledge at this moment.   It is another to list all proposition which can eventually, in theory, be subjected to validation.    The latter group gives a more global view of where we are, and offer more hints about where we might be going beyond the next few steps.

[Tom Fearnley]

"Are virtual particles matter? " I'm not sure what a virtual particle is. I would say matter isn't non-matter, it's anything made of atoms, no?

I don't understand " we are not particularly good yet at predicting what emergent properties are possible in large system over long time horizons".

Some intelligent properties could emerge if you exclude neurons, I agree. But for the complete package material things are needed, like dopamine + neurons to create the non-matter / immaterial properties like thought and memory, is what I'm saying.

Immaterial:
philosophy
spiritual, rather than physical.

Spiritual:
relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Spirit:
The non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Non-physical:
not relating to or concerning the body.

Soul:
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.


I think we can clearly see that the definition immaterial just sends us in a circle from "immaterial" back to "soul". 'Immaterial means soul and soul means immaterial.'

Also how can something not have a body, including neurons plus other chemicals and be intelligent? A contradiction.

So we can be charitable and go with immaterial meaning "non-matter" so at least then the word has some meaning. But that just brings me back to the "incomplete intelligence" arguments I used above.

[EgoDeath]

The Abrahamic god is certainly a logical contradiction and certainly does not exist. That's never been a question to me.

Proving that some sort of deistic, impersonal god does not exist, however, is another story entirely.