VonEvilstein

Jesse,

Long and valiant though your efforts have been, I get the feeling that your argument is in vain... what, with everything you've written to Seraphim, both at length and repeatedly, being twisted, or ignored at best, that you might as well give up and save yourself the time. Explaining your position only helps when the explainee is actually listening.


Seraphim,

I am having a very hard time trying to figure out just how you could have taken this thread so entirely the wrong way. These terms, the use of which you decry as being unscientific - they are illustrations of using a definition of one word, to formulate a question in a different way. The only relevant fact about God that is being presupposed here, is His omniscence. Apart from that, this actually has very little to do with God. Or, are we being presumptuous in assuming this?

Seraphim

By Jesse

If I define the word "blorgismak" do I need to have calculations or measures that show it "plays some factor in the argument"? Of course not, nothing in the argument depends on empirical questions about whether anything matching my definition of a "blorgismak" actually exists or not, since my question is just "if a blorgismak did exist, would it be red or blue." Again, it's just a matter of how I'm defining the word "blorgismak." Same with the use of "God" in the question of whether God would know the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle.

Here's where you and I differ in thoughts. You assume that just because you can define a word (no matter how bogus it maybe), you don't need to add dimensions (lack of better words) to that word yet the word could play the role nevertheless the same way as that of a concept with dimension just because you had defined it .

From your example above - "IF blorgismak actually exist ..." (this already a major question), "would it be red or blue." (at this point, I don't see what is the relevant of it being red or blue if the question whether blorgismak exists or not is yet to be answered).

Take mathematical approach now. 2 + 3 = 5. You know the dimension of 2 and 3 (being numbers and value) thus you can generate 5. You can change any of this 2 or 3 to something else, say X or Y and since the value which you get doesn't change, you can use Minus, Times, Multiple or any other mathematical concepts to derive 5 thus the dimension of X or Y can be define.

2 + Y = 5 (which equals to 2 + 3 = 5)
X + Y = 5 (here you can generate various logical answers which all bring down to the value 5).

In this so-called scientific thread, the question does God exist remains YET you are trying to add that concept into another one THUS producing your own assumption.

X (God) + 3 (irregulaties) = (5) God knows nothing.

This is illogical because simply because You don't know anything about God (His defination, dimension, what He knows or not). ALL you have to work with here is YOUR misconceptions about God and some physics. Science is NOT a guessing game.

God = an omniscient being
omniscient = knowing every true fact about the universe

So how do you know this? Have you heard God say it is true? Where is your source of information regarding this?

So, "would God know the position and momentum of a particle" is equivalent to the question "is there a true fact about what a particle's position and momentum are". Again, just asking the same question with some different words.

Sorry, that's your misconception. Knowing a bit doesn't make you know everything. Anyone who thinks he knows everything because he understood a little is a fool indeed.

Yes, and to use your words, in my argument God would "return the output" of knowing the position and momentum of a particle if there is a true fact about its particle and momentum, but not knowing it otherwise. This is equivalent to how a blorgismak would "return the output" of being blue if moving electric currents produce magnetic fields, or being red if they don't.

Assuming (again) that THAT'S how God works in the first place. I don't see any output from God other than your own misconceptions. And that is derived from irregulaties from the Physics ALONE. There is too many assumptions and misconception in this discussion which makes it a bad Scientific debate.

If there was a real truth about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum, God would know it, but if there wasn't, he wouldn't.

This is assuming of course that God exists and He reacts according to what you assuming he will react accordingly. Again, MISCONCEPTION and ASSUMPTION.

Again, you are wrong. If you think I ever said that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects the color of my eyes, please go back and find the quote. All I said was that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects a hypothetical smoogliferent being's knowledge of my eye color--that was just my definition of what it meant to be "smoogliferent." Again, my point was just that the question "would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is exactly equivalent to the question "am I a vegetarian", it just asks the question using some different words and definitions.

How does smoogliferent knowing the color of your eyes = to you being vegetarian? What you saying is like 1 + 3 = 2 which is nonsense. I don't see any links between the two values which you can derive the 3rd value (the result).

Huh? I defined the term "smoogliferent being" to mean a being that knows my eye color if I'm a vegetarian. If it "had nothing to do with food nor the color of the eyes", it wouldn't be "smoogliferent", by definition! You keep acting as though all these words refer to preexisting entities so that it's possible to question whether they meet the definitions or not, but I keep trying to make it clear that in my arguments the words refer to nothing more than the definitions themselves. If something doesn't match the definition, then I just wouldn't use that word to describe it.

OK, this what I understood so far : Smoogliferent knows color of your eyes IF you're vegetarian. OK?

Question - Does being vegetarian has anything to do of the color of the eyes?

No, the existence or non-existence of entities matching the definitions is irrelevant! The question is not, "does God know the position and momentum of particles", it's "would God know the position and momentum of particles (if such an entity existed)." The answer doesn't depend on whether God actually exists or not, any more than my other questions depend on whether smoogliferent beings or blorgismaks actually exist.

Then this thread is stupid.
It is like saying X + 5 = 5.

What is the value of X? It is not necessary to have value.
So why is it there? Because I had defined it.
Nonsense.

Sigh. No, the empirical question of whether an omniscient being exists or not is one that is something I would like to know on its own, and if it did I would want to know a lot more about the qualities of this being besides the mere fact that it is omniscient. But all I'm saying is that none of these other issues are relevant to the question about particle's position and momentum. Suppose one guy believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely good, another believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely evil, and another believes that no omniscient beings exist at all. I, and probably everyone else in the world, would care a lot about knowing which of these three guys was right. But as long as they all agree about the answer to the question "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum", they will also all agree on the answer to the question "would an omniscient being know the position and momentum of a particle". All the other questions about the qualities of a hypothetical omniscient being, like whether it exists or whether it is good or evil, are irrelevant to that particular question, even if they may be very relevant in other ways.

Whether an omniscient being good, evil or simply doesn't exist is different to the matter whether it could know "the position and momentum of a particle".

To a good omniscient being - He could know (answer is Yes).
To a bad omniscient being - He couldn't give a damn (answer is No).
To one that doesn't exist - What's the answer there?

In the end, the answer to the question rely in whether omniscient being is Good, Bad or Exists, NOT the position and momentum of a particle because that (the position and momentum) since that value do not change.

X + 5 = Y (X = God, 5 = position and momentum), task here is to find the value of X before you can get the value of Y. You are getting the value of Y without defining X properly (X being whether Good, Bad, Existence).

The question is not about God's opinion but just about the question of whether an omniscient being would have knowledge of the answers to certain questions about particles, which is just another way of asking whether there is a true answer to these questions or if they are meaningless.

I could say that this question is meaningless. You cannot derive an answer with only one part of a question.

One more time:

blorgismak blue = electric currents produce magnetic fields

blorgismak red = electric currents do not produce magnetic fields

"would a blorgismak be red or blue?" = "do electric currents produce magnetic fields?"

omniscient being knows a particle's position and momentum = there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum

omniscient being doesn't know a particle's position and momentum = there is no true fact about a particle's position and momentum

"would an omniscient being know a particle's position and momentum?" = "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum?"

I read about 5-6 times the last three paragraphs and I understood it but unable to answer. Frankly speaking, I don't know how you could answer as well.

The answer could be "Yes, He knows" or "No, He doesn't know" and I cannot answer both since I don't know "Him".

Answerer

Well, can't you see that I'm being a bit sarcastic? Of course, there are times where I'm satisfied regarding the fact that the christians and muslims can't explain their beliefs to me of why they think God is good or just without having even talk to Him. But those are the past and now, back to the thread.

Personally, I think this thread is similar to other threads that question God 's omnipotence. And in other threads, it goes something like this, "Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?". Therefore, I believe that they are the same and people just return to the same thread again.

Jesse

Seraphim:
Here's where you and I differ in thoughts. You assume that just because you can define a word (no matter how bogus it maybe), you don't need to add dimensions (lack of better words) to that word yet the word could play the role nevertheless the same way as that of a concept with dimension just because you had defined it .

From your example above - "IF blorgismak actually exist ..." (this already a major question), "would it be red or blue." (at this point, I don't see what is the relevant of it being red or blue if the question whether blorgismak exists or not is yet to be answered).

Take mathematical approach now. 2 + 3 = 5. You know the dimension of 2 and 3 (being numbers and value) thus you can generate 5. You can change any of this 2 or 3 to something else, say X or Y and since the value which you get doesn't change, you can use Minus, Times, Multiple or any other mathematical concepts to derive 5 thus the dimension of X or Y can be define.

2 + Y = 5 (which equals to 2 + 3 = 5)
X + Y = 5 (here you can generate various logical answers which all bring down to the value 5).

In this so-called scientific thread, the question does God exist remains YET you are trying to add that concept into another one THUS producing your own assumption.

X (God) + 3 (irregulaties) = (5) God knows nothing.

This is illogical because simply because You don't know anything about God (His defination, dimension, what He knows or not). ALL you have to work with here is YOUR misconceptions about God and some physics. Science is NOT a guessing game.

Seraphim, it seems to me you are unfamiliar with the rules of logic. In formal logic, the statement "A --> B", which means "IF proposition A is true, THEN proposition B must necessarily be true", is totally independent of whether A is in fact true or false. See this page, for example, if you don't believe me. For example, I could say "IF all leprechauns wear hats and Lucky is a leprechaun, THEN Lucky wears a hat", and logically that must be a true statement regardless of whether leprechauns exist or whether it's true that they wear hats. If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with the rules of logic.

Jesse
God = an omniscient being
omniscient = knowing every true fact about the universe

Seraphim:
So how do you know this? Have you heard God say it is true? Where is your source of information regarding this?

I don't need any empirical evidence for this because it is not an empirical statement, it is merely my definition of the words "God" and "omniscient." Suppose it turns out there is a very wise being who created our entire universe and has complete control over everything that happens in it, but he is not omniscient. Would this "disprove" my statement that God = an omniscient being? No, because again, that statement was a definition rather than an empirical claim--I would just say that this universe-creating being does not qualify to be called "God", according to my definition of the word. Maybe I would call it the "demiurge" after Plato. Of course, other people are free to use different definitions of "God", but this is just my definition, OK? I think it's pretty widely-accepted that omniscience is implicit in the definition of what qualities an entity would have to have to qualify as "God", though.

So, "would God know the position and momentum of a particle" is equivalent to the question "is there a true fact about what a particle's position and momentum are". Again, just asking the same question with some different words.

Jesse:
Yes, and to use your words, in my argument God would "return the output" of knowing the position and momentum of a particle if there is a true fact about its particle and momentum, but not knowing it otherwise. This is equivalent to how a blorgismak would "return the output" of being blue if moving electric currents produce magnetic fields, or being red if they don't.

Seraphim:
Assuming (again) that THAT'S how God works in the first place.

There are no assumptions about the empirical world here, just definitions of hypothetical entities. If some entity does not know every true fact about the universe, then I would not use the word "God" to describe it, just like if some entity is not blue or red depending on whether electric currents produce magnetic fields, then I would not use the word "blorgismak" to describe it. I am not making any "assumptions" about preexisting entities known as blorgismaks, I'm just defining what traits an entity would have to have to qualify as a "blorgismak" according to my definition of the word. Can you accept that no assumptions about reality are being made in my statement about blorgismaks, just word-definitions? If so, you are being obstinate if you refuse to accept that the same is true in the case of my statement about "God".

Jesse:
Again, you are wrong. If you think I ever said that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects the color of my eyes, please go back and find the quote. All I said was that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects a hypothetical smoogliferent being's knowledge of my eye color--that was just my definition of what it meant to be "smoogliferent." Again, my point was just that the question "would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is exactly equivalent to the question "am I a vegetarian", it just asks the question using some different words and definitions.

Seraphim:
How does smoogliferent knowing the color of your eyes = to you being vegetarian?

Because that's just my definition of the word "smoogliferent", of course it would be crazy if such a thing existed in the real world. But it's hard for me to believe that you can accept me defining a magical entity known as a "blorgismak" which has different colors depending on how the laws of electromagnetism work, but you can't accept me defining a magical property known as "smoogliference" which allows an entity to instantly know the eye color of every vegetarian in the universe. Both definitions are intentionally crazy, of course we'll never find things matching the definition in the real universe! Again, see my point above about logic and the truth-value of the statement "A-->B" being completely independent of the truth value of the statement "A".

Seraphim:
OK, this what I understood so far : Smoogliferent knows color of your eyes IF you're vegetarian. OK?

Question - Does being vegetarian has anything to do of the color of the eyes?

No, I doubt there is any relationship between the two. And even in my definition of "smoogliference", being a vegetarian would only affect the knowledge of a smoogliferent being about eye color, nothing in the definition says vegetarianism would affect anyone's eye color itself.

Jesse:
No, the existence or non-existence of entities matching the definitions is irrelevant! The question is not, "does God know the position and momentum of particles", it's "would God know the position and momentum of particles (if such an entity existed)." The answer doesn't depend on whether God actually exists or not, any more than my other questions depend on whether smoogliferent beings or blorgismaks actually exist.

Seraphim:
Then this thread is stupid.
It is like saying X + 5 = 5.

What is the value of X? It is not necessary to have value.
So why is it there? Because I had defined it.
Nonsense. [/i]

First of all, your example doesn't make sense, because it would be necessary for X to have a particular value for X + 5 = 5 to be true, namely X=0. What this thread is actually doing is asking whether "A-->B" is true, where statement A is "God exists and knows every true fact about the universe" and statement B is "God knows the simultaneous position and momentum of particles." Basic logic tells you that the truth or falsity of this statement "A-->B" is independent of the truth or falsity of A; in this case, the key issue is just whether there is a true fact about the simultaneous position and momentum of particles, which is the scientific issue people have been debating on this thread.

Jesse:
Sigh. No, the empirical question of whether an omniscient being exists or not is one that is something I would like to know on its own, and if it did I would want to know a lot more about the qualities of this being besides the mere fact that it is omniscient. But all I'm saying is that none of these other issues are relevant to the question about particle's position and momentum. Suppose one guy believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely good, another believes an omniscient being exists and is infinitely evil, and another believes that no omniscient beings exist at all. I, and probably everyone else in the world, would care a lot about knowing which of these three guys was right. But as long as they all agree about the answer to the question "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum", they will also all agree on the answer to the question "would an omniscient being know the position and momentum of a particle". All the other questions about the qualities of a hypothetical omniscient being, like whether it exists or whether it is good or evil, are irrelevant to that particular question, even if they may be very relevant in other ways.

Seraphim:
Whether an omniscient being good, evil or simply doesn't exist is different to the matter whether it could know "the position and momentum of a particle".

To a good omniscient being - He could know (answer is Yes).
To a bad omniscient being - He couldn't give a damn (answer is No).

Now you're just being silly. A bad omniscient being might not care about the answer, but that's clearly not what we're asking--we're just asking whether he'd know the answer. If you don't know the answer to a question that does have a single true answer, then you're not omniscient, by definition! If you have a different definition of "omniscient" then everyone else in the world, that's fine, but the definition I'm using is one where if there are any true facts you don't know, you don't qualify as "omniscient".

Seraphim:
To one that doesn't exist - What's the answer there?

The answer is that the truth-value of the statement "IF an omniscient being exists THEN he would know the simultaneous position and momentum of particles" does not depend in any way on whether an omniscient being does, in fact, exist. Basic logic.

Jesse:
One more time:

blorgismak blue = electric currents produce magnetic fields

blorgismak red = electric currents do not produce magnetic fields

"would a blorgismak be red or blue?" = "do electric currents produce magnetic fields?"

omniscient being knows a particle's position and momentum = there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum

omniscient being doesn't know a particle's position and momentum = there is no true fact about a particle's position and momentum

"would an omniscient being know a particle's position and momentum?" = "is there a true fact about a particle's position and momentum?"

Seraphim:
I read about 5-6 times the last three paragraphs and I understood it but unable to answer. Frankly speaking, I don't know how you could answer as well.

The answer could be "Yes, He knows" or "No, He doesn't know" and I cannot answer both since I don't know "Him".

If there is a true fact about the position and momentum of a particle and a being does not know it, then that being is not omniscient, by definition. I don't need to know anything about reality to see that that is true, I just need to understand the definition of the word "omniscient". To continue with the analogy, if an object is not blue if electric currents produce magnetic fields and red otherwise, then it is not a "blorgismak". I don't need to go out into the world to investigate preexisting entities called "blorgismaks" to verify that this is true, because it is simply my definition of what it means to be a "blorgismak" in the first place.

Seraphim

By Answerer

Well, can't you see that I'm being a bit sarcastic? Of course, there are times where I'm satisfied regarding the fact that the christians and muslims can't explain their beliefs to me of why they think God is good or just without having even talk to Him. But those are the past and now, back to the thread.

Some people believe in God because it is written in a book somewhere and they are too lazy to think or afraid if they start to think, they will lose their faith. This is not called having faith, it is called Blind Faith.

Personally, I think this thread is similar to other threads that question God 's omnipotence. And in other threads, it goes something like this, "Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?". Therefore, I believe that they are the same and people just return to the same thread again.

Good point. Consider this - the rock which could be heavy to you could be lighter to me. Does that mean I'm a God?

The boulder which is heavy to the both of us could be brought down by a machine (made by human such as yourself) or couple of stick of dinamite. Does the person who made the machine a God or is a stick of dynamite a God?

omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscient, hell ... even heavy is simply a human concept, nothing more. If your defination of God by a concept which you understood failed, does that mean God doesn't exist?

Answerer

Seraphim, I think you ask the wrong person because I was not the one who asked the question " Can God make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?". Its someone else in other threads. I only claimed that this thread is similar to other threads and I don't know how those guys think. If you are interested, you can try asking them yourself.

Seraphim

No, Thank you. I think I have enough of "scientific" discussion in this thread for a while.

Seraphim

By Jesse

Seraphim, it seems to me you are unfamiliar with the rules of logic. In formal logic, the statement "A --> B", which means "IF proposition A is true, THEN proposition B must necessarily be true", is totally independent of whether A is in fact true or false.

Here we go again ... when someone doesn't play by your rules, that person is wrong. Keep your logic to yourself, bub ... I can think for myself, Thank You.

A ---> B ? What does that mean?
A = B?
A is B?
A can be derived from B?
B can be derived from A?

For example, I could say "IF all leprechauns wear hats and Lucky is a leprechaun, THEN Lucky wears a hat", and logically that must be a true statement regardless of whether leprechauns exist or whether it's true that they wear hats. If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with the rules of logic.

1. Leprechauns wear hat
2. Lucky is a leprechaun.

Statement 1 already told what you need to know - Leprechauns (whether they exist or not is different matter) wears hat. If Lucky is a Leprechauns, we can assume that he wears a hat. So, this example is acceptable.

1. Irregulaties in Physics
2. What God knows.

How does one derive the assumption that God will know/not know something (whether He exist or not can be put aside for this argument) based on the Irregulaties itself.

You don't know anything about nature of God (I didn't mean whether He exist or not, I meant what He is made of, how does He reacts to this Irregulaties etc) which could make a possible assumption that He could be effected by statement no. 1.

Based from Leprechaun example, change God into Lucky's place.

1. The Universe has irregulaties in them - logical assumption.
2. God know this or don't? - This CANNOT be answered other than making guess because there is no connection between statement 1 and 2.

In Leprechaun example, the connection was that "ALL Leprechauns" and "Lucky is a Leprechaun". There is a Mathematical concept of Matric Transformation (not sure what you guy called it in your side of the Planet).

In set 1, you have numbers ranging from 1 to 10. In set 2, you have odd number of all number ranging from 1 to 10. By combining both, can you make a 3rd set which contains all numbers which is in Set 1 but not in Set 2? Answer is Yes - by logic because connection exists between both sets. Your example has no connection between God and the Irregulaties other than your own imigination.

I don't need any empirical evidence for this because it is not an empirical statement, it is merely my definition of the words "God" and "omniscient."

That's right Pal ... your own defination. That's what you been playing around with all this time and that is what made you and most people here an Atheist to begin with ... you are too busy with your own definations - of the world, society, God.

And frankly speaking, I won't be wasting time explaining why I think God exists to someone who already decided He doesn't exist. Both of us do have better things to do, right?

There are no assumptions about the empirical world here, just definitions of hypothetical entities. ... I am not making any "assumptions" about preexisting entities known as blorgismaks, I'm just defining what traits an entity would have to have to qualify as a "blorgismak" according to my definition of the word. Can you accept that no assumptions about reality are being made in my statement about blorgismaks, just word-definitions? If so, you are being obstinate if you refuse to accept that the same is true in the case of my statement about "God".

So if God doesn't produce the effect which you seek, God doesn't exist?
If God doesn't follow your definations, He doesn't exist?

Hmph ... sound logic to me (Sarcasm).

Again, you are wrong. If you think I ever said that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects the color of my eyes, please go back and find the quote. All I said was that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects a hypothetical smoogliferent being's knowledge of my eye color--that was just my definition of what it meant to be "smoogliferent." Again, my point was just that the question "would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is exactly equivalent to the question "am I a vegetarian", it just asks the question using some different words and definitions.

Which part of the word "It doesn't make sense" which doesn't seems to make sense to you guys?

Whether smoogliferent knows color of the eyes OR not is irrevalant to what color of your eyes IS.

Assuming that smoogliferent DO know the color of your eyes, the color of your eyes IS irrevelant to whether you are vegetarian or not.

Assuming you are a vegetarian and food intake has nothing to do with the color of your eyes, it is irrelevant whether you are a vegetarian OR whether smoogliferent knows the color of your eyes OR that you are a vegetarian.

You are making assumption and bringing in your own answers without the need of having discussion. Same with the question whether God knows irregulaties in Physics. Your own assumption and your own answers.

If you happy with your own answers, then I will be happy for you and drop this so-called discussion because it's not going anywhere fast.

Because that's just my definition of the word "smoogliferent", of course it would be crazy if such a thing existed in the real world. ...

Read above.

No, I doubt there is any relationship between the two. And even in my definition of "smoogliference", being a vegetarian would only affect the knowledge of a smoogliferent being about eye color, nothing in the definition says vegetarianism would affect anyone's eye color itself.

Read the statement about "It doesn't make sense".

First of all, your example doesn't make sense, because it would be necessary for X to have a particular value for X + 5 = 5 to be true, namely X=0. What this thread is actually doing is asking whether "A-->B" is true, where statement A is "God exists and knows every true fact about the universe" and statement B is "God knows the simultaneous position and momentum of particles." Basic logic tells you that the truth or falsity of this statement "A-->B" is independent of the truth or falsity of A; in this case, the key issue is just whether there is a true fact about the simultaneous position and momentum of particles, which is the scientific issue people have been debating on this thread.

5 + 0 = 5 which by eliminating unwanted definations you can get 5 = 5.

From that point, your assumption is TRUE because it is YOUR assumptions. There is no debate in such assumptions.

As for A ---> B, answer questions at the beginning first. My answers will depend on that.

Now you're just being silly. A bad omniscient being might not care about the answer, but that's clearly not what we're asking-- we're just asking whether he'd know the answer . If you don't know the answer to a question that does have a single true answer, then you're not omniscient, by definition! If you have a different definition of "omniscient" then everyone else in the world, that's fine, but the definition I'm using is one where if there are any true facts you don't know, you don't qualify as "omniscient".

And who will answer the question whether He knows or not? How will you derive the answer in God's behalf?
IF God did answer Yes, then what?

The answer is that the truth-value of the statement "IF an omniscient being exists THEN he would know the simultaneous position and momentum of particles" does not depend in any way on whether an omniscient being does, in fact, exist. Basic logic.

You lost me here ...

If there is a true fact about the position and momentum of a particle and a being does not know it, then that being is not omniscient, by definition. I don't need to know anything about reality to see that that is true, I just need to understand the definition of the word "omniscient". To continue with the analogy, if an object is not blue if electric currents produce magnetic fields and red otherwise, then it is not a "blorgismak". I don't need to go out into the world to investigate preexisting entities called "blorgismaks" to verify that this is true, because it is simply my definition of what it means to be a "blorgismak" in the first place

In another word ... you don't need to know whether God exist, all you need to know is how to make assumption on His behalf and make things acceptable to you. Right?

Jesse

Jesse:
Seraphim, it seems to me you are unfamiliar with the rules of logic. In formal logic, the statement "A --> B", which means "IF proposition A is true, THEN proposition B must necessarily be true", is totally independent of whether A is in fact true or false.

Seraphim:
Here we go again ... when someone doesn't play by your rules, that person is wrong. Keep your logic to yourself, bub ... I can think for myself, Thank You.

A ---> B ? What does that mean?
A = B?
A is B?
A can be derived from B?
B can be derived from A?

Seraphim, this is not "my" logic, it's standard formal logic notation. I suggest you pick up a textbook on logic if you don't believe me. Or, just read this webpage which I mentioned earlier:

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/St...ic/logic3.html

the "-->" symbol is known as the conditional operator. It is used to make statements of the form "if A is true, then B is true." And, most important for this discussion, evaluating whether statements of this form are true or not is totally independent of whether A is in fact true. For example:

"If humans are reptiles and all reptiles have feathers, then humans have feathers."

This is a true statement, despite the fact that humans are not reptiles and all reptiles do not have feathers. It's just a statement about what conclusions would follow if the premise was true, even if it's not true in the real world.

Again, this is standard logic. That's just the way if-then statements are understood to work. If you somehow think that if-then statements depend on the truth of the premise, then that's like thinking "A is true OR B is true" could be a true statement even if both A and B are false.

Seraphim:
For example, I could say "IF all leprechauns wear hats and Lucky is a leprechaun, THEN Lucky wears a hat", and logically that must be a true statement regardless of whether leprechauns exist or whether it's true that they wear hats. If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with the rules of logic.

1. Leprechauns wear hat
2. Lucky is a leprechaun.

Statement 1 already told what you need to know - Leprechauns (whether they exist or not is different matter) wears hat. If Lucky is a Leprechauns, we can assume that he wears a hat. So, this example is acceptable.

1. Irregulaties in Physics
2. What God knows.

How does one derive the assumption that God will know/not know something (whether He exist or not can be put aside for this argument) based on the Irregulaties itself.

No, it's not "irregularities in physics", it's whether or not there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum. The syllogism here would work in one of two ways:

1. "God" is omniscient
2. "Omniscience" means knowing all true facts about the universe
3. there is a true fact about the position and momentum of particles
4. Therefore, God knows the position and momentum of particles

or:

1. "God" is omniscient
2. "Omniscience" means knowing all true facts about the universe
3. there is not a true fact about the position and momentum of particles
4. Therefore, God does not know the position and momentum of particles

See, the only way the conclusion can be different is which alternative you believe about whether there's a true fact about position and momentum. Statements 1 and 2 cannot possibly be wrong, because they are simply definitions of the words "God" and "Omniscient."

Seraphim:
You don't know anything about nature of God (I didn't mean whether He exist or not, I meant what He is made of, how does He reacts to this Irregulaties etc) which could make a possible assumption that He could be effected by statement no. 1.

Argh! Seraphim, I've stated over and over again the difference between:

A. making an empirical statement about a preexisting entity already named "X"
B. defining the term "X"

Do you really not understand that when you are defining words there is no claim about reality being made? Definitions are arbitrary. I could just as easily define the word "God" to mean "a purple porcupine". I suppose you would then say, "Whattaya nuts? God isn't a porcupine, how could you assume this about God?" as if I was making an empirical claim about a preexisting entity called "God", even though I was just choosing an arbitrary word-definition for use in my argument. This would certainly be in keeping with all your other misguided criticisms of the "assumptions" I am making about God.

If you really are incapable of understanding the difference between A and B, I guess there's nothing I can do to help you. I've said pretty much everything I can on this subject.

Seraphim:
Based from Leprechaun example, change God into Lucky's place.

1. The Universe has irregulaties in them - logical assumption.
2. God know this or don't? - This CANNOT be answered other than making guess because there is no connection between statement 1 and 2.

In Leprechaun example, the connection was that "ALL Leprechauns" and "Lucky is a Leprechaun". There is a Mathematical concept of Matric Transformation (not sure what you guy called it in your side of the Planet).

Perhaps you would prefer it if I stated it this way:

1. All omniscient beings know all true facts about reality
2. God is an omniscient being
3. Therefore, God knows all true facts about reality.

With the understanding that the first two statements don't have to be empirically true for the conclusion to be sound, any more than the statement that "all leprechauns wear hats", are you really saying you can't understand how this follows?

Jesse:
I don't need any empirical evidence for this because it is not an empirical statement, it is merely my definition of the words "God" and "omniscient."

Seraphim:
That's right Pal ... your own defination. That's what you been playing around with all this time and that is what made you and most people here an Atheist to begin with ... you are too busy with your own definations - of the world, society, God.

Again Seraphim, my "definition" does not mean I am making any empirical claims about the universe. If there was some being who created the universe but wasn't omniscient, nothing in my statement would contradict this, it's just that this being wouldn't be called "God" according to this definition. Likewise, if I define the word "God" to mean "a purple porcupine" and "Nacho" to mean "an omniscient omnipotent being who created the universe", then if an omniscient omnipotent universe-creator existed, I would call him "Nacho", but I wouldn't call him "God" unless he also happened to be a purple porcupine.

Once again, it is all a matter of the distinction between:

A. making an empirical statement about a preexisting entity already named "X"
B. defining the term "X"

If you are somehow incapable of understanding this distinction, there's nothing more that I can say to you. If you do understand it, you will stop making these silly statements that my definitions have jack squat to do with my beliefs about metaphysics or the existence of a supreme being or whatever.

Seraphim:
And frankly speaking, I won't be wasting time explaining why I think God exists to someone who already decided He doesn't exist. Both of us do have better things to do, right?

I haven't decided that God doesn't exist, as a matter of fact; stop assuming things about my beliefs about reality which are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Again, "'God' is omniscient" is merely the definition I am using for the sake of this argument, and I'm assuming that a being matching this definition does exist in the premise of my conditional IF-THEN statement. Just like I could make the IF-THEN statement about Leprechauns and hats without it being relevant whether I think Leprechauns actually exist or not. That's just how logic works, sorry if you have a problem with that.

Jesse:
There are no assumptions about the empirical world here, just definitions of hypothetical entities. ... I am not making any "assumptions" about preexisting entities known as blorgismaks, I'm just defining what traits an entity would have to have to qualify as a "blorgismak" according to my definition of the word. Can you accept that no assumptions about reality are being made in my statement about blorgismaks, just word-definitions? If so, you are being obstinate if you refuse to accept that the same is true in the case of my statement about "God".

Seraphim:
So if God doesn't produce the effect which you seek, God doesn't exist?
If God doesn't follow your definations, He doesn't exist?

Hmph ... sound logic to me (Sarcasm).

No Seraphim, if I was using this definition, then I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a being existing which had all sorts of attributes traditionally assigned to God but was not omniscient (I wouldn't rule it out because I'm making no empirical claims whatsoever about reality)...I would just not use the word "God" to describe this being, since it wouldn't match my definition.

Just like if I was using a definition in which the word "God" means "a purple porcupine", I would not rule out the possibility of an omniscient omnipotent universe-creating being existing who did not happen to be a purple porcupine, I just wouldn't use the term "God" for this being.

Definitions have no empirical content. They make no statements about reality whatsoever. They are just arbitrary ways of assigning meanings to strings of letters. "God" is just a string of letters I am using to denote an omniscient being. Repeat ad infinitum, and if you still don't understand then please do not reply to this post.

Jesse:
Again, you are wrong. If you think I ever said that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects the color of my eyes, please go back and find the quote. All I said was that whether I am a vegetarian or not effects a hypothetical smoogliferent being's knowledge of my eye color--that was just my definition of what it meant to be "smoogliferent." Again, my point was just that the question "would a smoogliferent being know my eye color" is exactly equivalent to the question "am I a vegetarian", it just asks the question using some different words and definitions.

Seraphim:
Which part of the word "It doesn't make sense" which doesn't seems to make sense to you guys?

Whether smoogliferent knows color of the eyes OR not is irrevalant to what color of your eyes IS.

Yes, that's exactly what I said about a millin times. But I guess you weren't listening.

Seraphim:
Assuming that smoogliferent DO know the color of your eyes, the color of your eyes IS irrevelant to whether you are vegetarian or not.

Yup, that too. Guess you weren't listening again. There is no causal connection between eye color and vegetarianism being imagined here. For example, a smoogliferent might only be able to see vegetarians, with all other beings being invisible to it. That would "explain" why it only knows the eye color of vegetarians. But these kinds of speculations are pointless, because "only knowing the eye color of vegetarians" is just the definition of "smoogliference", it doesn't matter whether empirically it's plausible that there are any smoogliferent beings in real life. I agree, it's a totally unbelievable property! But there are no logical contradictions in the definition, so we can talk about what the world would be like if smoogliferent beings existed, just like we can talk about what the world would be like if leprechauns existed.

Seraphim:
You are making assumption and bringing in your own answers without the need of having discussion.

Nope, there are no empirical "assumptions" or "answers" in definitions. They're just arbitrary ways of matching strings of letters to meanings.

Seraphim:
And who will answer the question whether He knows or not? How will you derive the answer in God's behalf?
IF God did answer Yes, then what?

Who cares? You're trying to get empirical and I'm just talking about logical consequences. If you define "God" as an omniscient being and "omniscience" as knowing every true fact about the universe, then if there is a true fact about whether particles have well-defined positions and momentums, it follows logically that God would know this fact. Even if God refused to tell anyone.

Jesse:
The answer is that the truth-value of the statement "IF an omniscient being exists THEN he would know the simultaneous position and momentum of particles" does not depend in any way on whether an omniscient being does, in fact, exist. Basic logic.

Seraphim:
You lost me here ...

Like I said, perhaps you should review how the conditional operator works in formal logic. "if A then B" does not depend in any way on whether A actually is true or false.

Jesse:
If there is a true fact about the position and momentum of a particle and a being does not know it, then that being is not omniscient, by definition. I don't need to know anything about reality to see that that is true, I just need to understand the definition of the word "omniscient". To continue with the analogy, if an object is not blue if electric currents produce magnetic fields and red otherwise, then it is not a "blorgismak". I don't need to go out into the world to investigate preexisting entities called "blorgismaks" to verify that this is true, because it is simply my definition of what it means to be a "blorgismak" in the first place

Seraphim:
In another word ... you don't need to know whether God exist, all you need to know is how to make assumption on His behalf and make things acceptable to you. Right?

No assumptions need to be made about the truth of the premise because it's a conditional if-then statement. The truth value of a statement beginning in "If God exists..." is not going to be affected by whether God does, in fact, exist. The statement that "omniscience" means knowing every true fact is just my definition of the text-string "o-m-n-i-s-c-i-e-n-c-e" so no empirical assumptions are being made there either. The statement about God being omniscient can either be taken as my definition of the text string "G-o-d", or if you like, I guess you could also take it as a postulate about a preexisting entity labelled "God", but even then it would still just be part of the premise of a conditional IF-THEN statement so it wouldn't matter if it's true or not.

"God exists and knows all true facts, so if there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum, God knows it" would be statement that does depend on the truth of the premises "God exists" and "God knows all true facts", so I would indeed be making all kinds of assumptions about reality if I said this statement were true. But that's not what I'm arguing--what I'm arguing is "If God exists and knows all true facts, then if there is a true fact about a particle's position and momentum, God knows it". This is a conditional IF-THEN type statement so it doesn't depend on whether you accept that the premises are true. If you don't understand this distinction, please do not bother to respond to this post unless you are willing to go study some basic formal logic and learn how the conditional operator works.

Seraphim

Alright ... flying off in a minute.

Before that, I will note down those Maths concept of P --->Q from that site you gave me and run it through my head for the night and see what I could come out with.

Good night.