Principia

Hahaha. So what's an object?
Your God is not an object? Then how does he create objects? Gee, the logical absurdity there is just astounding.
Good. Then you apparently have no problems with the physical model of the electron.
Believe it or not, I don't care what you have been maintaining. The fact of the matter is that you are making up terminology as you see fit.
And a century from now, guess what. People are going to say that they don't define Christianity as the set of beliefs held by you. Either way, your religion has and will continue to set a precedence for moral ambiguity. But, that seems to be more of your problem then mine.
What I have been doing is demonstrating to people that you are a troll. Notice how the number of people who were conversing with you has dropped down to just you and me. I think they're got my message.

You may, with my permission, continue your contradictory dialogue with yourself.

yguy

That is self-evident.

Only objects can create objects? Is that REALLY what you want to imply?

Of course I do, to the extent that probability is part of the model.

Obviously. That way you can claim I'm moving the goal posts whenever the mood strikes you.

I would suggest that if you consider accusing me of logical contradictions only to end up having me refute the accusations a means of acheiving this end, a rethinking of strategy is in order.

Jesse

yguy, I don't see how "object" is any less vague than "thing". What would the opposite of an object be? A subject? Is a mind (or soul, if you prefer) an object? Is the number three an object? Is a choice an object? Is spacetime an object? Unless you define your terms more clearly, saying "a thing is an object" is no more helpful than "a thing is stuff".

yguy

Perhaps not exactly opposite.

sub·ject

n.

8.Philosophy.

a.The essential nature or substance of something as distinguished from its attributes.
b.The mind or thinking part as distinguished from the object of thought.

It is in that sense that I am using "object."

Yes.

All ideas are objects.

This one is tricky, but I would say yes, because a choice is an action that can be observed, either in real time or in hindisght.

Yes, because it could in theory be viewed from a place outside of spacetime.

Understood. I'm not trying to be confusing here, but the more we try to define things, the more words show their inadequacy. Maybe I'm not doing it with great competence, but I am making a good faith effort to get the point across.

Jesse

Well, does the number three have a "cause"? I always pictured it as existing timelessly in some sort of realm of platonic forms. And why is an individual mind or soul an "object" while God, who is usually conceived by theists (though perhaps not by pantheists) as an omnipotent and omniscient mind or soul, is not? Both would presumably be equally immaterial. Both are potentially "objects of thought" too (if God wasn't, how could we think about him?). So, I still don't understand your claim that somehow everything other than God is an object and must have a cause, but God is not and can therefore be uncaused.

yguy

Numbers are only convenient labels, are they not? If the number 3 didn't exist, would lithium cease to exist because there is no label to describe how many protons it has?

Because God can know things about us, and we can know things about each other, but we can't know things about God - such as what He looks like - any more than you can get information about the sun by shining a flashlight at it.

I'm not sure that's a valid presumption. Souls may be less material than bodies, but God may be even less so. IOW, to use binary logic in this case is questionable.

I believe it was in "The Great Divorce" that C.S. Lewis addressed this.

I think we think of our conceptualizations of Him, not of Him directly.

AdamWho

All theories are false to some degree. Scientific theories are only approximations. If they were true they would be called laws. So to argue that a theory is suspect because it is an approximation isn't really much of an argument. A better measure of the theory is the strength of the theories the predictive ability.

No, science is a process, not a set of facts.

This conclusion is based on the false assumption that science is a collection of facts. If one of the "facts" (theories) is based on probability they it is somehow not a "fact" and therefore ignorance posing as knowledge. However, science is a process not a set of facts and the beginning of science is “I don’t know” as stated in another thread. Science works to shine a light on ignorance exposing it rather than hiding it in complicated language.

You may not realize it but your argument is a combination "red herring" and strawman. It seems that you are trying to point out that science is "false" because it can't explain everything or is only an approximation. However, "science" has never claimed to have absolute knowledge (strawman part). You are attempting to do this undermining by poking at the probabilities in QM (red herring). However, you misstate the probabilistic nature of QM as a weakness rather than just a property.

Bottom line:
You need to undermine the legitimacy of science so you can suggest a "better" theory of how the world works. It might be helpful if you look it why solipsism is an untenable position before you take this last step.

yguy

But that isn't my argument.

Fine. Newtonian phyiscs had its limits in that area. So does QM. I am suggesting that such limits will be impossible to breach if a certain area of fundamental ignorance is not acknowledged.

It is both. It is the quest for knowledge, each new discovery based on that which is already known.

Not just "somehow". I've said exactly how a dozen times already.

But of course, to the degree that science denies its own ignorance, it tells me to get the speck out of my eye while obvlivious to the beam in its own.

I never said science was false.

The irony here is absolutely priceless.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion on that point.

I have no desire to undermine any part of science which IS legitimate.

You need to ditch the fantasy that my arguments are solipsistic if you care to understand anything I've said.

Jesse

Jesse:
Well, does the number three have a "cause"? I always pictured it as existing timelessly in some sort of realm of platonic forms.

yguy:
Numbers are only convenient labels, are they not? If the number 3 didn't exist, would lithium cease to exist because there is no label to describe how many protons it has?

I think the hypothetical "if the number 3 didn't exist" is meaningless, just like "if the laws of logic didn't exist". That's sort of my point--things like logical and mathematical rules are timeless truths, they don't belong to the realm of cause & effect, so if you call three an "object" it violates your rule that all objects must have causes.

Jesse:
And why is an individual mind or soul an "object" while God, who is usually conceived by theists (though perhaps not by pantheists) as an omnipotent and omniscient mind or soul, is not?

yguy:
Because God can know things about us, and we can know things about each other, but we can't know things about God - such as what He looks like - any more than you can get information about the sun by shining a flashlight at it.

The fact that we know what other people "look like" is not relevant, I'm talking about knowledge of another person's mind, not their physical appearance. We can't directly peer into each other's minds, we know them only indirectly--wouldn't the same be true of knowledge of God, if he exists?

Of course, you could argue that even if we can't know other minds directly, God can. I think the question of whether God can directly know our minds or experiences is actually somewhat controversial--see this article on whether an omnipotent being could share experiences like fear and frustration. But even if we assume God can directly know our minds, and thus that our minds can be "objects" for him, wouldn't God also be able to directly know his own mind and thus treat himself as an "object" as well? It's like how infinite sets can contain equally large infinite sets as subsets of themselves--for example, the set of all odd numbers is just as large as the set of all integers. Aristotle viewed God as an entity eternally contemplating its own perfect essence, and even if modern Christians don't see God as only contemplating himself as Aristotle did, wouldn't most of them say God is capable of contemplating himself, among other things?

Jesse:
Both would presumably be equally immaterial.

yguy:
I'm not sure that's a valid presumption. Souls may be less material than bodies, but God may be even less so. IOW, to use binary logic in this case is questionable.

I believe it was in "The Great Divorce" that C.S. Lewis addressed this.

Ok, but do you think immateriality/materiality is relevant to whether something is an "object"? It seems like the answer is "no", given your earlier answers. Your logic about objecthood is certainly quite binary if you're saying that all objects must have a cause and that God is the only uncaused entity in existence.

It seems to me that your reasoning here is actually pretty circular. You want to get to the conclusion that everything except God requires a cause, so you say that somehow logic demonstrates that all "objects" must have a cause, but God is not an object. But I don't see that you've given any independent criteria for deciding whether something is an object--it seems like you're just saying "everything is an object, except in the special case of God." If that's your definition of object, then the argument that "all objects must have a cause, therefore only God can be uncaused" is pure question-begging.

Starboy

Shadowy Man, I couldn't agree more. If anyone wants to make a generalization about this scientific process one could say that it is a method to find natural explanations that work better than previous natural or non-natural explanations. Any "truth" one wishes to ascribe to these explanations is in the eye of the beholder. The only thing one can say about scientific explanations is they have been shown to work to some degree. Some have been tested more thoroughly than others. The more thoroughly tested ones are usually held in high regard, until of course someone concocts an explanation that works even better.

Starboy