A sentient god? I don't think so.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2012, 10:12 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2012 10:32 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 10:12 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  P2 is not substantiated for the same reason the "All things require a cause" premise of Kalaam is not substantiated. Just because every example of x we have implies y, does not mean that y is true.
That's not what I've been saying either. We know that there is a direct correlation between an intact nervous system and the ability to be sentient. How? Because we've conducted experiments, because there is anencephaly (newborns born with that condition possess nothing but reflexes and the automatic control of their internal organs) and because we've studied the brain extensively. If one wants to claim that god is an exception to this rule, one has to provide evidence for it. That's the whole point.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 10:28 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 10:12 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  P2 is not substantiated for the same reason the "All things require a cause" premise of Kalaam is not substantiated. Just because every example of x we have implies y, does not mean that y is true.
That's not what I've been saying either. We know that there is a direct correlation between an intact nervous system and the ability to be sentient. How? Because we've conducted experiments, because there is anencephaly (newborns born with that condition possess nothing but reflexes and the automatic control of their internal organs) and because we've studied the brain extensively. If one wants to claim that god is an exception to this rule, one has to provide evidence for it. That's the whole point.

You're coming at this from an evidence-based perspective, instead of an axiomatic perspective. I agree with you mate, I'm just saying the argument won't work on a theist unless you structure it correctly.

An honest and correct phrasing of P2 would be, "We have not yet found any sentient entity that can exist without a material brain." Even though that statement is true, everything sentient we know has a brain, here is always the possibility that we could find one that doesn't. And that tiny hole will be leaped upon by apologists and used to declare your entire argument invalid.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
23-11-2012, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2012 10:47 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 10:39 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You're coming at this from an evidence-based perspective, instead of an axiomatic perspective. I agree with you mate, I'm just saying the argument won't work on a theist unless you structure it correctly.

An honest and correct phrasing of P2 would be, "We have not yet found any sentient entity that can exist without a material brain." Even though that statement is true, everything sentient we know has a brain, here is always the possibility that we could find one that doesn't. And that tiny hole will be leaped upon by apologists and used to declare your entire argument invalid.
Good point, but doesn't a premise have to be (potentially) falsifiable? I mean, for all we know, it's currently true. I know that it might change it the future, but that doesn't affect it's current validity, does it?

P - Premise | C - Conclusion
P1: We have not yet found any sentient entity that can exist without a material brain/nervous system.
P2: God is immaterial.
C1: Therefore god does not have a material brain/nervous system.
C2: Therefore god is not a sentient entity.

Is that wording better?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 01:03 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(22-11-2012 05:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 10:47 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Hypothesis (from WLC): God is an immaterial, timeless, eternal and sentient being.

P - Premise | C - Conclusion
P1: God (hypothesis) is sentient.
P2: Sentience requires a brain.
P3: Brains are material.
C1: Therefore god has no brain.
C2: Therefore god (hypothesis) is not sentient.

Q.E.D.? Consider

Special pleading in 3... 2... 1...

I prefer to approach from another direction.
WLC gets to say anything he likes, (and does), however, "sentience" is "processing of information. It's "movement" (in time). T1 -> T2.
He's using an *action* verb, in, what he's already defined as a "timeless" environment. Can't have it both ways.
So, as I said he can, (and does), say anything he wants, but using an action verb in a timeless environment is linguistically meaningless.
It is Special Pleading. The statement that a sentient being exists in a timeless environment, lacks any meaningful content.
(Also in this universe, which is all we actually know about at this point, time does not exists apart from space. It's space-time.
WLC knows this, but he frequently lies, as he hopes his audience thinks he won't object to his crap).
Sentience also requires "memory", to refer the "input" against. It's 100 % intimately and utterly dependent on a temporal environment.
So he can say anything he wants. But saying that, about a god, has no meaning.


In have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurs to me that WLC should be saying "spaceless, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scales.

I was thinking about this because I was having cogitations regarding waves vs. particles. Particles are measured in three dimensions but waves are measured in four dimensions.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 02:15 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Hey, Vosur.

You can't say you agree if we're saying diametrically opposed things Cool

Your new C1 doesn't work because you haven't proven your points. It could work as an if/then however.

IF sentience requires a material brain and IF God is immaterial THEN God cannot be sentient (at least as we know it).

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
23-11-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 02:15 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

You can't say you agree if we're saying diametrically opposed things Cool
It's getting quite late, I should probably go to sleep and re-read this stuff tomorrow. Sleepy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 02:40 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 10:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 10:39 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  You're coming at this from an evidence-based perspective, instead of an axiomatic perspective. I agree with you mate, I'm just saying the argument won't work on a theist unless you structure it correctly.

An honest and correct phrasing of P2 would be, "We have not yet found any sentient entity that can exist without a material brain." Even though that statement is true, everything sentient we know has a brain, here is always the possibility that we could find one that doesn't. And that tiny hole will be leaped upon by apologists and used to declare your entire argument invalid.
Good point, but doesn't a premise have to be (potentially) falsifiable? I mean, for all we know, it's currently true. I know that it might change it the future, but that doesn't affect it's current validity, does it?

P - Premise | C - Conclusion
P1: We have not yet found any sentient entity that can exist without a material brain/nervous system.
P2: God is immaterial.
C1: Therefore god does not have a material brain/nervous system.
C2: Therefore god is not a sentient entity.

Is that wording better?

William Lane Craig starts with the axiomatic premise that god exists, and uses that premise to prove god exists. And he is considered by many to be among the world's leading apologists. He doesn't care about falsifiability of premises, as long as he can falsify yours. Make your premises as bulletproof as possible if you want to argue with an apologist, because that's where they'll strike first.

I think sentience or sapience is too broad a target. You need to narrow your focus. A laser is more deadly than a spotlight, even if both have the same intensity.

Here is the argument I would use:

P1. God is immaterial
C1. Therefore god has no physical brain
P2. Emotion is caused by brain chemistry *
C2. Without a physical brain, there can be no brain chemistry
C3. Therefore god has no emotion
C4. Therefore god cannot be jealous or merciful or loving
C5. Therefore the god of the Bible and most conceptions of a personal god are impossible

* (Source: Just about any neurological journal in the last fifty years)

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
23-11-2012, 02:47 PM
 
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(22-11-2012 10:47 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Hypothesis (from WLC): God is an immaterial, timeless, eternal and sentient being.

P - Premise | C - Conclusion
P1: God (hypothesis) is sentient.
P2: Sentience requires a brain.


What do you mean by sentient?
Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 01:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 05:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I prefer to approach from another direction.
WLC gets to say anything he likes, (and does), however, "sentience" is "processing of information. It's "movement" (in time). T1 -> T2.
He's using an *action* verb, in, what he's already defined as a "timeless" environment. Can't have it both ways.
So, as I said he can, (and does), say anything he wants, but using an action verb in a timeless environment is linguistically meaningless.
It is Special Pleading. The statement that a sentient being exists in a timeless environment, lacks any meaningful content.
(Also in this universe, which is all we actually know about at this point, time does not exists apart from space. It's space-time.
WLC knows this, but he frequently lies, as he hopes his audience thinks he won't object to his crap).
Sentience also requires "memory", to refer the "input" against. It's 100 % intimately and utterly dependent on a temporal environment.
So he can say anything he wants. But saying that, about a god, has no meaning.


In have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurs to me that WLC should be saying "spaceless, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scales.

I was thinking about this because I was having cogitations regarding waves vs. particles. Particles are measured in three dimensions but waves are measured in four dimensions.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.
Craig tries to "mumbo-jumbo" his way around this, but ultimately comes back to contradicting himself. If there is "Causality", (or "intentional creation", there must be time, *already* in existence. The word "existence" itself requires time. If you can explain how it doesn't, you'll be the first. Certainly a "sentient", (perceiving or thinking) being is moving through a temporal dimension.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: