Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:29 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(16-10-2016 09:10 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The phrase "Before time existed" doesn't make sense.

And having something exist before existence, again doesn't make sense.

Let's just say that I'm not certain that time and existence are solely concepts of the universe either. If you really wanna know my thoughts about it, go read my post What is Existence? - Existence as truth, relative to systems. I haven't gotten much feedback on it so I don't know exactly how batshit insane it is, but there it is.

TLBig GrinR
Chess is a "system", Minesweeper is a "system".
Pawns exist in chess, not Minesweeper.
Mines exist in Minesweeper, not chess.
Both exist in our universe.
Horses do not exist in Minesweeper nor chess.
Existence is relative to "systems".
The universe is a system.
Other universes may exist relative to an all encompassing system.
"God" can exist relative to this system, but not ours.

I'm taking a break Drinking Beverage

My head still hurts Unsure

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 04:54 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:29 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  ... Wrote stuff and gave their opening premise...

Okay... Having been awoken by a family pet to go outside for 'Walkies' my mind came to this.

1) Yes "It is possible that ('X') does not have a cause."

2) ('X') therefore is ('Not X')

3) For 'Anything' to be substituted for ('X') then it must be defined.

4) Not only must 'Anything' be defined when being substituted for ('X'), it's non-causality (Or the 'reason'/'method'/'mechanism' their of) must also be defined as well.

Note that nothing in the above equates or begins to come close to adding/needing a "Necessarily".

As in the first sentence does not lead to the second sentence. At the moment, as far as I can tell they are currently/still two separate thoughts/sentences/ideas.

Hope these sleep deprived thoughts help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 07:49 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2016 08:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 03:18 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Hey atheists, maybe you can help me out again...

I'm planning on calling in to the Atheist Experience tonight and ask them the same question I asked here ("Do you believe no gods exist?"), but there is another gripe I have with them that I don't want to bring up if I don't have to. A couple months ago, I called in with a response to the "Who created God?" argument/question, and the segment concluded with Matt saying this:

----"If you are going to try to counter the first cause argument and give an argument for why God didn’t need a cause, the conclusion of that argument needs to be, 'Therefore, God does not require a cause'. The conclusion of that argument should not be 'God maybe requires a cause, maybe doesn’t.'"
For full context you can see the whole segment here. The quote is at 00:30:23.

Now, I think Matt may have misremembered the argument because the conclusion, in the Matt-redefined argument, was "Therefore, God may not be bound by time" or in other words, "God may not have a cause". My question is, isn't this the same thing as saying "God does not require a cause", such that the next step can be "Therefore, God does not require a cause"?

In trying to figure this out, I found this on the wikipedia page for modal logic:
----"It is not necessary that X" is logically equivalent to "It is possible that not X".
----"It is not possible that X" is logically equivalent to "It is necessary that not X".

It seems, then, that I can state my conclusion in the form, "It is possible that God does not have a cause (not X). Therefore, it is not necessary that God has a cause (X)". Am I mistaken?

Also, please don't bring up any other parts of the argument such as "How do you know God is outside of the universe?" until either you try to answer the above question or the question is resolved. I'm not going to respond to any such posts. Thanks!

No, you're not wrong, but it's irrelevant.
The statement is premature.
Causality remains unexplained, and the Reality in which your god exists remains unexplained.
It's an argument about a fictional hypothetical which has no coherent definition.
If a god exists and has properties, and not other properties, (ie is not the totality of Reality), then it found itself embedded in Reality. Reality remains unexplained.
What appears to be logical ("necessary") to humans, is not the way Reality works, necessarily.
Approaching the question of the gods from logic, is a waste of time. Even theology (the stupid science) knows that much.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-10-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:33 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  There are other points/problems with the 'Game' idea/analogy

1) It presupposes 'Players'.
2) There can be 'Cheating' (Is it possible to bend, break or ignore rules, pieces, board size/shape. The permutations abound. TRON anyone?)

Player interaction does draw question to the analogy, but you could use other examples, like Conway's Game of Life. That game is purely a simple set of rules that only requires the initialization of starting conditions and it evolves from there. In general though, the idea is about constructing, and I think this is the correct term, mathematical models and having things exist through the relationships defining the model.

Quote:There are aspects about the OP's position I don't have time or keyboard to express.

And the same here. Smile
Some things are too complex to be expressed neatly in this kind of format.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 08:30 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 09:38 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  If you want to place a god in its own separate existence, then its separate. It has no ties to this existence and thus irrelevant and there is no distinction between it's existence and non existence.

Well that's certainly a question to be asked. Should we care about things we can't observe? Personally, if we speak of "ultimate truth", then things that do not exist to us still exist in some context, the same way chess and Minesweeper both exist, and are part of the "ultimate truth". Whether or not you care about that which we can't observe comes largely down to your own nature. A more pragmatic, empirical, skeptical person probably doesn't care, but a more theoretic, idealistic person would care about such things. Me personally, I'd want to have the most accurate model of reality in my mind, even if it can't be confirmed. I also think that having a good theoretical understanding of things can help with understanding the real world as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(17-10-2016 08:30 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Personally, if we speak of "ultimate truth", then things that do not exist to us still exist in some context, the same way chess and Minesweeper both exist, and are part of the "ultimate truth".

Except... your example is not equivalent to your statement.

If something exists and 'We' (Reality) has no way of interacting with it... and it has no way of interacting with 'Us'(Reality)... then, effectively... it doesn't actually exist... Consider

(17-10-2016 08:30 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Me personally, I'd want to have the most accurate model of reality in my mind, even if it can't be confirmed. I also think that having a good theoretical understanding of things can help with understanding the real world as well.

Um... if it can't be 'confirmed'? Then how might one even know it 'Does' exist'? Consider

Also.. our current understanding of the 'real' world is, kind of, our current 'Best guess'.

Some one might make a better guess tomorrow which will change our understanding of reality (Long shot, but I hope people get the idea)

Not to go the opposite extreme of "But then we can't know anything."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 01:17 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  In the first case you are still left with the problem of a Deity that requires a cause in a completely different universe or state of existence.

It could be a problem if time has the same behavior outside of our universe, but that may not be the case, and so it is not necessary that the deity requires a cause, which was the whole point of the argument. Such an idea could be explored further with a more refined, consistent model of an external universe.

Quote:Actually it causes a whole slew of new problems. The little chunk of space-time that we lovingly refer to as the universe is expanding. If there were space-time "external" to the universe then it would necessarily be expanding into that...And then God will have to reach "across" the void and cause our universe at some conveniently empty non-location. Adding epicycles to special pleading doesn't improve it much.

Well for one thing, I'm pretty sure an infinite number of infinitely large 2D objects doesn't take up any space in an infinite 3D space, so the problem of expanding universes shouldn't necessarily be a problem. But in general, some things I don't know if we can ponder as deep into such a universe to hypothesize such problems because I don't think we can know how such a system works. But as for the idea of special pleading, I'm not theorizing these things ad hoc, nor am I making special exceptions. When it comes to understanding existence, this is a concept I thought of separately, but delving into such a model, I discovered that such concepts like a god's existence were consistent.

Quote:The second case is philosophically possible but impervious to reason. Logic as we know it doesn't operate so there's no way we can use logic to examine it. The argument might as well not be made since it boils down to "coulda done but dunno". It's a bit like expecting a dedicated chess computer to be able to play minesweeper.

So, yeah, again I think there is more thinking to be done in regards to such concept. I wonder myself if our logic can be applied to the external universe in certain ways, but perhaps not. Is there any reason to theorize about it? Well mathematicians theorize about a lot of things, many very abstract concepts that may never be applicable. But often times, mathematical ideas that we think may never be applied do show up in reality. I'm personally interested more in theorizing and constructing possible models rather than observing what is the correct model.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 09:02 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 01:46 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  My head still hurts Unsure

Mine too. But that's how you know you're thinking Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 09:28 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(16-10-2016 07:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No, you're not wrong, but it's irrelevant....Reality remains unexplained.

There's an interesting behavior in the redirection of the conversation. The original question is merely about the logic in the statement of an argument, which even when pointed out to be correct, is immediately qualified with why it doesn't matter. I've expressed elsewhere in this thread the purpose of the argument and the difference between evaluating its validity and soundness. But I'm somewhat put-off by the instantaneous dismissal of ideas.

Quote:Approaching the question of the gods from logic, is a waste of time.

This is one claim that I think needs some rationale. The power of logic may not be underestimated, given its governing power over the universe, despite being a seemingly abstract concept. Furthermore, I wasn't arguing directly for or against God, rather I was countering an argument that dealt with the possibility of God, which can be determined through logic, as I showed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: Does "maybe not" equal "not necessary"?
(17-10-2016 08:39 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except... your example is not equivalent to your statement.

If something exists and 'We' (Reality) has no way of interacting with it... and it has no way of interacting with 'Us'(Reality)... then, effectively... it doesn't actually exist... Consider

Remember the analogy:
Horses do not exist in chess, but they exist in our universe. We can imagine our universe standing in for chess, where something, perhaps "God", does not exist within it, but exists as part of a system encompassing our universe. Given such a system, we could define an "ultimate existence" to mean everything that exists in the parent universe. This would mean God ultimately exists, as well as everything in our universe ultimately exists. Now, as I believe I addressed, should we care about things that don't exist in our universe? Depends on you, maybe, but in terms of what I was discussing, yes, God "ultimately exists".

Quote:Um... if it can't be 'confirmed'? Then how might one even know it 'Does' exist'? Consider

Maybe we can't know, but it doesn't stop us from theorizing. I like to theorize and try to find a consistent and hopefully accurate model of reality, which may go beyond what we can know. Mathematicians often deal with purely theoretical concepts that may not be applicable to our physical universe, but it sometimes they do find their way into a science. I'll let scientists discover what is, I like to use their findings to theorize what may be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: