Refuting "the problem of evil"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2014, 03:09 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:You deny scientific fact?

If empirical evidence supporting my truth claim isn't sufficient proof, what would be?

Seriously? Do you think that is what I am disputing? Your truth claim is about some property called 'potentiality'. There is no evidence of any such property.

Water is the evidence.




Quote:Would you care to explain what 'potentiality' is?
And how an undetectable property differs from a non-existent property?

I think I am loosely happy with the dictionary definition of "potential":

"having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future"

An undetectable property is different to a non-existent property in that the latter cannot be proven by the scientific method. I can prove my claim that water is a property of H and O by creating water out of H and O, I cannot prove my claim that my magic wand can turn lead into gold because when I make the prediction, and then wave my wand, the lead stays as lead.

Quote:
Quote:As I thought - I understand your perspective, and can therefore make claims about what you yourself believe which you yourself will agree with. I don't find your ideas or truth claims puzzling, I can understand your words on your own terms.

See - I'm not struggling with any of the ideas that have thus far been brought up on this thread. I think I can reflect everyone's positions back to them on their own terms.

Phil

Then go ahead and do so.


OK, here's some things I think you'll agree with, some you have stated, some you haven't. I can directly see the truth of all of these for myself, the only thing is - I can also see a partiality within them, so I'd say they're the truth - just not the whole truth. So I could assert other truths which would not appear to me as contradicting the below, but likely would appear to you as contradicting.


Let's start with the easy ones.

1/ The universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago - it happened 14.3 billion years ago in the big bang
2/ There is no god - the universe works by itself

On emergence:

3/ The qualities of water do not exist in H and O atoms, water qualities are actually created by the fact of the emergence and exist in the process relationship between the atoms, not the atoms themselves.

On transcendentals:

4/ It might be that you don't believe that there are any such absolutes, if you do believe in any it will probably just be around or related to Truth, e.g. you'll probably believe the laws of physics are consistent and constant throughout space-time. But objective reality has primacy, everything else is depreciated, so if it can't actually be measured, then it's probably not real.

On consciousness:

5/ It was created as an emergent property of life. The earliest point you might see rudimentary consciousness is in the appearance of prokaryotes 3 billion or so years ago, although it might be that you don't consider consciousness as being created until organisms with an actual brain appear.

On time and space:

6/ Space appears inside your perspective as 3 clearly differentiated spatial dimensions

7/ Time appears as a linear dimension

8/ You believe in the concept of "progress"

On sense of self:

9/ Sense of self is located inside your body (head, especially), which in turn appears as a distinct, separate entity existing within space-time


Quote:
Quote:There's a reasonable and rational argument as to why this is so, which I will at least attempt to explain if you have a willing interest in the subject. I'd rather not spend 5 minutes typing out words only to have them dismissed as "word salad" though, so I'd like to know up-front if that's how you intend to respond to ideas you don't understand.

Of course I didn't understand it - I don't think anyone else here did, either.
Try expressing it clearly.


OK, I'll have another go:

There's a singularity between the qualities of water as they exist in the separate H and O atoms and their existence in an actual water molecule, in the sense that in order for the qualities of water to come out of H and O atoms and manifest as a water molecule in objective reality, everything that could be said to be true about these qualities as they exist in the atoms simultaneously passes through zero (hence aren't visible when looking at the atoms in isolation).

In a sense, the qualities of water appear in the empty space "between" the H and O atoms (empty space is a Zero). There's a few things here - Zero is not Null, e.g. the qualities of water have not literally appeared out of non-existence, but rather out of a an actual value (zero is a value).

It might nevertheless seem a bit paradoxical that everything which could be said to be objectively true about the water qualities of the constituent atoms simultaneously passes through (and therefore appears "out of") zero, but actually - at the point it happens, reality is only a zero in one of 3 primary reality dimensions, so there are 2 other dimensions present which both contain non-zero vectors, but which science doesn't consider. Consideration of these dimensions resolves the paradox.

This is a bit like how Stephen Hawking's concept of "Imaginary time" provides a conceptual platform "outside" of conventional time from which to look at conventional time. Analysing time from "outside" means that analysis does not trip up when it encounters the big bang singularity - it resolves the paradox.

The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang. Like the real big bang, the way these qualities existed in the constituent atoms prior to this singularity seems (a) fundamentally out of sight and (b) of paradoxical existential nature.

That there's a singularity here does not however mean that cause and effect becomes non-existent at the singularity, it just means it becomes a bit weird and paradoxical. That cause and effect still exists is visible in the high school experiment of creating water out of H and O atoms. The experiment can be reliably repeated, this points to underlying Truth (e.g. real cause and effect).

So in a nutshell: regarding the water qualities of H and O, I can predict cause and effect, i can actually prove it through experiment, and from my personal perspective I can also conceptualise the nature of the cause and effect and resolve the conceptual paradoxes. Since I don't have to believe that reality is magicking up something radically new out of Null at the point of emergence, my perspective is more consistent in that it sees "transformation" but not "creation".

Essentially, it seems to me that a traditional rational worldivew perspective is left with a bit of a problem if it imagines that the qualities of water essentially appears out of Null, in that this leaves a hole in reality for "god" to exist.

Dang ;P

(My perspective lacks such a hole)

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:14 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2014 04:41 AM by phil.a.)
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 09:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 01:43 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I can prove that water is contained in hydrogen and oxygen as a potentiality simply by setting up an experiment and successfully making water out of hydrogen and oxygen, this experiment proves the truth of my claim.

Yes, yes. It's a wonderful deepity. Congratulations. It's still meaningless.

False - it's facile.

This is high school stuff. You see "deepity" only because you are asleep and dreaming that you are talking to Deepak Chopra.

Unfortunately, in real life your body is sleep-talking to an actual person.

Me.

My name is Philip Anderson.

I invite you to wake up out of your Deepak Deepity Dream and get to know me?

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:21 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 03:09 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Seriously? Do you think that is what I am disputing? Your truth claim is about some property called 'potentiality'. There is no evidence of any such property.

Water is the evidence.




Quote:Would you care to explain what 'potentiality' is?
And how an undetectable property differs from a non-existent property?

I think I am loosely happy with the dictionary definition of "potential":

"having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future"

An undetectable property is different to a non-existent property in that the latter cannot be proven by the scientific method. I can prove my claim that water is a property of H and O by creating water out of H and O, I cannot prove my claim that my magic wand can turn lead into gold because when I make the prediction, and then wave my wand, the lead stays as lead.

Quote:Then go ahead and do so.


OK, here's some things I think you'll agree with, some you have stated, some you haven't. I can directly see the truth of all of these for myself, the only thing is - I can also see a partiality within them, so I'd say they're the truth - just not the whole truth. So I could assert other truths which would not appear to me as contradicting the below, but likely would appear to you as contradicting.


Let's start with the easy ones.

1/ The universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago - it happened 14.3 billion years ago in the big bang
2/ There is no god - the universe works by itself

On emergence:

3/ The qualities of water do not exist in H and O atoms, water qualities are actually created by the fact of the emergence and exist in the process relationship between the atoms, not the atoms themselves.

On transcendentals:

4/ It might be that you don't believe that there are any such absolutes, if you do believe in any it will probably just be around or related to Truth, e.g. you'll probably believe the laws of physics are consistent and constant throughout space-time. But objective reality has primacy, everything else is depreciated, so if it can't actually be measured, then it's probably not real.

On consciousness:

5/ It was created as an emergent property of life. The earliest point you might see rudimentary consciousness is in the appearance of prokaryotes 3 billion or so years ago, although it might be that you don't consider consciousness as being created until organisms with an actual brain appear.

On time and space:

6/ Space appears inside your perspective as 3 clearly differentiated spatial dimensions

7/ Time appears as a linear dimension

8/ You believe in the concept of "progress"

On sense of self:

9/ Sense of self is located inside your body (head, especially), which in turn appears as a distinct, separate entity existing within space-time


Quote:Of course I didn't understand it - I don't think anyone else here did, either.
Try expressing it clearly.


OK, I'll have another go:

There's a singularity between the qualities of water as they exist in the separate H and O atoms and their existence in an actual water molecule, in the sense that in order for the qualities of water to come out of H and O atoms and manifest as a water molecule in objective reality, everything that could be said to be true about these qualities as they exist in the atoms simultaneously passes through zero (hence aren't visible when looking at the atoms in isolation).

In a sense, the qualities of water appear in the empty space "between" the H and O atoms (empty space is a Zero). There's a few things here - Zero is not Null, e.g. the qualities of water have not literally appeared out of non-existence, but rather out of a an actual value (zero is a value).

It might nevertheless seem a bit paradoxical that everything which could be said to be objectively true about the water qualities of the constituent atoms simultaneously passes through (and therefore appears "out of") zero, but actually - at the point it happens, reality is only a zero in one of 3 primary reality dimensions, so there are 2 other dimensions present which both contain non-zero vectors, but which science doesn't consider. Consideration of these dimensions resolves the paradox.

This is a bit like how Stephen Hawking's concept of "Imaginary time" provides a conceptual platform "outside" of conventional time from which to look at conventional time. Analysing time from "outside" means that analysis does not trip up when it encounters the big bang singularity - it resolves the paradox.

The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang. Like the real big bang, the way these qualities existed in the constituent atoms prior to this singularity seems (a) fundamentally out of sight and (b) of paradoxical existential nature.

That there's a singularity here does not however mean that cause and effect becomes non-existent at the singularity, it just means it becomes a bit weird and paradoxical. That cause and effect still exists is visible in the high school experiment of creating water out of H and O atoms. The experiment can be reliably repeated, this points to underlying Truth (e.g. real cause and effect).

So in a nutshell: regarding the water qualities of H and O, I can predict cause and effect, i can actually prove it through experiment, and from my personal perspective I can also conceptualise the nature of the cause and effect and resolve the conceptual paradoxes. Since I don't have to believe that reality is magicking up something radically new out of Null at the point of emergence, my perspective is more consistent in that it sees "transformation" but not "creation".

Essentially, it seems to me that a traditional rational worldivew perspective is left with a bit of a problem if it imagines that the qualities of water essentially appears out of Null, in that this leaves a hole in reality for "god" to exist.

Dang ;P

(My perspective lacks such a hole)

Phil


Quote:OK, I'll have another go:

There's a singularity between the qualities of water as they exist in the separate H and O atoms and their existence in an actual water molecule, in the sense that in order for the qualities of water to come out of H and O atoms and manifest as a water molecule in objective reality, everything that could be said to be true about these qualities as they exist in the atoms simultaneously passes through zero (hence aren't visible when looking at the atoms in isolation).

In a sense, the qualities of water appear in the empty space "between" the H and O atoms (empty space is a Zero). There's a few things here - Zero is not Null, e.g. the qualities of water have not literally appeared out of non-existence, but rather out of a an actual value (zero is a value).

It might nevertheless seem a bit paradoxical that everything which could be said to be objectively true about the water qualities of the constituent atoms simultaneously passes through (and therefore appears "out of") zero, but actually - at the point it happens, reality is only a zero in one of 3 primary reality dimensions, so there are 2 other dimensions present which both contain non-zero vectors, but which science doesn't consider. Consideration of these dimensions resolves the paradox.

This is a bit like how Stephen Hawking's concept of "Imaginary time" provides a conceptual platform "outside" of conventional time from which to look at conventional time. Analysing time from "outside" means that analysis does not trip up when it encounters the big bang singularity - it resolves the paradox.

The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang. Like the real big bang, the way these qualities existed in the constituent atoms prior to this singularity seems (a) fundamentally out of sight and (b) of paradoxical existential nature.

That there's a singularity here does not however mean that cause and effect becomes non-existent at the singularity, it just means it becomes a bit weird and paradoxical. That cause and effect still exists is visible in the high school experiment of creating water out of H and O atoms. The experiment can be reliably repeated, this points to underlying Truth (e.g. real cause and effect).

So in a nutshell: regarding the water qualities of H and O, I can predict cause and effect, i can actually prove it through experiment, and from my personal perspective I can also conceptualise the nature of the cause and effect and resolve the conceptual paradoxes. Since I don't have to believe that reality is magicking up something radically new out of Null at the point of emergence, my perspective is more consistent in that it sees "transformation" but not "creation".

Essentially, it seems to me that a traditional rational worldivew perspective is left with a bit of a problem if it imagines that the qualities of water essentially appears out of Null, in that this leaves a hole in reality for "god" to exist.

Dang ;P

(My perspective lacks such a hole)

Phil
This sounds like gibberish.

Quote:Essentially, it seems to me that a traditional rational worldivew perspective is left with a bit of a problem if it imagines that the qualities of water essentially appears out of Null, in that this leaves a hole in reality for "god" to exist.
Definitely gibberish. Read my post
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid631848
Who says the emergence is out of Null energy ?
There is something called thermodynamics & conservation of energy - making water out of H & O + suitable environmental conditions providing energy transformation has no paradox. Your perspective isn't even coherent to lack any holes - its all holes not wholes.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 03:21 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(22-08-2014 03:57 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Phil - I don't get what your arguing with people here.

Maybe we should start at the beginning. Seems that you're atheist in terms of belief in any classical type of God or theism but still hungover with left overs you cannot shed or let go from the theistic metaphysics ? Some sort of new age mix mash from trying to re-invent theism or re-brand it so it sounds good ?
Maybe you can elaborate further ?
Are you familiar with Ken Wilber & Integralism - is this what your truing to argue for ?
Just trying to make sense of where your coming from.

I am not trying to argue "for" anything fixed or particular, but yes - essentially I'm operating from an Integral meta-perspective so I guess perhaps I'm "arguing" for an Integration. Or perhaps more accurately, I'm testing my integrations by exposing them to constructive criticism.

Please don't hold me to account for anything Wilber said though - I understand all of his work and find much of it meaningful, but in my opinion it has holes in it. The actual Integral meta-perspective I personally hold is one I have arrived at largely by myself.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 04:02 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 03:21 AM)Baruch Wrote:  This sounds like gibberish.

I am not surprised.

The time difference between my post and your response is precisely 12 minutes.

Given that you probably didn't see my post instantly, and given that it probably took you at least 5 or 10 minutes to compose your response and type it out, that leaves at best - a couple of minutes for reading my post and trying to understand my perspective on my terms.

Phil
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 05:22 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 04:02 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 03:21 AM)Baruch Wrote:  This sounds like gibberish.

I am not surprised.

The time difference between my post and your response is precisely 12 minutes.

Given that you probably didn't see my post instantly, and given that it probably took you at least 5 or 10 minutes to compose your response and type it out, that leaves at best - a couple of minutes for reading my post and trying to understand my perspective on my terms.

Phil

Great theoretical hypothesis. I have read it more carefully but still stand by my response. Sometimes all you need is a few minutes to read something where red flags abound. Perhaps you either want to re-read your post and state it more clearly and subject it to some criticism or for that matter praise if it has merit.

Especially:
Quote:The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang
I don't need days of reading to work out there is something wrong with this statement.

No one is stating emergent qualities come out of singularities or are created ex-Nihilo !!!!!!

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
23-08-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 02:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 06:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you can't. You are either making an assertion about fundamental reality, or you are saying something facile.


Perhaps it's both? It's certainly the latter, this is facile high school stuff.

i am not offering you any fundamental new truths here, i just reminding you of what you already know to be true, but (in the context of this discussion) seem to have forgotten that you know.

And you do know it, and that means something.

Phil

You did it again. Please stop telling me what I know.

I certainly know no such foolish thing as you allege.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2014, 07:40 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 03:09 AM)phil.a Wrote:  
(22-08-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Seriously? Do you think that is what I am disputing? Your truth claim is about some property called 'potentiality'. There is no evidence of any such property.

Water is the evidence.

Water is the evidence of what? That we know that combining hydrogen and oxygen can produce water?

So what?

Quote:
Quote:Would you care to explain what 'potentiality' is?
And how an undetectable property differs from a non-existent property?

I think I am loosely happy with the dictionary definition of "potential":

"having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future"

An undetectable property is different to a non-existent property in that the latter cannot be proven by the scientific method. I can prove my claim that water is a property of H and O by creating water out of H and O, I cannot prove my claim that my magic wand can turn lead into gold because when I make the prediction, and then wave my wand, the lead stays as lead.

Neither can the former. And water is not a property of hydrogen or oxygen in any real or useful sense.

Does oxygen contain a property for glass? Does oxygen contain a property for each amino acid? Does oxygen contain a property for a greenhouse gas?

Quote:
Quote:Of course I didn't understand it - I don't think anyone else here did, either.
Try expressing it clearly.


OK, I'll have another go:

There's a singularity between the qualities of water as they exist in the separate H and O atoms and their existence in an actual water molecule, in the sense that in order for the qualities of water to come out of H and O atoms and manifest as a water molecule in objective reality, everything that could be said to be true about these qualities as they exist in the atoms simultaneously passes through zero (hence aren't visible when looking at the atoms in isolation).

In a sense, the qualities of water appear in the empty space "between" the H and O atoms (empty space is a Zero). There's a few things here - Zero is not Null, e.g. the qualities of water have not literally appeared out of non-existence, but rather out of a an actual value (zero is a value).

It might nevertheless seem a bit paradoxical that everything which could be said to be objectively true about the water qualities of the constituent atoms simultaneously passes through (and therefore appears "out of") zero, but actually - at the point it happens, reality is only a zero in one of 3 primary reality dimensions, so there are 2 other dimensions present which both contain non-zero vectors, but which science doesn't consider. Consideration of these dimensions resolves the paradox.

This is a bit like how Stephen Hawking's concept of "Imaginary time" provides a conceptual platform "outside" of conventional time from which to look at conventional time. Analysing time from "outside" means that analysis does not trip up when it encounters the big bang singularity - it resolves the paradox.

The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang. Like the real big bang, the way these qualities existed in the constituent atoms prior to this singularity seems (a) fundamentally out of sight and (b) of paradoxical existential nature.

That there's a singularity here does not however mean that cause and effect becomes non-existent at the singularity, it just means it becomes a bit weird and paradoxical. That cause and effect still exists is visible in the high school experiment of creating water out of H and O atoms. The experiment can be reliably repeated, this points to underlying Truth (e.g. real cause and effect).

So in a nutshell: regarding the water qualities of H and O, I can predict cause and effect, i can actually prove it through experiment, and from my personal perspective I can also conceptualise the nature of the cause and effect and resolve the conceptual paradoxes. Since I don't have to believe that reality is magicking up something radically new out of Null at the point of emergence, my perspective is more consistent in that it sees "transformation" but not "creation".

There were still a lot of nonsense phrases in there.

" the qualities of water to come out of H and O atoms"
No, they don't. The properties of water come from the interaction of the atoms to create a new entity that has its own properties.

"everything that could be said to be true about these qualities as they exist in the atoms simultaneously passes through zero "
What? Incoherent.

"Consideration of these dimensions resolves the paradox."
What paradox?

"The qualities of water appearing out of Zero is a bit like a mini big bang."
No, it is not anything like that.

" the way these qualities existed in the constituent atoms prior to this singularity seems (a) fundamentally out of sight and (b) of paradoxical existential nature."
But they don't exist in the constituent atoms.

And so on.

Quote:Essentially, it seems to me that a traditional rational worldivew perspective is left with a bit of a problem if it imagines that the qualities of water essentially appears out of Null, in that this leaves a hole in reality for "god" to exist.

The qualities of water appear from the interaction of the constituent atoms. As do the qualities of any compound. There is no hole.

Quote:Dang ;P

(My perspective lacks such a hole)

Phil

Well, aren't you special.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-08-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
Baruch:

OK thanks for your comments, although it seems to me your refutation conflates qualities (what we have actually been talking about in this topic, e.g. the "qualities" of water may not be reduced to the "qualities" of the constituent atoms) with quantities (e.g. the conservation of energy regarding the actual emergence event, where obviously energy is transferred).

I am not saying that energy is not transferred when emergence occurs (clearly it is), rather I am giving a description of how there are actual qualities present in atoms which aren't visible until the atoms are actually in a molecule process arrangement because those qualities are hidden behind an information* singularity.

Phil

* Not quite the right word, but the best word I can think of right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Refuting "the problem of evil"
(23-08-2014 08:07 AM)phil.a Wrote:  Baruch:

OK thanks for your comments, although it seems to me your refutation conflates qualities (what we have actually been talking about in this topic, e.g. the "qualities" of water may not be reduced to the "qualities" of the constituent atoms) with quantities (e.g. the conservation of energy regarding the actual emergence event, where obviously energy is transferred).

I am not saying that energy is not transferred when emergence occurs (clearly it is), rather I am giving a description of how there are actual qualities present in atoms which aren't visible until the atoms are actually in a molecule process arrangement because those qualities are hidden behind an information* singularity.

Phil

* Not quite the right word, but the best word I can think of right now.

And that is what I disagree with. Actually, all of those ideas.
  • energy transferred when emergence occurs?
    What energy? When does 'emergence occur'?
  • qualities present in atoms that aren't visible until ...
    How many qualities? One for every compound that is forms?
  • information singularity
    Undefined.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: