When he got off on quantum mechanics, that actually makes a lot of sense. We don't know how the mind interacts with the physical world or why measuring something results in a collapse, but it makes sense that our mind might influence quantum particles in our brains and result in actions taken by our bodies. If that is possible, then certainly, an infinitely powerful mind, like the mind of God, could influence quantum particles and cause the physical world to respond in improbable ways.
The point is not whether God can break the conservation laws, but rather if he did, we would be able to measure the effect and describe Him scientifically
Interesting. I suppose that if that horse suddenly turned up at Plantinga's university one would be able to calculate the extra mass-energy that came into existence, but why should that make God describable scientifically? It would only mean that the _effect_ was describable scientifically.
Yes, imagine a program running which is actively reading and writing to memory in ways that are governed by the code itself and the code alone. But if you, have hardware level access to the memory, you can simply choose a random address and flip a couple of bytes. Those actions would in no way be predictable or explainable in terms of the pre existing code running on the system.
Next time you have Plantinga on your channel there is something I would like him to address. The issue I have with god creating things ex nihilo is not so much based on the principle of conservation of energy as it is based on the principle of causation itself - the principle of cause and effect if you will. The only model of causation I can make sense of is one where an agent can somehow interact with something to turn it into something else. Before I can see god acting as a cause for creating the universe for instance I would need a model of causation that allowed for god to somehow interact with a universe that doesn't yet exist to cause it to begin existing. According to theists they are literally saying that god is using "nothing" as though it is a kind of raw material wether they realize it or not - and that notion is quite absurd. The only model where I can envision a universe popping into existence ex nihilo would be if we were talking about an a-causal (spontaneous) process since such a thing by definition would operate outside the laws of causation. But this would leave us with a superfluous god who was just sort of hanging around doing nothing while the universe sprang into existence around him. At that point you may as well leave god out of the equation. What model of causality can Plantinga bring to the table that makes sense of this problem?
This has been a misgiving of mine as well as it relates to god as the one who brings creation into being. Scripture treats this causation metaphorically when it says God speaks it into being. So the assertion is there without any intellectual scaffolding to make sense of it.
Why could not the "cause" you seek be God's desire to create a universe in the first place? Additionally, ex nihilo creation doesn't seem to be a problem for an omnipotent being. Such a being could possibly as an act of omnipotence create from nothing.
Alvin is the mad scientist of Christian apologists. Everything must bend in one direction in support his beliefs. It is amusing to see him just make stuff up.
Information is invisible and immaterial and it interacts with the physical world....We demonstrate this every day when we use technology, speak or even think.
***** "It is possible that the supernatural is the slave and the physical is the master" Very true. It's also possible we're just a simulation...or a brain in a vat of liquid. I agree it could be possible, but it doesn't really seem reasonable that the supernatural is a slave to the physical because the physical is contingent. It seems reasonable using the Principle of Sufficient reason to infer that the contingent nature of the physical world eliminates it, by definition, from being the master of what ontologically existed prior to it. Thanks for the interesting comment.
***** Hey K, "But maybe all the first cause can do is randomly produce a particles-space relationship and maintain the existence of it" Would this be an impersonal force then? "Why should the first cause be any more complex than that?" Well, I find it more reasonable that going from a state of nothingness to a state of something would infer that a choice was made. It seems reasonable that 'nothing' (the absence of space, time, matter & energy) would be causally impotent. It seems that the impersonal force idea runs into problems because we kind of infer agency upon this force without admitting we are inferring agency. (causing a categorical error in logic) "Why does it have to be some complex mind or intelligent designer?" Well, not to sound cliche' but laws usually have law givers. Constants usually have designers and Codes usually have coders. Our universe displays logic. Like the function of any mechanism displays logic. Science and Philosophy agree that the universe is in the category of 'mechanism'. Just as we look at a car, the logical application of the parts displays logic (or intelligence). So that, discovering that the universe is completely describable in mathematics, and mathematics being a function of logic, and logic is always a process of a mind, we can rationally conclude there is a mind behind the universe. Essentially our unified human experience and every bit of evidence we have suggests that semiotic information (specified information), laws and constants can only come from minds. Knowing that we don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise means that the most rational inference is that there is a mind behind the universe. So, to me, it really does seem far more reasonable to conclude on the theistic side than that of the atheistic side of the equation. There are also other considerations but one that is impactful to me is the point that if Atheism is true then all arguments fail. If Atheism or Naturalism are true then Determinism is true. If Determinism is true then truth is not discoverable by the human mind. If truth is not discoverable by the human mind then we are all simply automatons. If we are all automatons then every thought I have, every feeling I have is determined by chemical reactions governed by forces outside our control. This means the end of truth, this means the end of morality, the end of science, philosophy etc etc. So when someone claims that atheism is true, they are saying it is false. If anyone can know the truth about anything, and have good reasons for it then Atheism is necessarily false. For one to even say that atheism (the idea that there is no God) is true, is to put forth a self-defeating statement. So, atheism offers a defeater for itself. Understanding that point, as well as the reasons above for inferring a mind, leads me to believe that theism is the only rational conclusion. Thanks again for the intelligent questions.
***** Very interesting points. Here are my thoughts on some of them. Some of the points you made are made more than one time so i will try not to repeat them so as to reduce length. "It is consciousness in one way of speaking. But not self conscious" Consciousness entails intentionality and intentionality requires self-consciousness so it seems this is a contradictory belief. "I am happy with the idea of agency to a degree but not of the free willing kind" Here I see a categorical error between agency and mechanism. Mechanisms do not have free will whereas agents do. So when we start attaching the qualities of a mechanism to an agent (or vice versa) we've committed a categorical error in logic. " I see no necessity for free will" If 'nothing' is causally impotent then changing states from 'nothing' to 'something' seems to require a choice by an agent. "Not necessary that these laws were thought about and chosen though." Can you give an example of a law that wasn't thought about or chosen? "Logic is a function of a mechanism. The mind part is the consciousness of the mechanism" I see this as a categorical error as well. Consciousness denotes agency so when we apply mind to a mechanism we've fallen into a categorical error again. Essentially a mechanism can display logic, but the mechanism cannot provide an argument against an agent that designed it. Imagine someone examined a model T Ford car and learned how the combustion engine worked (the logical function of the parts). Wouldn't it be absurd for that person to say then, 'Because I know how the engine works I therefore have disproved the existence of Henry Ford'? What the mechanism can do is display the logic of the agent that designed it. It's not even possible for a mechanism to provide an argument against an agent that designed it. "Evolution has led to all of the logical thought you talk of" Evolution itself is also a mechanism. If evolution is true in the macro-sense then it is an argument for God, not against God. "The first cause mind does not have to be personal nor self conscious" So far I have not yet seen any reason at all to think this is reasonable. We can put it in the possible category but without any reasons to support it, it doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion. "I see faulty logic here. It may be that there is no real free will but we are simply also discovering truth because we are that kind of being by nature" This comment simply asserts your opinion and seems to be contradictory. Without free will, then we cannot discover truth.. If there is faulty logic, then in order to conclude that it is would require a logical demonstration. It is either true or false that we are determined beings. Most atheist philosophers confirm this point. Many hide behind compatibilism but there are no reasons, that I have discovered, to defend compatibilism. Antony Flew, the author of the idea, has also denied it because it violates the law of non-contradiction. If atheism is true then determinism is true. If determinism is true then we cannot find truth. You seem to think you know the truth about some things. And if you do know the truth about some things, and have good reasons for them, then atheism is necessarily false. I have not yet seen any viable way around this problem so that atheism does offer a defeater for its self. "Depends on the version of atheism you are talking about" The belief that there is no God is the most common definition. The other popular one is 'one who lacks belief' - but philosophers point out that the moment you say the word God you've invalidated this as a position so that the former is the only real working definition since atheism and theism are asymmetrical beliefs. There is either a God or there is no God. (law of non-contradiction) I can tell you enjoy thinking about this stuff. Thank you for the enjoyable exchange.
***** "There are moments in life where the self is lost to passion and intentionality is lost to terror or awe" So intentionality ceases to exist when distracted by external things or is it more appropriate to say that we can raise our intentionality by becoming more self-aware? It is still true that consciousness entails intentionality. Intentionality denotes self-consciousness. *Conscious* "(Of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional" www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conscious *Consciousness* "The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world:" www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consciousness "The first cause I propose is immaterial, not mechanical" If the first cause you are describing is conscious then it is an agent. Agents, by definition, can choose. Mechanisms are not conscious. Evolution is immaterial since it is a process and it is still a mechanism. So i'm just trying to point out that you're confusing categories to reach your conclusion. "What makes you think there was ever nothing?" Well there are two routes and both end up at God in my estimation. We have the classical description which science supports in that 'nothing' simply means the absence of space, time, matter & energy. We have good scientific reasons to support this from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, general relativity, red shift data, cosmic microwaves and the Borde, Guth Vilenkin Kinematic Incompleteness Theorem. So then, 'nothing' being causally impotent would require the free act of an agent in order to change from one state to another state. The second route is where you find Carrol and Krause and co. using the Wheeler-Dewitt formula in space-time theorems that define 'nothing' as without space, time and matter BUT it assumes the existence of an eternal, all powerful, universe creating, universe sustaining energy. I call this energy God. Changing the name of God to 'energy' isn't an argument against God but actually For God. "In the beginning was the timeless supernatural conscious being with its will already set to the specific task of producing singularities." Here you propose an agent. "The first cause is like a womb which births singularities " Here you propose a mechanism. So is your first cause an agent or a mechanism? If it is an agent then that entails the ability to freely act. To freely act entails choice. "We are talking here of logical necessity not of parochial examples" So you cannot provide an example of a law that was not thought about or chosen? > If evolution is true in the macro-sense then it is an argument for God, not against God. "I don't see how." Because evolution is a mechanism. It is not possible for a mechanism to offer an argument against an agent that designed it. To even think that it does is to commit a categorical error (knowing how an engine works does not remove the necessity of an agent that designed it nor does it explain why it exists) "I have explained how consciousness happens. I have posited a parsimonious supernatural agent specific to the task. What do you want from me?" I'm attempting to get you to be consistent in your logic. Secondly, you have only asserted a consciousness that entails a categorical error, you haven't explained it in any sense. "But you are asserting that truth could not happen in a being if determinism were true" I'm not asserting this but actually pointing out a definitionally necessary conclusion. it's a necessary fact if determinism is true. If your thoughts are completely controlled by chemical reactions and those chemical reactions are controlled by the laws of nature, which are outside of your control, then you can only think what you are predetermined to think. It's not even possible for you to think otherwise because the control of your thoughts are not within your control. This is a contradiction atheist philosophers admit. Daniel Dennett wrote a book telling me that truth was illusory but I should buy his book to learn the truth that he can't know! *Determinism* "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will." www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/determinism This is why Dawkins and most of the prominent Atheists will say things like there is no truth, there is no right or wrong etc. "Why could it not be the case that a truth knowing entity should simply grow" It has to be one way or the other. (law of non-contradiction). The middle ground (compatibilism) isn't tenable and is a violation of the laws of logic. Flew addressed this before he became a deist and then confirmed it again in his last book, 'There is a God'. "I really don't see your point. A determined thing can still be a truth holding thing that is aware it holds certain truth" Being correct by chance is not the same as believing something because you have good reason to believe it. If atheism is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts or our senses. "Not all atheistic positions take the naturalist or materialist routes, hence my distinction" I understand. Not all atheists are naturalists but all naturalists are atheists. Buddhists, for example, can be atheists. However, it is still true that all atheists have a belief there is no God so that Atheism (in any form) is still an asymmetrical claim to Theism. "Well the hope is that one day I will get through to people like yourself." We are like minded in that way. I don't, however, think that I can be swayed so far with the current reasons you've offered. I still find it far more reasonable, given what we know about the world through science and philosophy, metaphysics that the existence of a God is the only rational conclusion. A strong point in my mind is the issue really can be brought to this one question. What is the source of semiotic (specified) information? A. Nothing (which sounds awfully a lot like the magic charge usually levied on theists) OR B. An Intelligent Source (which is empirically supported) There is no evidence that specified information can come from any source other than an intelligent one. This also applies to laws and constants as well. The existence of logical absolutes and the fact that the universe is describable in mathematics all infer intelligence. It is very difficult for me to over come these points when offered a blind belief (or wishful thinking) by atheists since there is no evidence at all that these things can come from any other source but an intelligent one.
***** "Any movement or ripples in that water are something the water is affected by. Some kinds of movement cause the water to feel . Another kind of ripple causes the water to see a color" To feel and to see are only capable of a sentient being, not water. This is still a categorical error. "The whole of the pool is the first cause. The ripples bring space and time and locality to the supernatural" So then the first cause is the cause of the ripples, not the pool. Pools cannot cause anything and any ripples in a pool are caused from something other than its self. (principle of sufficient reason) Ripples, themselves, are contingent. "A human mind is made of a complex of ripples interacting together, localised, a unified human consciousness." This doesn't explain anything. Describing what it is does not account for it's existence. Furthermore, if we look at your analogy consciousness is simply a pattern outside the control of what you claim to be conscious. Which means that it is not conscious, nor an agent. it seems you're still confusing categories here. "I hope this offers you a simpler alternative picture of how to understand the relationship between consciousness and mechanism such that you wont feel I am making categorical errors." I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to help your case. I can't accept an assertion that comes with categorical errors. it still seems far more plausible, given what we know, that the most rational conclusion is a divine mind.
Great, then there's no problem. There's no reason to ask the question, "how can the immaterial interact with the material?" Either it's a loaded question, or a pointless one, depending on your presuppositions.
Gravity can manipulate the behavior of matter and possess no material properties. That is just one example. So why couldn't God, whatever he is, interact with the cosmos?
Tracchofyre I see. Thanks for responding. Still, that being the case, it's not clear what follows from it against my point. If gravity just is the result of warped space and time, there is still interaction with large material bodies. So it seem to me that my statement is true. If you explain how a black hole engulfs a solar system or a planet rotates around a star, you have action at a distance that results from the relationship of warped space/time (to use your description) with matter and energy. It's false to describe action at a distance as material. There are many other example though of non-material causation though too. Think of dark energy and its effect in causing the expansion of the universe. This makes up the majority of stuff in the universe and whatever it is, its not technically material. Or think of entanglement. One particle immediately effecting another on the other side of a galaxy at a rate faster than the speed of light. Within philosophy of mind, intentionality, or beliefs, desires, and abstract thought play an indispensable casual role in behavior. We think about a future desirable possibility prior to carrying it out and could not carry it out without that process of contemplation. I do not believe that this can be explained in a purely materialistic model because a materialistic model should be able explain behavior completely with reference to brain science or publicly observable events in the brain alone and without subjective experience since according to materialists the brain is identical to the mind and is wholly responsible for behavior. Or if I am reading a book, simply by concentrating on the sentences, and by interpreting them and retaining their meaning there results physiological changes in my brain. So its not true that in our experience we are unaware of immaterial interaction. Our lives depend on it at every moment. Anyway, I see no reason t think that God, whatever he is, since we do not know what he is, could not interact with a cosmos that he brought into being especially when interaction between material particles and non-material aspects of our cosmos are in constant engagement with one another.
Tracchofyre I wasn't arguing for any non-materialistic model. I was only pointing out that interaction between aspects of reality that are not meaningfully construed as material are part the human experience and are almost as apparent as interaction among material objects. It should be noted to that at the quantum level, the orthodox interpretation holds that events that occur have no physical cause whatsoever. If that is right, then it would be the case that there is in fact no material interaction at all.
Tracchofyre Physics today is in complete opposition to the belief that matter is all that exists. But even if that were right, what evidence is there to support the belief that reality is 100% materialistic? How could you verify such a proposal? Do we know of everything that exists? How could you know that we know? How do you know there couldn't be other things?
Kind of a loaded question. Why should we expect the immaterial to be incapable of interacting with the material? But the question seems to me to really be asking, "how can the immaterial (materially) interact with the material?" A material mechanism is requested, which is absurd. If the question were genuinely concerned with how (spiritually/immaterially) interaction can occur, I would wonder, "what immaterial mechanisms are you familiar with that I can use to explain?"
"Maybe the way in which we can act is also by causing collapses to occur in the right way. Maybe we can do this only in very limited area, maybe with respect to our own brain. We as immaterial substances can cause things to happen in our brains in this way." This makes a testable prediction! Maybe not with the current technology, however... Here's the test. A human's brain is scanned while he/she is being wide awake doing some activities. The scanned images are recorded and then analyzed. Then the existence of the immaterial soul/spirit interacting with the brain can be inferred by demonstrating that there is a novel pattern in the brain's signals that (by scientific knowledge probably not yet available about quantum phenomena in the brain) is very improbable. That is, we can compare between the kind of quantum randomness that we find in nature and the kind we find in humans' brains, and find that they are [statistically significantly] different (this is called statistical fingerprinting). Maybe we can postulate more about the nature of the human brain, by some Bible reading. Some passage of the Bible suggests that a human dies without the soul and some other passage suggests a human dies without the spirit. We can verify this claim by scanning a human brain, making a simulation of its future states, and demonstrate that by usual quantum randomness found in nature, with very high probability it'll break down very soon, leading to death. (Remember that there is a part of the human brain which is not found in any animal's brain. This suggests that maybe animals really don't have souls or spirits and that it's fine for them, but not for us.) If that's true, then every minute of a human's life is a miracle, without there being any violation to the laws of physics!
"Maybe" , I love the mental gymnastics! The quantum state of a physical system has never been shown to be influenced by prayer etc. If you believe plantinga then you are saying you believe magic is real. Apologetics is just lying to desperately preserve an irrational belief. Plantinga has wasted his life on this embarrassing whim.
The material universe can be shown as a circle and the immaterial world is not a completely separate circle, but a partial area inside a larger circle that contains the same circle that is our material reality. The more holistic scope of reality contains our material world, but that material world is surrounded by the immaterial. The immaterial exists on a higher plane of existence than the material and even supports the existence of the material.
Even if it's an open system, it doesn't answer the original quandary of how an _immaterial_ God interacts with an open _material_ system. It's not enough to say "God wills it" or "God acts specially", that's just moving the problem, raising questions of how willing can affect states of matter or how special acting does so. Likewise, to say that God is responsible for quantum collapses doesn't really do any work; it's either just raising the question of how an divine agent produces collapses or an exercise of renaming.
I think once you're in the quantum realm, everyone just relaxes and says 'contradictions happen here', and now immaterial substances can affect material substances, because crazy operates here ... and don't blame me, a philosopher, because science just permitted this.
1GodOnlyOne - The scientific community is concerned only with the natural, material, and physical. God is transcendent - outside of space, time, and matter. God is a 'Super'natural Being. God operates outside of that realm, in the 'meta'physical. The 'sad part' is that the scientific community is concerned only with that which can be 'proven' - however, they offer many theories. A 'Supreme Being' is not one of those theories. Another sad part is that particular 'community' ignores the 'many and overwhelming evidences' which point to 'Intelligent Design.' The 'beautiful part' is that God is at work in the hearts and minds of scientists, atheists, and - thank God - all of us (to God be the Glory). Scientists - like all of us - simply lack the courage to come out and say they are 'believers' for fear of being criticized, ostracized, punished, persecuted, etc. Hope that helps.
I agree....why do scientists and the like spend all this time trying to disprove or explain how and why God acts? Why don't they balance all these videos with videos of people claiming to have experienced miracles that they can't scientifically explain? What would be the problem with believing people simply because their experiences can't be matched with a scientific equation? I think they should stop spending time on whether God exists or not, and spend time on some of the other solvable problems in the world. Cure some diseases, etc.
Just because its "illogical" (or really what they mean is beyond their scope and surrounding foreseeable scopes of understanding) that doesn't mean its impossible. It simply means its impossibe for them to even come close to understanding.
Special interaction isn't needed if We assume that the Almighty can perfectly predict Our behaviour, in spite of Our internal experience of freewill. Everything that needs to happen (e.g. the parting of the Red Sea) can be built into the equation from the beginning. If i leave a banana on the floor and tell my canine friend not to eat it and leave the room, i know what he's going to do. Some comparable situation with a small child will play out the same way. Any uncertainty about the outcome results from how well We 'know' this child. But the Heavenly Father knows his children perfectly. When Hashem G-d asks, “Have you eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?” this is like me saying to Cody, "Did you eat the banana i told you not to eat?" I already know he ate the banana. I knew he would do it. I let him do it. And now i'm relating to him in the playful way that one does with their little pride and joy.
Does he actually believe (a) that the Exodus happened, (b) that they went through the Red Sea, and (c) that a miracle parted the sea? If so, what evidence does he base this on?
but the problem is he seems to be arguing the opposite way: instead of saying if god acts in the world then its not a closed system, he should show that the universe is not a closed system without appealing to scripture to support his claim and then concluding that since the universe is not closed system (if that is indeed the case) that god can interact with the universe and not violate physical laws.
I still don't understand how the immaterial interacts with the material. If they are two separate substances, then they don't share any properties, right? But if they don't interact through a shared property, how are they interacting?
Well force interacts with material but is force its self material? I am not sayi g its immeterial but its certainly not material as a matter of fact nothing is material deep down at the sub atomic level , we find waves of potentialities is that material? Its hard to say.
It's a difficult topic and not easy to understand at all, because it does not only implicate some scientific detail information but your whole scientific world view. For example, if you have the materialistic world view then you believe that everything is based on matter or particles. But if your world view is idealism then you believe that mind is the only ground of being and that the mind generates a picture of matter as a abstraction of thoughts and relations between all thoughts. So time and space is generated in idealism, but in materialism mind is just a chemical byproduct of the brain. A huge difference that makes a difference! ;)
***** Right, and I think idealism makes more sense than materialism. We can never explain consciousness in material terms, so consciousness must be fundamental. Consciousness would not exist in a materialistic world.
***** I believe that God is the source, the original consciousness. He created us, but by doing this we are not entirely separated from him like materialists believes. We are not isolated from him. It's like we are inside his mind and he sustain this physical reality. It's true that physical laws exist and that we cannot get around this laws. But God can. And another scientific fact is very interesting regarding this: Rupert Sheldrake claims that some physical constants are not constant at all. This points towards a mind as the origin of this physical framework, which adjust some of the parameters in order to keep us alive.
+Tracchofyre "consciousness makes far more sense in materialism" Then why are atheist philosophers of the mind stumped by consciousness? Here are some of the general points you are missing: If consciousness can be reduced to the chemical interactions in the brain then that means free will and consciousness are an illusion. Why you might ask? Because if your thoughts and emotions are controlled and determined by chemical reactions then those chemical reactions are governed by forces outside your control (ie...the laws of nature). This means there is no free will and consequently this also means that truth is not discoverable. If consciousness is reducible to physical phenomenon then we are determined beings. Truth is not available to the human mind under this paradigm. The word that describes this is called 'determinism'. So that... If Atheism or Naturalism is true, then Determinism is true. If determinism is true, then truth is not discoverable. There are good reasons to believe that we can, in fact, discover truth. Therefore Atheism and naturalism(including materialism) are false. However, another view is that our mind (the immaterial self) uses the brain as an interface to interact with the world then we have an explanation for some of the phenomenon that you bring up. If you damage part of the brain, lets say the portion that is involved in communication, the mind may be fully in tact, but the mind may not be able to use the brain to accomplish the task of communication. This would explain why people who were thought to be severely handicapped could communicate effectively once they learned a mode that did not involve using their mouth or vocal chords, such as typing. Imagine this analogy. If you are sitting in a car. The car represents your brain and you represent your immaterial mind. If I take the wheels off of your car does that affect you? It affects your ability to go places for sure, but it doesn't affect you sitting behind the wheel. The same would be for us. As we gain or lose brain function, our minds gain or lose ability to interact with the physical world. Now I would bet that you believe you know some things. And if you have good reasons for those things then determinism is false. Because if determinism is true, then you can't know or believe anything that nature didn't already program you to know or believe. This also means you could not learn anything....but i'm sure you can learn something. So if you can, in fact, learn something...and have good reasons for that conclusion, then determinism is false. Now here some philosophers will claim compatibilism. This means they believe free will is 'compatible' with determinism. This was a term created by Antony Flew. A man that has written more in the defense of atheism than any other philosopher or person in the history of the world. Antony flew, the author of this idea, has thoroughly rejected his own idea because it violates the law of non-contradiction so that when one claims to be a compatibilist they are not doing so on rational grounds but on emotional preference.
Mayb i just dont understand it.. but if the system is closed upon the 'intervention of god', whereby it then becomes an open system somhow.. how does that explain it exactly because wouldnt that mean 'god' is inducing an open system out of a closed system..
+extraterrestrial16 The system is only closed when God decides it should be closed. As far as science can tell, He usually lets it run as if it is closed. Once in a while, though, to make a point to His creations whom He loves, He intervenes in the system. Imagine it like a really advanced terrarium: it's a closed system, except when you decide to enter it.
The people who would posit this argument are the same ones who do not accept the Copenhagen interpretation, nor do they accept any evidence for metaphysical reality, of any kind. Since they do not believe the premise behind the question, they are unqualified to ask the question. For all they "know", it's possible that the whole purpose of the metaphysical is to "interact with the physical Universe"--just as the Copenhagen interpretation suggests. For those who agree that only physical matter is at work in this Universe, I would ask them to explain how garage door openers work; or cell phones; or WiFi? For that matter, anything cordless and digital?
I think no one intelligent believes "only matter is at work in the Universe". some very intelligent people, however, "believe" that everything can be described in terms of matter, energy, space, time,... (what people would call material stuff even if it's not matter)
Anyone who is a "materialist", by definition: "Materialism can refer either to the simple preoccupation with the material world, as opposed to intellectual or spiritual concepts, or to the theory that physical matter is all there is. "www.allaboutphilosophy.org/Materialism.htm
+Believer VS Beliefs uhm well I hardly think anyone would be a materialist according to the second part of the definition. As for the first part I don't think it means that someone who verifies this thinks the universe is made up of matter only
2+2=4 is a law of math which is metaphysical...not physical. "truth wins" below corrected me and I agree with him that "math" doesn't affect the world...it describes the world.
I dont think that math truths AFFECT anything. They are not concrete, causal agents. The number 7, for example, cannot cause anything. There is no 7 existing in reality. 7 is a descriptor of physical quantity. It would originate in the mind of God and be expressed by our minds bc we can enumerate 7 objects. But all of this gets to the heart of God and abstract objects. If numbers are real causal agents then they exist necessarily and eternally and independently of God, thus challenging God's aseity.
@@truthwins9459 I absolutely agree that "math" describes things but does not affect anything. Math is not god. In fact I can think of nothing metaphysical, except god, that has an effect on the natural/matterial world. And there are some theists who argue for the "clock builder" hypothesis that once the material/natural world was set in motion god has not interfered (once the clock was built the clock maker no longer gets involved).
"what IMMATERIAL mechanism" If you assume that causality can be applied equally to the immaterial, then there's no point asking the question in the first place.
well sure let's say that a horse appears. who is to say that it was in fact god that put it there? maybe it was just an immaterial goblin who's job is it to put horses in places. and if you say god please send me a horse here in the middle and the goblin hears you and thinks to himself maybe he means me and puts a horse. so you would think that it was god where in fact it was just a regular invisible goblin. see where im going with this?
Hi Boris B, You are committing the fallacy of a false analogy. The Santa you are describing would have traits useful for flying all over the Earth, whereas an eternal God would embody the innate characteristics 1) to go wherever He chose and 2) to create a such a Santa. Take care, QP
TheMaxtimax a closed system is a system where there's no outside influences, everything in it works by the same rules and thus nothing new can be added or lost, I think that is his point.
TheMaxtimax We don't know what mathematical rules God operates by, if he works follows rules at all (he most probably doesn't), such a system is unpredictable and things can be created out of nothing by the will of God or things may work not according to their rules but by what God wills.
Hi BecomingMike, Your argument assumes that a physical God must exist to bring about a physical God. I'd like to think about this problem differently than you do and invite you to consult Robert J. Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy." Read Chapter Three, which is "A Metaphysical Argument for God's Existence." While it may be unknown exactly how God brings about material objects from an Immaterial state at the time of Creation, you must remember that all universals are ideas, whereas all instantiation of universal things are detailed aspects of universal instantiated ideas, which sometimes can be material objects. For instance, cars, in their pure form, are just ideas, and are symbolically represented as (X)(Cx). However, if I said that a Ford is a car, which is symbolically written as Cf, I have made that information more specific. Please remember, too, that the essence of God, from a logical perspective, is, from a taxonomical standpoint, higher than physicality and spirituality, and so includes them both. This explains why an Immaterial Person in the Godhead, the Son, could gain a physical body at the Incarnation by the Power of the Holy Spirit. To draw on a point made by Dr. Spitzer in one of his footnotes, I can argue that life and death are diametrically opposed, but neither of the two polarities discredit the category of a lifespan, under which each of these two aspects of a life span falls. As a final note, I wonder why it is okay for certain scientists to say that they do not understand quantum physics and, therefore, cannot explain how something comes to fruition in a quantum vacuum and then demand that Christians give account of how God creates things. This, in my opinion, is a double standard, and, if the same principles are applied to quantum physics, then we have to be just as skeptical as quantum physics as we are of God. Arguing from such a perspective with surety in one's voice is an argument from ignorance. Take care, QP
+Aguijon1982 Even though numbers are abstractions, it does not mean that they do not exist. For example, when I count the number of fingers on my hand, I say that I have five fingers. Obviously I must perceive what I mean by asserting that I have five fingers on my hand instead of four or three or even some extremely odd number like e or pi. In this way, we must accept that there is a level of existence relative to numbers. There are so many leaves on a tree, there are so many people within this city, there are so many grains in a sandbox. Also, if you are referring to the imaginary extent of numbers-such as the complex numbers which are applied to the y-axis on the complex coordinate plane-then you seem to misunderstand what imaginary numbers are. It is not that they are, in some literal way, imaginary; it is that they are merely different in what they are, as other more real numbers are afforded. For example, i^2 equals -1. Why is this? Basically, it's because of matrices. If you establish that the matrix {0 -1 1 0} is true, then it equals i. When we use i it's because this variable represents the above matrix, it is not that the variable itself is a number. It's like using the variable x or y, except x and y are filler variables where no known number is used; i is a number which represents an already, presupposed number which we know. In this way, it is similar to using logarithms. A logarithm itself is an extremely complex equation, but instead of having to reuse that equation every time we apply logarithms, we simply use the filler equation log. It's not that it doesn't exist, it is simply that it is an equation which represents something else. Also, there is a logical proof for imaginary numbers. Because there are four groups of numbers in which different factions of numbers are placed (such as all numbers, complex numbers excepted [like imaginaries], being Real Numbers), imaginary numbers being different than natural numbers (1,2,3,4, etc.) and rational numbers (I'll get to these in a minute), they must occupy a different number system. These four number systems, then, all contain real, extant numbers. Natural Numbers are whole numbers like 1,2,3,4,5..., which are used on the everyday basis for everything (like how many fingers are on a hand, how many leaves on a tree), and the most basic of all numerals. (One other simplistic difference between imaginary numbers and natural numbers, or all other numbers, is that real numbers can be applied to the everyday; while imaginary numbers are exclusive to more complex functions.) There are Integers, which are numbers that occupy both positive and negative space, that are used for the purpose of knowing how much more A has than B. There are Rational Numbers, which are fractions, which assert that if you ate 3/4 of a pie, you ate out of the full quantity of the pie (which is 4) a smaller quantity equal to 3. And then there are the real numbers, which are all numbers that are applied to quantities of something. However, there has been criticism as to the use of the word "Real," in the way that numbers are abstract. Another criticism of your first assertion is that there are, indeed, immaterial aspects to the real world. Words themselves are immaterial and non-physical, for they do not occupy any kind of literal "Space" or "time" in the sense that material objects do. Language is also immaterial in the sense that it does not necessarily exist without us. Or what about consciousness? There is good reason to believe that there is an intrinsic faculty to consciousness prior to actual movement or physical processes, as there appears on a neurological level an instigating force that drives thought and motor functions before they do work. Also, if we have reason to not believe in numbers, then we might as well not believe in science or any of the things developed through physics or biology or chemistry-physics has its very essence developed within the complete usage and application of numbers to the real world.
+ast453000 He points out that there is no known conflict. Or those who purport a conflict have not made an adequate case. He is not showing that they do interact but only that those who have alleged that there is a conflict in special action haven't shown any good reasons to think that there is conflict with special action. In other words, he provides a defense to show that the burden of proof on those who propose conflict with special action has not been met. The consequence is that there is no known conflict with God's special action and modern science.
+Steven Strnad But there is no known interaction between non-physical and physical matter. So there is no reason to even suggest that there might be. The burden of proof that there is falls on anyone who suggests that there is. I can't disprove the existence of faeries and that they might interact with my brain while I sleep causing me to dream particular dreams, but there is zero evidence that they do exist and interact with my brain or anything else physical. Thus it is perfectly rational to conclude that faeries do not exist and interact with the physical/material world. The same is true of the existence of god and interaction between a non material god and the material world.
rumidude Whether there is in fact a God that interacts with the world is not what is being contested here. If the critic of theism is putting forth an argument against theism that it is impossible for God to interact with the world, then the burden of proof is wholly on the critic of theism to demonstrate the veracity of that assertion. Now if, in a debate, the theist is arguing that God has in fact intervened in the world, then the burden of proof would rest on the theist to demonstrate that his case is more likely true than false. So, I understand your point but you are conflating to distinct issues. Plantinga only argues here that the attempt to demonstrate a necessary conflict between God and divine intervention has been unsuccessful. And he is right. Now on your point, when you claim that there is no known interaction between non-physical and physical entities, a lot of that will rest on how "physical" is defined and how what we think best explains a number of various phenomena such as consciousness, intentionality, entanglement, interconnectedness, indeterminacy, the origin of the universe, action at a distance, the wave collapse, and so on. The problem is that you presuppose that there there IS a known physical cause for all the events in the universe and that the burden of proof only rests on those who believe otherwise. The burden of proof also lies on anyone who makes the claim that every event in the universe is explained by physical interaction. Until the proponent provides evidence or an argument for this assertion, there is no reasons to accept it. Even if we could show that only physical interaction occurs (on a reasonable and adequate definition of "physical"), it wouldn't follow at all that God, who brought the natural universe into being would not be able to intervene. That is to say hypothetically speaking, if all events do in fact are caused by physical interaction, it does not follow that physical interaction is necessary for interaction. As we do not know what God is, it would be unreasonable to believe that he would not be capable of interacting with the world.
+Steven Strnad Listen to the first 40 seconds of this to discover what matter is being discussed in this video. Robert Kuhn stated that atheists say that if god is immaterial and our world is material it is illogical, not impossible, to think that god could interact with the world. Alvin Plantinga did not make a logical explanation of how that could be so. His explanation is along the lines of explaining how Superman flies, he just does. In essence that is all Alvin Plantinga offers and ast453000's observation above remains valid. As an aside, Alvin Plantinga's scientific explanations are very silly and only further confirm the weakness of his arguments.
@@rumidude Until we can create a universe from scratch, how can we have absolute knowledge? So mindless matter and energy just formed a universe by chance? with no directions? And consciousness some how emerged? It takes alot of faith to believe that. Even if it is remotely close to saying superman just flies, superman can still fly. So that is a moot point. He never claims to have direct knowledge of God, that would require omniscience.
+Mauri Sombowadile testable predictions that are demonstrably false. If your give a Physicist the initial state of a given system the future state follow precisely and predictably. QED is our most accurate theory, precise to 8 decimal places. Not evidence of Gods.
My OpenMind There is still the problem of quantum uncertainty AND chaos. What does Chaos mean? Well, it means that "precise to 8 decimal places" is not enough, because things get very uncertain very soon after your last precisely determined (in the sense of being "precise to 8 decimal places") physical state.
Actually, ad hominems are always fallacious because they attack the person, not the argument. The only time they are remotely valid is if your interlocutor bases his opinion solely on his character In this case, they clearly are, while Plantinga has written several books arguing for his conclusions someone calling themselves "open mind" dismisses it by calling the person "ridiculous" and their arguments "acrobatics" but doesn't respond to a single argument. The cognitive dissonance you see from this is rather funny
One thing Alvin Plantinga is correct about, he is not at all an expert on quantum mechanics. It is disturbing how often apologists attempt to use quantum mechanics to explain things when they know very little about the subject. Plantinga's explanations using quantum mechanics are very clumsy.
+rumidude And we should trust that some random person on the internet understands quantum mechanics better than one of the most important living philosophers?
+Clinton Wilcox I am not asking anyone to trust me. Alvin Plantinga himself stated in the video he is NOT an expert on quantum mechanics and yet he tries to use quantum theory to prove his point. He is simply wrong in his application of quantum mechanics in trying to show how an immaterial god can interact with the physical universe. All of Alvin Plantinga's degrees and books can change that. Quantum theory is a very difficult science to understand. Because of that, people often exploit that difficulty to speculate about all sorts of strange things. We can add Alvin Plantinga to the list of people like Deepak Chopra and other quantum mysticism advocates.
Hi Tony D' Arcy, Okay, by your standards, all individuals who speak about quantum mechanics, since they do not know the precise causes of quantum wave functions, are numbskulls. Nevertheless, you wouldn't characterize any quantum physicist as a numbskull. Thus, by your standards, there ought not to be any quantum physicists, since their imprecise understanding of causal factors disqualifies them as people who the public should listen to! Take care, QP
Science also can't be certain that the Invisible Pink Unicorn didn't create the Universe, and in fact maintains it even to this day. Quantum mechanics doesn't imply that inanimate statues can magically come alive and start walking around by the way.
+crlsjvrm J Not at all: the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me it doesn't care about homosexual relationships, the bible was mostly a work of fiction, hell doesn't exist, and that the Universe began about 14 billion years ago. So not much like God at all, apart from the whole creation thing.
+crlsjvrm J Isn't an atheist, by definition, someone who doesn't believe in any Gods? I'm sorry you are so close-minded to the true creator who has revealed the secrets of the Universe to me, but I hardly see how I can be blamed for trying to spread the good news. Believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn my friend, I can assure you that She believes in you.
+crlsjvrm J As I was trying to imply, I'm not actually an atheist as you assert. Furthermore, I just did a Google search on the topic and the first result I got was: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."" That was from the American Atheists website. Slightly lower down the first page, Rationalwiki says: "Atheism, from the Greek a-, meaning "without", and theos, meaning "god", is the absence of belief in the existence of gods" Wikipedia says: "Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,and has also been contrasted with it. A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism." So it appears there is more than one definition of the term, so if I thought it applied to me (it doesn't) I don't see I'd be necessarily forced to make a positive 'no Gods exist' claim as you have suggested. Indeed, many Gods do exist - in the minds of the believers of course. I wouldn't deny those fictitious Gods at all. Where did I say or even imply you are a Christian? I may be too unsophisticated to spot it by myself and I'd appreciate your help. I will also pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn in Her horny wisdom for guidance in this matter.
+crlsjvrm J Regarding my definition of atheism, I told you exactly what I did: a Google search, I chose the first links and gave my sources. Is Google biased on this issue? How about Rationwiki and Wikipedia? It's ironic that you say we can't use the definition given by an Atheist association, how you could actually type that out then expect to be taken seriously is beyond me. I already illustrated (from Wikipedia) that there is some discussion over the exact definition of the term; are you suggesting that the Atheists who claim they simply lack belief in a God are mistaken in their own label? They need to invent some new term? As you rightly quoted: "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". Does absence differ in any significant way from 'lack of' in this case? Anyway, as I mentioned before and as you have acknowledged, the precise definition of the word atheist is interesting, but ultimately academic, since I'm not one. I can also criticise, either directly or by implication the Christian beliefs, without also implying that you hold such beliefs. For the record, I have no idea of what your beliefs consist, or of how far they are in accordance with Alvin Plantinga's philosophies. Fictitious Gods are everywhere, as I categorically stated in my last message. They DO exist, in the minds, books and RUclips videos of the believers. They do cause real people to do and say, or not do and say certain real things in the Universe of shared experiences. That is something which is relatively easy to illustrate. What is not so easy, I'd say impossible in fact, is to show that the IPU (bless her horny head) is any less real than any other God you chose to mention. Well, she probably has less followers right now, but I'm working on that ;)
+crlsjvrm J Okay let's assume you 'win', because I'm too 'lazy' to explain to you yet again how you're mistaken. What would you call a person who says, "I don't believe in any God"? Do agree there are such people? Do they have a burden of proof at all in your opinion? To prove what exactly? Now, let's assume you can give me a sensible explanation of that from your point of view, how would winning that argument prove your particular deity exists (outside the realm of imagination)?
"God created the Universe" How does he know that?? "Man created God" "A Pink Unicorn created the Universe"...what's the difference??? His Apologetics are embarrassing as his evidence is self deluded and circular...
Hi Colin Dawson, Actually, 1) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghosts, are persons not animals, and 2) if you rely on skepticism to undercut God's existence, then you must apply the same skepticism to your argument, which means that you are unsure about your words. i recommend that you listen to Dr. William Lane Craig's debates if you really want to engage in intellectual argumentation rather than shallow, Dawkins-like pseudo-intellectualism on metaphysical matters. Take care, QP
When he got off on quantum mechanics, that actually makes a lot of sense. We don't know how the mind interacts with the physical world or why measuring something results in a collapse, but it makes sense that our mind might influence quantum particles in our brains and result in actions taken by our bodies. If that is possible, then certainly, an infinitely powerful mind, like the mind of God, could influence quantum particles and cause the physical world to respond in improbable ways.
Alvinism
The Supreme Being which is force/energy, it is within us and by going within we make that connection.
The point is not whether God can break the conservation laws, but rather if he did, we would be able to measure the effect and describe Him scientifically
Interesting. I suppose that if that horse suddenly turned up at Plantinga's university one would be able to calculate the extra mass-energy that came into existence, but why should that make God describable scientifically? It would only mean that the _effect_ was describable scientifically.
the same way a programmer interacts with code.
Yes, imagine a program running which is actively reading and writing to memory in ways that are governed by the code itself and the code alone. But if you, have hardware level access to the memory, you can simply choose a random address and flip a couple of bytes. Those actions would in no way be predictable or explainable in terms of the pre existing code running on the system.
Next time you have Plantinga on your channel there is something I would like him to address.
The issue I have with god creating things ex nihilo is not so much based on the principle of conservation of energy as it is based on the principle of causation itself - the principle of cause and effect if you will. The only model of causation I can make sense of is one where an agent can somehow interact with something to turn it into something else. Before I can see god acting as a cause for creating the universe for instance I would need a model of causation that allowed for god to somehow interact with a universe that doesn't yet exist to cause it to begin existing. According to theists they are literally saying that god is using "nothing" as though it is a kind of raw material wether they realize it or not - and that notion is quite absurd.
The only model where I can envision a universe popping into existence ex nihilo would be if we were talking about an a-causal (spontaneous) process since such a thing by definition would operate outside the laws of causation. But this would leave us with a superfluous god who was just sort of hanging around doing nothing while the universe sprang into existence around him. At that point you may as well leave god out of the equation.
What model of causality can Plantinga bring to the table that makes sense of this problem?
This has been a misgiving of mine as well as it relates to god as the one who brings creation into being. Scripture treats this causation metaphorically when it says God speaks it into being. So the assertion is there without any intellectual scaffolding to make sense of it.
Why could not the "cause" you seek be God's desire to create a universe in the first place? Additionally, ex nihilo creation doesn't seem to be a problem for an omnipotent being. Such a being could possibly as an act of omnipotence create from nothing.
Alvin is the mad scientist of Christian apologists. Everything must bend in one direction in support his beliefs. It is amusing to see him just make stuff up.
Information is invisible and immaterial and it interacts with the physical world....We demonstrate this every day when we use technology, speak or even think.
*****
"It is possible that the supernatural is the slave and the physical is the master"
Very true. It's also possible we're just a simulation...or a brain in a vat of liquid. I agree it could be possible, but it doesn't really seem reasonable that the supernatural is a slave to the physical because the physical is contingent. It seems reasonable using the Principle of Sufficient reason to infer that the contingent nature of the physical world eliminates it, by definition, from being the master of what ontologically existed prior to it.
Thanks for the interesting comment.
*****
Hey K,
"But maybe all the first cause can do is randomly produce a particles-space relationship and maintain the existence of it"
Would this be an impersonal force then?
"Why should the first cause be any more complex than that?"
Well, I find it more reasonable that going from a state of nothingness to a state of something would infer that a choice was made. It seems reasonable that 'nothing' (the absence of space, time, matter & energy) would be causally impotent. It seems that the impersonal force idea runs into problems because we kind of infer agency upon this force without admitting we are inferring agency. (causing a categorical error in logic)
"Why does it have to be some complex mind or intelligent designer?"
Well, not to sound cliche' but laws usually have law givers. Constants usually have designers and Codes usually have coders. Our universe displays logic. Like the function of any mechanism displays logic. Science and Philosophy agree that the universe is in the category of 'mechanism'. Just as we look at a car, the logical application of the parts displays logic (or intelligence). So that, discovering that the universe is completely describable in mathematics, and mathematics being a function of logic, and logic is always a process of a mind, we can rationally conclude there is a mind behind the universe. Essentially our unified human experience and every bit of evidence we have suggests that semiotic information (specified information), laws and constants can only come from minds. Knowing that we don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise means that the most rational inference is that there is a mind behind the universe.
So, to me, it really does seem far more reasonable to conclude on the theistic side than that of the atheistic side of the equation. There are also other considerations but one that is impactful to me is the point that if Atheism is true then all arguments fail.
If Atheism or Naturalism are true then Determinism is true.
If Determinism is true then truth is not discoverable by the human mind.
If truth is not discoverable by the human mind then we are all simply automatons.
If we are all automatons then every thought I have, every feeling I have is determined by chemical reactions governed by forces outside our control.
This means the end of truth, this means the end of morality, the end of science, philosophy etc etc.
So when someone claims that atheism is true, they are saying it is false. If anyone can know the truth about anything, and have good reasons for it then Atheism is necessarily false.
For one to even say that atheism (the idea that there is no God) is true, is to put forth a self-defeating statement.
So, atheism offers a defeater for itself. Understanding that point, as well as the reasons above for inferring a mind, leads me to believe that theism is the only rational conclusion.
Thanks again for the intelligent questions.
***** Very interesting points. Here are my thoughts on some of them. Some of the points you made are made more than one time so i will try not to repeat them so as to reduce length.
"It is consciousness in one way of speaking. But not self conscious"
Consciousness entails intentionality and intentionality requires self-consciousness so it seems this is a contradictory belief.
"I am happy with the idea of agency to a degree but not of the free willing kind"
Here I see a categorical error between agency and mechanism. Mechanisms do not have free will whereas agents do. So when we start attaching the qualities of a mechanism to an agent (or vice versa) we've committed a categorical error in logic.
" I see no necessity for free will"
If 'nothing' is causally impotent then changing states from 'nothing' to 'something' seems to require a choice by an agent.
"Not necessary that these laws were thought about and chosen though."
Can you give an example of a law that wasn't thought about or chosen?
"Logic is a function of a mechanism. The mind part is the consciousness of the mechanism"
I see this as a categorical error as well. Consciousness denotes agency so when we apply mind to a mechanism we've fallen into a categorical error again. Essentially a mechanism can display logic, but the mechanism cannot provide an argument against an agent that designed it.
Imagine someone examined a model T Ford car and learned how the combustion engine worked (the logical function of the parts). Wouldn't it be absurd for that person to say then, 'Because I know how the engine works I therefore have disproved the existence of Henry Ford'? What the mechanism can do is display the logic of the agent that designed it. It's not even possible for a mechanism to provide an argument against an agent that designed it.
"Evolution has led to all of the logical thought you talk of"
Evolution itself is also a mechanism. If evolution is true in the macro-sense then it is an argument for God, not against God.
"The first cause mind does not have to be personal nor self conscious"
So far I have not yet seen any reason at all to think this is reasonable. We can put it in the possible category but without any reasons to support it, it doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion.
"I see faulty logic here. It may be that there is no real free will but we are simply also discovering truth because we are that kind of being by nature"
This comment simply asserts your opinion and seems to be contradictory. Without free will, then we cannot discover truth.. If there is faulty logic, then in order to conclude that it is would require a logical demonstration. It is either true or false that we are determined beings. Most atheist philosophers confirm this point. Many hide behind compatibilism but there are no reasons, that I have discovered, to defend compatibilism. Antony Flew, the author of the idea, has also denied it because it violates the law of non-contradiction. If atheism is true then determinism is true. If determinism is true then we cannot find truth. You seem to think you know the truth about some things. And if you do know the truth about some things, and have good reasons for them, then atheism is necessarily false. I have not yet seen any viable way around this problem so that atheism does offer a defeater for its self.
"Depends on the version of atheism you are talking about"
The belief that there is no God is the most common definition. The other popular one is 'one who lacks belief' - but philosophers point out that the moment you say the word God you've invalidated this as a position so that the former is the only real working definition since atheism and theism are asymmetrical beliefs. There is either a God or there is no God. (law of non-contradiction)
I can tell you enjoy thinking about this stuff. Thank you for the enjoyable exchange.
*****
"There are moments in life where the self is lost to passion and intentionality is lost to terror or awe"
So intentionality ceases to exist when distracted by external things or is it more appropriate to say that we can raise our intentionality by becoming more self-aware? It is still true that consciousness entails intentionality. Intentionality denotes self-consciousness.
*Conscious*
"(Of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional"
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conscious
*Consciousness*
"The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world:"
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consciousness
"The first cause I propose is immaterial, not mechanical"
If the first cause you are describing is conscious then it is an agent. Agents, by definition, can choose. Mechanisms are not conscious. Evolution is immaterial since it is a process and it is still a mechanism. So i'm just trying to point out that you're confusing categories to reach your conclusion.
"What makes you think there was ever nothing?"
Well there are two routes and both end up at God in my estimation. We have the classical description which science supports in that 'nothing' simply means the absence of space, time, matter & energy. We have good scientific reasons to support this from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, general relativity, red shift data, cosmic microwaves and the Borde, Guth Vilenkin Kinematic Incompleteness Theorem. So then, 'nothing' being causally impotent would require the free act of an agent in order to change from one state to another state.
The second route is where you find Carrol and Krause and co. using the Wheeler-Dewitt formula in space-time theorems that define 'nothing' as without space, time and matter BUT it assumes the existence of an eternal, all powerful, universe creating, universe sustaining energy. I call this energy God. Changing the name of God to 'energy' isn't an argument against God but actually For God.
"In the beginning was the timeless supernatural conscious being with its will already set to the specific task of producing singularities."
Here you propose an agent.
"The first cause is like a womb which births singularities "
Here you propose a mechanism.
So is your first cause an agent or a mechanism? If it is an agent then that entails the ability to freely act. To freely act entails choice.
"We are talking here of logical necessity not of parochial examples"
So you cannot provide an example of a law that was not thought about or chosen?
> If evolution is true in the macro-sense then it is an argument for God, not against God.
"I don't see how."
Because evolution is a mechanism. It is not possible for a mechanism to offer an argument against an agent that designed it. To even think that it does is to commit a categorical error (knowing how an engine works does not remove the necessity of an agent that designed it nor does it explain why it exists)
"I have explained how consciousness happens. I have posited a parsimonious supernatural agent specific to the task. What do you want from me?"
I'm attempting to get you to be consistent in your logic. Secondly, you have only asserted a consciousness that entails a categorical error, you haven't explained it in any sense.
"But you are asserting that truth could not happen in a being if determinism were true"
I'm not asserting this but actually pointing out a definitionally necessary conclusion. it's a necessary fact if determinism is true.
If your thoughts are completely controlled by chemical reactions and those chemical reactions are controlled by the laws of nature, which are outside of your control, then you can only think what you are predetermined to think. It's not even possible for you to think otherwise because the control of your thoughts are not within your control. This is a contradiction atheist philosophers admit. Daniel Dennett wrote a book telling me that truth was illusory but I should buy his book to learn the truth that he can't know!
*Determinism*
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will."
www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/determinism
This is why Dawkins and most of the prominent Atheists will say things like there is no truth, there is no right or wrong etc.
"Why could it not be the case that a truth knowing entity should simply grow"
It has to be one way or the other. (law of non-contradiction). The middle ground (compatibilism) isn't tenable and is a violation of the laws of logic. Flew addressed this before he became a deist and then confirmed it again in his last book, 'There is a God'.
"I really don't see your point. A determined thing can still be a truth holding thing that is aware it holds certain truth"
Being correct by chance is not the same as believing something because you have good reason to believe it. If atheism is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts or our senses.
"Not all atheistic positions take the naturalist or materialist routes, hence my distinction"
I understand. Not all atheists are naturalists but all naturalists are atheists. Buddhists, for example, can be atheists. However, it is still true that all atheists have a belief there is no God so that Atheism (in any form) is still an asymmetrical claim to Theism.
"Well the hope is that one day I will get through to people like yourself."
We are like minded in that way. I don't, however, think that I can be swayed so far with the current reasons you've offered. I still find it far more reasonable, given what we know about the world through science and philosophy, metaphysics that the existence of a God is the only rational conclusion.
A strong point in my mind is the issue really can be brought to this one question.
What is the source of semiotic (specified) information?
A. Nothing (which sounds awfully a lot like the magic charge usually levied on theists)
OR
B. An Intelligent Source (which is empirically supported)
There is no evidence that specified information can come from any source other than an intelligent one. This also applies to laws and constants as well. The existence of logical absolutes and the fact that the universe is describable in mathematics all infer intelligence. It is very difficult for me to over come these points when offered a blind belief (or wishful thinking) by atheists since there is no evidence at all that these things can come from any other source but an intelligent one.
*****
"Any movement or ripples in that water are something the water is affected by. Some kinds of movement cause the water to feel . Another kind of ripple causes the water to see a color"
To feel and to see are only capable of a sentient being, not water. This is still a categorical error.
"The whole of the pool is the first cause. The ripples bring space and time and locality to the supernatural"
So then the first cause is the cause of the ripples, not the pool. Pools cannot cause anything and any ripples in a pool are caused from something other than its self. (principle of sufficient reason) Ripples, themselves, are contingent.
"A human mind is made of a complex of ripples interacting together, localised, a unified human consciousness."
This doesn't explain anything. Describing what it is does not account for it's existence. Furthermore, if we look at your analogy consciousness is simply a pattern outside the control of what you claim to be conscious. Which means that it is not conscious, nor an agent. it seems you're still confusing categories here.
"I hope this offers you a simpler alternative picture of how to understand the relationship between consciousness and mechanism such that you wont feel I am making categorical errors."
I'm sorry but it doesn't seem to help your case. I can't accept an assertion that comes with categorical errors. it still seems far more plausible, given what we know, that the most rational conclusion is a divine mind.
Great, then there's no problem. There's no reason to ask the question, "how can the immaterial interact with the material?" Either it's a loaded question, or a pointless one, depending on your presuppositions.
Gravity can manipulate the behavior of matter and possess no material properties. That is just one example. So why couldn't God, whatever he is, interact with the cosmos?
+Steven Strnad Not true. You need to do a little study on theory of gravity before making such a statement.
+rumidude That gravity has no material properties or that it can interact with material objects? How is my statement not true in your view?
Tracchofyre I see. Thanks for responding. Still, that being the case, it's not clear what follows from it against my point. If gravity just is the result of warped space and time, there is still interaction with large material bodies. So it seem to me that my statement is true. If you explain how a black hole engulfs a solar system or a planet rotates around a star, you have action at a distance that results from the relationship of warped space/time (to use your description) with matter and energy. It's false to describe action at a distance as material.
There are many other example though of non-material causation though too. Think of dark energy and its effect in causing the expansion of the universe. This makes up the majority of stuff in the universe and whatever it is, its not technically material. Or think of entanglement. One particle immediately effecting another on the other side of a galaxy at a rate faster than the speed of light. Within philosophy of mind, intentionality, or beliefs, desires, and abstract thought play an indispensable casual role in behavior. We think about a future desirable possibility prior to carrying it out and could not carry it out without that process of contemplation. I do not believe that this can be explained in a purely materialistic model because a materialistic model should be able explain behavior completely with reference to brain science or publicly observable events in the brain alone and without subjective experience since according to materialists the brain is identical to the mind and is wholly responsible for behavior. Or if I am reading a book, simply by concentrating on the sentences, and by interpreting them and retaining their meaning there results physiological changes in my brain. So its not true that in our experience we are unaware of immaterial interaction. Our lives depend on it at every moment. Anyway, I see no reason t think that God, whatever he is, since we do not know what he is, could not interact with a cosmos that he brought into being especially when interaction between material particles and non-material aspects of our cosmos are in constant engagement with one another.
Tracchofyre I wasn't arguing for any non-materialistic model. I was only pointing out that interaction between aspects of reality that are not meaningfully construed as material are part the human experience and are almost as apparent as interaction among material objects. It should be noted to that at the quantum level, the orthodox interpretation holds that events that occur have no physical cause whatsoever. If that is right, then it would be the case that there is in fact no material interaction at all.
Tracchofyre Physics today is in complete opposition to the belief that matter is all that exists. But even if that were right, what evidence is there to support the belief that reality is 100% materialistic? How could you verify such a proposal? Do we know of everything that exists? How could you know that we know? How do you know there couldn't be other things?
Kind of a loaded question. Why should we expect the immaterial to be incapable of interacting with the material? But the question seems to me to really be asking, "how can the immaterial (materially) interact with the material?" A material mechanism is requested, which is absurd. If the question were genuinely concerned with how (spiritually/immaterially) interaction can occur, I would wonder, "what immaterial mechanisms are you familiar with that I can use to explain?"
"Maybe the way in which we can act is also by causing collapses to occur in the right way. Maybe we can do this only in very limited area, maybe with respect to our own brain. We as immaterial substances can cause things to happen in our brains in this way."
This makes a testable prediction! Maybe not with the current technology, however... Here's the test. A human's brain is scanned while he/she is being wide awake doing some activities. The scanned images are recorded and then analyzed. Then the existence of the immaterial soul/spirit interacting with the brain can be inferred by demonstrating that there is a novel pattern in the brain's signals that (by scientific knowledge probably not yet available about quantum phenomena in the brain) is very improbable. That is, we can compare between the kind of quantum randomness that we find in nature and the kind we find in humans' brains, and find that they are [statistically significantly] different (this is called statistical fingerprinting).
Maybe we can postulate more about the nature of the human brain, by some Bible reading. Some passage of the Bible suggests that a human dies without the soul and some other passage suggests a human dies without the spirit. We can verify this claim by scanning a human brain, making a simulation of its future states, and demonstrate that by usual quantum randomness found in nature, with very high probability it'll break down very soon, leading to death. (Remember that there is a part of the human brain which is not found in any animal's brain. This suggests that maybe animals really don't have souls or spirits and that it's fine for them, but not for us.) If that's true, then every minute of a human's life is a miracle, without there being any violation to the laws of physics!
"Maybe" , I love the mental gymnastics!
The quantum state of a physical system has never been shown to be influenced by prayer etc.
If you believe plantinga then you are saying you believe magic is real. Apologetics is just lying to desperately preserve an irrational belief. Plantinga has wasted his life on this embarrassing whim.
The material universe can be shown as a circle and the immaterial world is not a completely separate circle, but a partial area inside a larger circle that contains the same circle that is our material reality. The more holistic scope of reality contains our material world, but that material world is surrounded by the immaterial. The immaterial exists on a higher plane of existence than the material and even supports the existence of the material.
Even if it's an open system, it doesn't answer the original quandary of how an _immaterial_ God interacts with an open _material_ system. It's not enough to say "God wills it" or "God acts specially", that's just moving the problem, raising questions of how willing can affect states of matter or how special acting does so. Likewise, to say that God is responsible for quantum collapses doesn't really do any work; it's either just raising the question of how an divine agent produces collapses or an exercise of renaming.
I think once you're in the quantum realm, everyone just relaxes and says 'contradictions happen here', and now immaterial substances can affect material substances, because crazy operates here ... and don't blame me, a philosopher, because science just permitted this.
God can make miracles through quantum physics since the classical laws of physics do not apply at quantum level.
1GodOnlyOne - The scientific community is concerned only with the natural, material, and physical.
God is transcendent - outside of space, time, and matter.
God is a 'Super'natural Being.
God operates outside of that realm, in the 'meta'physical.
The 'sad part' is that the scientific community is concerned only with that which can be 'proven' - however, they offer many theories. A 'Supreme Being' is not one of those theories.
Another sad part is that particular 'community' ignores the 'many and overwhelming evidences' which point to 'Intelligent Design.'
The 'beautiful part' is that God is at work in the hearts and minds of scientists, atheists, and - thank God - all of us (to God be the Glory).
Scientists - like all of us - simply lack the courage to come out and say they are 'believers' for fear of being criticized, ostracized, punished, persecuted, etc.
Hope that helps.
I agree....why do scientists and the like spend all this time trying to disprove or explain how and why God acts? Why don't they balance all these videos with videos of people claiming to have experienced miracles that they can't scientifically explain? What would be the problem with believing people simply because their experiences can't be matched with a scientific equation? I think they should stop spending time on whether God exists or not, and spend time on some of the other solvable problems in the world. Cure some diseases, etc.
How could God be prevented from interacting with the material world?
Just because its "illogical" (or really what they mean is beyond their scope and surrounding foreseeable scopes of understanding) that doesn't mean its impossible. It simply means its impossibe for them to even come close to understanding.
Special interaction isn't needed if We assume that the Almighty can perfectly predict Our behaviour, in spite of Our internal experience of freewill. Everything that needs to happen (e.g. the parting of the Red Sea) can be built into the equation from the beginning.
If i leave a banana on the floor and tell my canine friend not to eat it and leave the room, i know what he's going to do. Some comparable situation with a small child will play out the same way. Any uncertainty about the outcome results from how well We 'know' this child. But the Heavenly Father knows his children perfectly.
When Hashem G-d asks, “Have you eaten of the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?” this is like me saying to Cody, "Did you eat the banana i told you not to eat?" I already know he ate the banana. I knew he would do it. I let him do it. And now i'm relating to him in the playful way that one does with their little pride and joy.
Does he actually believe (a) that the Exodus happened, (b) that they went through the Red Sea, and (c) that a miracle parted the sea? If so, what evidence does he base this on?
Where's the horse?
but the problem is he seems to be arguing the opposite way: instead of saying if god acts in the world then its not a closed system, he should show that the universe is not a closed system without appealing to scripture to support his claim and then concluding that since the universe is not closed system (if that is indeed the case) that god can interact with the universe and not violate physical laws.
I still don't understand how the immaterial interacts with the material. If they are two separate substances, then they don't share any properties, right? But if they don't interact through a shared property, how are they interacting?
Well force interacts with material but is force its self material? I am not sayi g its immeterial but its certainly not material as a matter of fact nothing is material deep down at the sub atomic level , we find waves of potentialities is that material? Its hard to say.
It's a difficult topic and not easy to understand at all, because it does not only implicate some scientific detail information but your whole scientific world view. For example, if you have the materialistic world view then you believe that everything is based on matter or particles. But if your world view is idealism then you believe that mind is the only ground of being and that the mind generates a picture of matter as a abstraction of thoughts and relations between all thoughts. So time and space is generated in idealism, but in materialism mind is just a chemical byproduct of the brain. A huge difference that makes a difference! ;)
***** Right, and I think idealism makes more sense than materialism. We can never explain consciousness in material terms, so consciousness must be fundamental. Consciousness would not exist in a materialistic world.
*****
I believe that God is the source, the original consciousness. He created us, but by doing this we are not entirely separated from him like materialists believes. We are not isolated from him. It's like we are inside his mind and he sustain this physical reality. It's true that physical laws exist and that we cannot get around this laws. But God can. And another scientific fact is very interesting regarding this: Rupert Sheldrake claims that some physical constants are not constant at all. This points towards a mind as the origin of this physical framework, which adjust some of the parameters in order to keep us alive.
+Tracchofyre
"consciousness makes far more sense in materialism"
Then why are atheist philosophers of the mind stumped by consciousness?
Here are some of the general points you are missing:
If consciousness can be reduced to the chemical interactions in the brain then that means free will and consciousness are an illusion. Why you might ask? Because if your thoughts and emotions are controlled and determined by chemical reactions then those chemical reactions are governed by forces outside your control (ie...the laws of nature). This means there is no free will and consequently this also means that truth is not discoverable. If consciousness is reducible to physical phenomenon then we are determined beings. Truth is not available to the human mind under this paradigm. The word that describes this is called 'determinism'. So that...
If Atheism or Naturalism is true, then Determinism is true.
If determinism is true, then truth is not discoverable.
There are good reasons to believe that we can, in fact, discover truth.
Therefore Atheism and naturalism(including materialism) are false.
However, another view is that our mind (the immaterial self) uses the brain as an interface to interact with the world then we have an explanation for some of the phenomenon that you bring up. If you damage part of the brain, lets say the portion that is involved in communication, the mind may be fully in tact, but the mind may not be able to use the brain to accomplish the task of communication. This would explain why people who were thought to be severely handicapped could communicate effectively once they learned a mode that did not involve using their mouth or vocal chords, such as typing.
Imagine this analogy.
If you are sitting in a car. The car represents your brain and you represent your immaterial mind. If I take the wheels off of your car does that affect you? It affects your ability to go places for sure, but it doesn't affect you sitting behind the wheel. The same would be for us. As we gain or lose brain function, our minds gain or lose ability to interact with the physical world.
Now I would bet that you believe you know some things.
And if you have good reasons for those things then determinism is false.
Because if determinism is true, then you can't know or believe anything that nature didn't already program you to know or believe. This also means you could not learn anything....but i'm sure you can learn something. So if you can, in fact, learn something...and have good reasons for that conclusion, then determinism is false.
Now here some philosophers will claim compatibilism. This means they believe free will is 'compatible' with determinism. This was a term created by Antony Flew. A man that has written more in the defense of atheism than any other philosopher or person in the history of the world. Antony flew, the author of this idea, has thoroughly rejected his own idea because it violates the law of non-contradiction so that when one claims to be a compatibilist they are not doing so on rational grounds but on emotional preference.
Mayb i just dont understand it.. but if the system is closed upon the 'intervention of god', whereby it then becomes an open system somhow.. how does that explain it exactly because wouldnt that mean 'god' is inducing an open system out of a closed system..
+extraterrestrial16 The system is only closed when God decides it should be closed. As far as science can tell, He usually lets it run as if it is closed. Once in a while, though, to make a point to His creations whom He loves, He intervenes in the system. Imagine it like a really advanced terrarium: it's a closed system, except when you decide to enter it.
The people who would posit this argument are the same ones who do not accept the Copenhagen interpretation, nor do they accept any evidence for metaphysical reality, of any kind. Since they do not believe the premise behind the question, they are unqualified to ask the question. For all they "know", it's possible that the whole purpose of the metaphysical is to "interact with the physical Universe"--just as the Copenhagen interpretation suggests.
For those who agree that only physical matter is at work in this Universe, I would ask them to explain how garage door openers work; or cell phones; or WiFi? For that matter, anything cordless and digital?
I think no one intelligent believes "only matter is at work in the Universe". some very intelligent people, however, "believe" that everything can be described in terms of matter, energy, space, time,... (what people would call material stuff even if it's not matter)
+TheMaxtimax
If they don't believe "only matter", I wish they'd quit acting like it.
+Believer VS Beliefs who are you thinking about ? who is acting as if they believed it ?
Anyone who is a "materialist", by definition: "Materialism can refer either to the simple preoccupation with the material world, as opposed to intellectual or spiritual concepts, or to the theory that physical matter is all there is. "www.allaboutphilosophy.org/Materialism.htm
+Believer VS Beliefs uhm well I hardly think anyone would be a materialist according to the second part of the definition. As for the first part I don't think it means that someone who verifies this thinks the universe is made up of matter only
2+2=4 is a law of math which is metaphysical...not physical. "truth wins" below corrected me and I agree with him that "math" doesn't affect the world...it describes the world.
I dont think that math truths AFFECT anything. They are not concrete, causal agents. The number 7, for example, cannot cause anything. There is no 7 existing in reality. 7 is a descriptor of physical quantity. It would originate in the mind of God and be expressed by our minds bc we can enumerate 7 objects. But all of this gets to the heart of God and abstract objects. If numbers are real causal agents then they exist necessarily and eternally and independently of God, thus challenging God's aseity.
@@truthwins9459 I absolutely agree that "math" describes things but does not affect anything. Math is not god. In fact I can think of nothing metaphysical, except god, that has an effect on the natural/matterial world. And there are some theists who argue for the "clock builder" hypothesis that once the material/natural world was set in motion god has not interfered (once the clock was built the clock maker no longer gets involved).
"what IMMATERIAL mechanism" If you assume that causality can be applied equally to the immaterial, then there's no point asking the question in the first place.
well sure let's say that a horse appears. who is to say that it was in fact god that put it there? maybe it was just an immaterial goblin who's job is it to put horses in places. and if you say god please send me a horse here in the middle and the goblin hears you and thinks to himself maybe he means me and puts a horse. so you would think that it was god where in fact it was just a regular invisible goblin. see where im going with this?
Its like God talking to Himself.
behaviour pattern not of matter
bias falLacy falLos cognition theraputic interests
+Katja Thesaurus finitivity theory
Prove it
oh
my boy Plantinga just absolutely butchered his description of physics
How can Santa deliver all these presents to all these kids? Well, that's easy: he's got flying reindeer, doesn't he?
Are there such things as facts if you disappear?
lorem ipsum
disappear?
Hi Boris B, You are committing the fallacy of a false analogy. The Santa you are describing would have traits useful for flying all over the Earth, whereas an eternal God would embody the innate characteristics 1) to go wherever He chose and 2) to create a such a Santa.
Take care,
QP
what about the closed system {God + Universe} ?
It wouldn't be closed system anymore.
+BugsByte !! why not ? are you implying there's something beyond god and the universe ? if there's not, this system cannot be anything but closed.
TheMaxtimax a closed system is a system where there's no outside influences, everything in it works by the same rules and thus nothing new can be added or lost, I think that is his point.
+BugsByte !! yep and {God + universe} is such a system
TheMaxtimax We don't know what mathematical rules God operates by, if he works follows rules at all (he most probably doesn't), such a system is unpredictable and things can be created out of nothing by the will of God or things may work not according to their rules but by what God wills.
None of these answer are actually applicable to the question at hand. Toung and cheek, they assume a material God creating something.
Hi BecomingMike, Your argument assumes that a physical God must exist to bring about a physical God. I'd like to think about this problem differently than you do and invite you to consult Robert J. Spitzer's "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy." Read Chapter Three, which is "A Metaphysical Argument for God's Existence." While it may be unknown exactly how God brings about material objects from an Immaterial state at the time of Creation, you must remember that all universals are ideas, whereas all instantiation of universal things are detailed aspects of universal instantiated ideas, which sometimes can be material objects. For instance, cars, in their pure form, are just ideas, and are symbolically represented as (X)(Cx). However, if I said that a Ford is a car, which is symbolically written as Cf, I have made that information more specific. Please remember, too, that the essence of God, from a logical perspective, is, from a taxonomical standpoint, higher than physicality and spirituality, and so includes them both. This explains why an Immaterial Person in the Godhead, the Son, could gain a physical body at the Incarnation by the Power of the Holy Spirit. To draw on a point made by Dr. Spitzer in one of his footnotes, I can argue that life and death are diametrically opposed, but neither of the two polarities discredit the category of a lifespan, under which each of these two aspects of a life span falls.
As a final note, I wonder why it is okay for certain scientists to say that they do not understand quantum physics and, therefore, cannot explain how something comes to fruition in a quantum vacuum and then demand that Christians give account of how God creates things. This, in my opinion, is a double standard, and, if the same principles are applied to quantum physics, then we have to be just as skeptical as quantum physics as we are of God. Arguing from such a perspective with surety in one's voice is an argument from ignorance.
Take care,
QP
Do you know what else is timeless, changeless, non physical, spaceless and immaterial? Things that dont exist at all. LOL
+Aguijon1982 That's trivial and hardly a meaningful thing to say. Lots of things have those properties and do exist, such as numbers.
ihatealigators
Numbers had a beginning. They are imaginary and man made.
Say hi to Dwkins for me
+Aguijon1982 Even though numbers are abstractions, it does not mean that they do not exist. For example, when I count the number of fingers on my hand, I say that I have five fingers. Obviously I must perceive what I mean by asserting that I have five fingers on my hand instead of four or three or even some extremely odd number like e or pi. In this way, we must accept that there is a level of existence relative to numbers. There are so many leaves on a tree, there are so many people within this city, there are so many grains in a sandbox. Also, if you are referring to the imaginary extent of numbers-such as the complex numbers which are applied to the y-axis on the complex coordinate plane-then you seem to misunderstand what imaginary numbers are. It is not that they are, in some literal way, imaginary; it is that they are merely different in what they are, as other more real numbers are afforded. For example, i^2 equals -1. Why is this? Basically, it's because of matrices. If you establish that the matrix
{0 -1
1 0}
is true, then it equals i. When we use i it's because this variable represents the above matrix, it is not that the variable itself is a number. It's like using the variable x or y, except x and y are filler variables where no known number is used; i is a number which represents an already, presupposed number which we know. In this way, it is similar to using logarithms. A logarithm itself is an extremely complex equation, but instead of having to reuse that equation every time we apply logarithms, we simply use the filler equation log. It's not that it doesn't exist, it is simply that it is an equation which represents something else.
Also, there is a logical proof for imaginary numbers. Because there are four groups of numbers in which different factions of numbers are placed (such as all numbers, complex numbers excepted [like imaginaries], being Real Numbers), imaginary numbers being different than natural numbers (1,2,3,4, etc.) and rational numbers (I'll get to these in a minute), they must occupy a different number system. These four number systems, then, all contain real, extant numbers. Natural Numbers are whole numbers like 1,2,3,4,5..., which are used on the everyday basis for everything (like how many fingers are on a hand, how many leaves on a tree), and the most basic of all numerals. (One other simplistic difference between imaginary numbers and natural numbers, or all other numbers, is that real numbers can be applied to the everyday; while imaginary numbers are exclusive to more complex functions.) There are Integers, which are numbers that occupy both positive and negative space, that are used for the purpose of knowing how much more A has than B. There are Rational Numbers, which are fractions, which assert that if you ate 3/4 of a pie, you ate out of the full quantity of the pie (which is 4) a smaller quantity equal to 3. And then there are the real numbers, which are all numbers that are applied to quantities of something. However, there has been criticism as to the use of the word "Real," in the way that numbers are abstract.
Another criticism of your first assertion is that there are, indeed, immaterial aspects to the real world. Words themselves are immaterial and non-physical, for they do not occupy any kind of literal "Space" or "time" in the sense that material objects do. Language is also immaterial in the sense that it does not necessarily exist without us. Or what about consciousness? There is good reason to believe that there is an intrinsic faculty to consciousness prior to actual movement or physical processes, as there appears on a neurological level an instigating force that drives thought and motor functions before they do work. Also, if we have reason to not believe in numbers, then we might as well not believe in science or any of the things developed through physics or biology or chemistry-physics has its very essence developed within the complete usage and application of numbers to the real world.
John Truman
You are only proyecting ideas on stuff you see. Numbers dont exist outside your head.
As far as I can tell, he gives no answer to the question 'How can the non-physical interact with the physical'. He simply asserts that it can.
+ast453000 He points out that there is no known conflict. Or those who purport a conflict have not made an adequate case. He is not showing that they do interact but only that those who have alleged that there is a conflict in special action haven't shown any good reasons to think that there is conflict with special action. In other words, he provides a defense to show that the burden of proof on those who propose conflict with special action has not been met. The consequence is that there is no known conflict with God's special action and modern science.
+Steven Strnad But there is no known interaction between non-physical and physical matter. So there is no reason to even suggest that there might be. The burden of proof that there is falls on anyone who suggests that there is. I can't disprove the existence of faeries and that they might interact with my brain while I sleep causing me to dream particular dreams, but there is zero evidence that they do exist and interact with my brain or anything else physical. Thus it is perfectly rational to conclude that faeries do not exist and interact with the physical/material world. The same is true of the existence of god and interaction between a non material god and the material world.
rumidude Whether there is in fact a God that interacts with the world is not what is being contested here. If the critic of theism is putting forth an argument against theism that it is impossible for God to interact with the world, then the burden of proof is wholly on the critic of theism to demonstrate the veracity of that assertion.
Now if, in a debate, the theist is arguing that God has in fact intervened in the world, then the burden of proof would rest on the theist to demonstrate that his case is more likely true than false. So, I understand your point but you are conflating to distinct issues. Plantinga only argues here that the attempt to demonstrate a necessary conflict between God and divine intervention has been unsuccessful. And he is right.
Now on your point, when you claim that there is no known interaction between non-physical and physical entities, a lot of that will rest on how "physical" is defined and how what we think best explains a number of various phenomena such as consciousness, intentionality, entanglement, interconnectedness, indeterminacy, the origin of the universe, action at a distance, the wave collapse, and so on. The problem is that you presuppose that there there IS a known physical cause for all the events in the universe and that the burden of proof only rests on those who believe otherwise. The burden of proof also lies on anyone who makes the claim that every event in the universe is explained by physical interaction. Until the proponent provides evidence or an argument for this assertion, there is no reasons to accept it.
Even if we could show that only physical interaction occurs (on a reasonable and adequate definition of "physical"), it wouldn't follow at all that God, who brought the natural universe into being would not be able to intervene. That is to say hypothetically speaking, if all events do in fact are caused by physical interaction, it does not follow that physical interaction is necessary for interaction. As we do not know what God is, it would be unreasonable to believe that he would not be capable of interacting with the world.
+Steven Strnad Listen to the first 40 seconds of this to discover what matter is being discussed in this video. Robert Kuhn stated that atheists say that if god is immaterial and our world is material it is illogical, not impossible, to think that god could interact with the world. Alvin Plantinga did not make a logical explanation of how that could be so. His explanation is along the lines of explaining how Superman flies, he just does. In essence that is all Alvin Plantinga offers and ast453000's observation above remains valid. As an aside, Alvin Plantinga's scientific explanations are very silly and only further confirm the weakness of his arguments.
@@rumidude Until we can create a universe from scratch, how can we have absolute knowledge? So mindless matter and energy just formed a universe by chance? with no directions? And consciousness some how emerged? It takes alot of faith to believe that. Even if it is remotely close to saying superman just flies, superman can still fly. So that is a moot point. He never claims to have direct knowledge of God, that would require omniscience.
Wow, you can explain who God is. Amazing?! Mere mortal man, knowing his Creator.
I wonder if Platinga has any clue how ridiculous he sounds.
Apologetic acrobatics.
What a joke.
In fact, Platinga made some testable predictions. Please read my comment above.
+Mauri Sombowadile testable predictions that are demonstrably false. If your give a Physicist the initial state of a given system the future state follow precisely and predictably. QED is our most accurate theory, precise to 8 decimal places. Not evidence of Gods.
Ad hominems
My OpenMind There is still the problem of quantum uncertainty AND chaos. What does Chaos mean? Well, it means that "precise to 8 decimal places" is not enough, because things get very uncertain very soon after your last precisely determined (in the sense of being "precise to 8 decimal places") physical state.
Actually, ad hominems are always fallacious because they attack the person, not the argument. The only time they are remotely valid is if your interlocutor bases his opinion solely on his character
In this case, they clearly are, while Plantinga has written several books arguing for his conclusions someone calling themselves "open mind" dismisses it by calling the person "ridiculous" and their arguments "acrobatics" but doesn't respond to a single argument.
The cognitive dissonance you see from this is rather funny
One thing Alvin Plantinga is correct about, he is not at all an expert on quantum mechanics. It is disturbing how often apologists attempt to use quantum mechanics to explain things when they know very little about the subject. Plantinga's explanations using quantum mechanics are very clumsy.
+rumidude
And we should trust that some random person on the internet understands quantum mechanics better than one of the most important living philosophers?
+Clinton Wilcox I am not asking anyone to trust me. Alvin Plantinga himself stated in the video he is NOT an expert on quantum mechanics and yet he tries to use quantum theory to prove his point. He is simply wrong in his application of quantum mechanics in trying to show how an immaterial god can interact with the physical universe. All of Alvin Plantinga's degrees and books can change that. Quantum theory is a very difficult science to understand. Because of that, people often exploit that difficulty to speculate about all sorts of strange things. We can add Alvin Plantinga to the list of people like Deepak Chopra and other quantum mysticism advocates.
He doesn't need QA for his purposes in this argument. Go read his book
Jeez ! What a bullshitter Plantinga is ! Maybe this and maybe that, oh and quantum physics plays a special part in his mysticism. Surprise surprise !
Hi Tony D' Arcy, Okay, by your standards, all individuals who speak about quantum mechanics, since they do not know the precise causes of quantum wave functions, are numbskulls. Nevertheless, you wouldn't characterize any quantum physicist as a numbskull. Thus, by your standards, there ought not to be any quantum physicists, since their imprecise understanding of causal factors disqualifies them as people who the public should listen to!
Take care,
QP
Immaterial being is a contradiction/ oxymoron. (imaginary/ model) Nothing can do anything, because it is nothing.
What about mind?
Thanks for nothing, Mr. Plantinga. No sir.
Science also can't be certain that the Invisible Pink Unicorn didn't create the Universe, and in fact maintains it even to this day.
Quantum mechanics doesn't imply that inanimate statues can magically come alive and start walking around by the way.
+crlsjvrm J
Not at all: the Invisible Pink Unicorn told me it doesn't care about homosexual relationships, the bible was mostly a work of fiction, hell doesn't exist, and that the Universe began about 14 billion years ago.
So not much like God at all, apart from the whole creation thing.
+crlsjvrm J
Isn't an atheist, by definition, someone who doesn't believe in any Gods? I'm sorry you are so close-minded to the true creator who has revealed the secrets of the Universe to me, but I hardly see how I can be blamed for trying to spread the good news.
Believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn my friend, I can assure you that She believes in you.
+crlsjvrm J
As I was trying to imply, I'm not actually an atheist as you assert. Furthermore, I just did a Google search on the topic and the first result I got was:
"Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God.""
That was from the American Atheists website.
Slightly lower down the first page, Rationalwiki says:
"Atheism, from the Greek a-, meaning "without", and theos, meaning "god", is the absence of belief in the existence of gods"
Wikipedia says:
"Writers disagree on how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as compatible with agnosticism,and has also been contrasted with it. A variety of categories have been used to distinguish the different forms of atheism."
So it appears there is more than one definition of the term, so if I thought it applied to me (it doesn't) I don't see I'd be necessarily forced to make a positive 'no Gods exist' claim as you have suggested. Indeed, many Gods do exist - in the minds of the believers of course. I wouldn't deny those fictitious Gods at all.
Where did I say or even imply you are a Christian? I may be too unsophisticated to spot it by myself and I'd appreciate your help. I will also pray to the Invisible Pink Unicorn in Her horny wisdom for guidance in this matter.
+crlsjvrm J
Regarding my definition of atheism, I told you exactly what I did: a Google search, I chose the first links and gave my sources. Is Google biased on this issue? How about Rationwiki and Wikipedia?
It's ironic that you say we can't use the definition given by an Atheist association, how you could actually type that out then expect to be taken seriously is beyond me. I already illustrated (from Wikipedia) that there is some discussion over the exact definition of the term; are you suggesting that the Atheists who claim they simply lack belief in a God are mistaken in their own label? They need to invent some new term? As you rightly quoted: "atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". Does absence differ in any significant way from 'lack of' in this case?
Anyway, as I mentioned before and as you have acknowledged, the precise definition of the word atheist is interesting, but ultimately academic, since I'm not one. I can also criticise, either directly or by implication the Christian beliefs, without also implying that you hold such beliefs. For the record, I have no idea of what your beliefs consist, or of how far they are in accordance with Alvin Plantinga's philosophies.
Fictitious Gods are everywhere, as I categorically stated in my last message. They DO exist, in the minds, books and RUclips videos of the believers. They do cause real people to do and say, or not do and say certain real things in the Universe of shared experiences. That is something which is relatively easy to illustrate. What is not so easy, I'd say impossible in fact, is to show that the IPU (bless her horny head) is any less real than any other God you chose to mention. Well, she probably has less followers right now, but I'm working on that ;)
+crlsjvrm J
Okay let's assume you 'win', because I'm too 'lazy' to explain to you yet again how you're mistaken. What would you call a person who says, "I don't believe in any God"? Do agree there are such people?
Do they have a burden of proof at all in your opinion? To prove what exactly?
Now, let's assume you can give me a sensible explanation of that from your point of view, how would winning that argument prove your particular deity exists (outside the realm of imagination)?
Islam is absolute truth though.
Jesus never claimed to be God.
"God created the Universe"
How does he know that??
"Man created God"
"A Pink Unicorn created the Universe"...what's the difference???
His Apologetics are embarrassing as his evidence is self deluded and circular...
Hi Colin Dawson, Actually, 1) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghosts, are persons not animals, and 2) if you rely on skepticism to undercut God's existence, then you must apply the same skepticism to your argument, which means that you are unsure about your words. i recommend that you listen to Dr. William Lane Craig's debates if you really want to engage in intellectual argumentation rather than shallow, Dawkins-like pseudo-intellectualism on metaphysical matters.
Take care,
QP