Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

...what everyone should be able to deduce from what the physicists have indeed discovered about the universe,...

...is that it appears to be created from an infinitely-malleable, informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" --> similar to the substance from which our very own thoughts and dreams are created.

Well, apart from you over egging it, infinitely-malleable substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything imaginable, wouldn't get a lot of pushback from many materialists. Some in "the “Designer” crowd..." do their usual bad faith strawmanning thing and insist that all materialists are essentially Democritan and compelled to believe that atoms are atomos, uncuttable nuggets of solid matter randomly flying hither and thither. Don't fall for it.
As I have said, the working hypothesis of most physicists is that the universe is made of one or more quantum fields and that, as Gemini says, the physicists job primarily is to work out what it does. It is what the visible universe does that leads to the inference of dark matter and dark energy. The nature of any universal substance is a seondary consideration, albeit of greater interest to questions about if and how life and consciousness, including thoughts and dreams, arise from any such fields.

[Fanman]

If everyone is certain about different things, the truth is that some of them are wrong or not entirely correct. Being certain doesn't necessarily prove that a proposition is correct, but it may increase the margin for error.

In philosophy, justified certainty is rare. So wouldn't it be more appropriate to approach this topic from a position of "I think" rather than "I know"?

[seeds]

...where'd I put those monads?

-Imp

What a coincidence,...

...the monads were wondering where they put imp.

Indeed, the universe is rather large, and certain parts of it (like “imps,” for example) get lost in the blur of monadgenous homogeneity.
_______

[seeds]

...what everyone should be able to deduce from what the physicists have indeed discovered about the universe,...

...is that it appears to be created from an infinitely-malleable, informationally-based (holographic-like) substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything "imaginable" --> similar to the substance from which our very own thoughts and dreams are created.

Well, apart from you over egging it,...

How am I "over-egging it"?

I think my level of "egging" was perfectly measured.

...infinitely-malleable substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything imaginable, wouldn't get a lot of pushback from many materialists.

That may be true,...

(though I have my doubts about that, and am wondering who's over-cooking the eggs now)

...but they sure do have a lot of trouble (a lot of closed-mindedness) when it comes to imagining the implications of the universe seeming to be constructed from what appears to be "mind-stuff."

Furthermore, I figured that you knew me (and my philosophy) well enough by now that I didn't need to end that earlier post with...

"...cue Bishop Berkeley - stage left..."

As I have said, the working hypothesis of most physicists is that the universe is made of one or more quantum fields and that, as Gemini says, the physicists job primarily is to work out what it does.

You asked me the following question,...

"...what do you understand materialists to believe the universe is actually made of?..."

...to which I answered with...

"...What I understand is that materialists don't know much of anything regarding the question of what the universe is "actually made of."..."

What did I (and Gemini - who agreed with me) get wrong in that assessment?

It is what the visible universe does that leads to the inference of dark matter and dark energy. The nature of any universal substance is a seondary consideration,...

So then, it is of "secondary consideration" to you (or to materialists) that the fundamental substance from which all of reality is created seems to be "mind-like" in nature, and thus holds no importance when it comes to figuring out what the truth of reality might actually be?

By Jove, me old bean, I think you may have highlighted how materialism's strict refusal to venture into areas that may actually contain the (bullseye) truth of reality, will always keep its proponents and practitioners focused on and putzing around the outer rings of the target.

The fact that quantum science has loosely implied that reality seems to be created from, again, a "mind-like" substance, has allowed the hardcore materialists to sort of catch glimpses of the truth out of the corner of their collective eye,...

...however, whenever they turn to look, the truth always remains in the periphery of their field of vision.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

How am I "over-egging it"?

With the bits I left out:

...infinitely-malleable substance that is capable of becoming pretty much anything imaginable...

While it might be true that everyone should be able to deduce that the universe appears to be made of hologaphic thought/dreamlike stuff, it doesn't follow that it is, nor that everyone will deduce so. I keep telling ya, you have a good story, it might even be true, but there are others that account for the observations equally well.

...What I understand is that materialists don't know much of anything regarding the question of what the universe is "actually made of."..."

What did I (and Gemini - who agreed with me) get wrong in that assessment?

You're talking chalk and cheese, me old mucker. You talk above about materialists, but pose the question to Gemini in terms of "physicists, or quantum cosmologists," neither of which are necessarily materialists. What the universe is and what it does are different questions - materialism is philosophy, physics is science.

So then, it is of "secondary consideration" to you (or to materialists)...

No, the substance of the universe is of primary consideration to materialists; it is of secondary concern, and in some cases, none at all, to physicists. Personally, I think the question of what the universe is the more inreresting, which is why I pursued philosophy more than physics.

[Fanman]

I think the most fundamental issue I have found with the omnipotence paradox is that, once a finite weight limit applies to the stone, the answer is simply that omnipotence can lift the stone.

However, a stone with unlimited weight does not exist. With stones, weight is proportional to their size and mass, so the mass would also have to be unlimited, which cannot physically exist.

So, with the omnipotence paradox, for more than one reason, the limiting variable appears to be a physical impossibility.

[Immanuel Can]

I think the most fundamental issue I have found with the omnipotence paradox is that, once a finite weight limit applies to the stone, the answer is simply that omnipotence can lift the stone.

However, a stone with unlimited weight does not exist. With stones, weight is proportional to their size and mass, so the mass would also have to be unlimited, which cannot physically exist.

So, with the omnipotence paradox, for more than one reason, the limiting variable appears to be a physical impossibility.

While I agree that the request is incoherent, it cannot be for this reason.

An unrestricted understanding of "omnipotence" (taken to mean "can do anything," including the absurd and the self-contradictory) cannot be banished by saying "it's not physically possible." Such "omnipotence" cannot include any "limiting variable," and so the contradiction simply returns.

So again, the term is never used of God in the Bible, so no Jewish or Christian Theist has any duty to defend it. It's simply a word selected by later theologians to try to identify a concept. But if it is to be properly applied to the Supreme Being, then it must needs be explained exactly what is meant, before we can determine what conception of "omnipotence" deserves to be defended. The unrestricted definition creates a logical absurdity, a self-contradiction, that no proper or nuanced conception of the Deity agrees with.

At that point, there is no longer a problem, but rather just a very silly, self-denying question (the unrestricted ominipotence idea being run into the notion of a rock stipulated artificially as being too big for even the unrestricted-omnipotent to lift), and one that does not apply to a correct depiction of the nature of God.

[Impenitent]

I think the most fundamental issue I have found with the omnipotence paradox is that, once a finite weight limit applies to the stone, the answer is simply that omnipotence can lift the stone.

However, a stone with unlimited weight does not exist. With stones, weight is proportional to their size and mass, so the mass would also have to be unlimited, which cannot physically exist.

So, with the omnipotence paradox, for more than one reason, the limiting variable appears to be a physical impossibility.

I haven't fully measured omnipotence, but I have seen pictures of Cygnus X-1...

-Imp

[Fanman]

Continuing my discussion on the omnipotence paradox. Too heavy is a physical constraint. When applied to a physical variable, a stone in this case, it is coherent to discuss the nature of a stone that is being used as a potential limitation to the concept of omnipotence.

[MikeNovack]

Continuing my discussion on the omnipotence paradox. Too heavy is a physical constraint. When applied to a physical variable, a stone in this case, it is coherent to discuss the nature of a stone that is being used as a potential limitation to the concept of omnipotence.

Not really abut the stone and its properties but about possible limitations on "omnipotence". A bad example is being used.

Consistency versus inconsistency is at the heart of the matter. When we say "omnipotence" Do we mean enough power to create something INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF. Or is that impossible even for omnipotence?

A stone which at the same time weighs both two pounds and four pounds? << a three pound force enough to lift one but not the othr >>

[Fanman]

Continuing my discussion on the omnipotence paradox. Too heavy is a physical constraint. When applied to a physical variable, a stone in this case, it is coherent to discuss the nature of a stone that is being used as a potential limitation to the concept of omnipotence.

Not really abut the stone and its properties but about possible limitations on "omnipotence". A bad example is being used.

Consistency versus inconsistency is at the heart of the matter. When we say "omnipotence" Do we mean enough power to create something INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF. Or is that impossible even for omnipotence?

A stone which at the same time weighs both two pounds and four pounds? << a three pound force enough to lift one but not the othr >>

I am discussing the omnipotence paradox according to its wording, so in my view the properties of the stone present a completely valid line of enquiry. If you disagree, that's fine, but I am only interested in discussing the paradox as it is formulated.

[FlashDangerpants]

Continuing my discussion on the omnipotence paradox. Too heavy is a physical constraint. When applied to a physical variable, a stone in this case, it is coherent to discuss the nature of a stone that is being used as a potential limitation to the concept of omnipotence.

Not really abut the stone and its properties but about possible limitations on "omnipotence". A bad example is being used.

Consistency versus inconsistency is at the heart of the matter. When we say "omnipotence" Do we mean enough power to create something INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF. Or is that impossible even for omnipotence?

A stone which at the same time weighs both two pounds and four pounds? << a three pound force enough to lift one but not the othr >>

You're talking about an object that in other news is both the creator and creation of itself, right? If so, power to undertake self-contradictory action is required. If not, then who cares about this stupid self-resolving rock paradox?

The whole point of the rock "paradox" is that other things which believers do habitually ascribe to God, such as simultaneously creating himself and being created by himself are similarly silly.

[Fanman]

Continuing.

The potentially limiting constraint on omnipotence is the stone. Therefore, conceptually, the stone must possess some limiting capacity that applies to omnipotence. Without that, there is no paradox.

Within the formulation, the limitation is weight. However, a finite amount of weight cannot fulfil the stone's role as the limiting condition. Therefore, the only remaining possibility is that the stone's weight is effectively infinite.

We know that such a condition is, at the very least, extraordinarily unlikely within physical reality. For me, that is the point at which the paradox begins to break down.

Even if such a stone could exist, it remains coherent that omnipotence, when described as unlimited power (Merriam-Webster), includes unlimited lifting capacity. If so, the burden falls on the stone to provide the limiting condition.

As a formulation, I therefore believe it is the too-heavy stone, the proposed limiting factor, that breaks the coherence of the paradox.

[seeds]

As a formulation, I therefore believe it is the too-heavy stone, the proposed limiting factor, that breaks the coherence of the paradox.

It may not be a paradox, but it certainly is a waste of time to present that “too-heavy stone” nonsense as if it were some sort of profound dilemma associated with the notion of omnipotence.

I’m thinking that a Being who is capable of creating the unfathomable order of two trillion galaxies of suns and planets, couldn’t care less about whether or not he (she or it) could create a stone that she (he or it) could not lift.

Furthermore, IC was spot on when he cited that “old chestnut” as being comparable to why a so-called omnipotent Being would be equally incapable of creating a square circle.

It might be a fun riddle to ponder, such as, for example, this,...

The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false.

...however, in the end, it is hardly worth posing as a serious proposition.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with presuming that the Creator of the universe might not actually be quite as "omnipotent," or "omniscient," or "omnibenevolent," etc., as we and our ancient ancestors have imagined him (her or it) to be.
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

As a formulation, I therefore believe it is the too-heavy stone, the proposed limiting factor, that breaks the coherence of the paradox.

It may not be a paradox, but it certainly is a waste of time to present that “too-heavy stone” nonsense as if it were some sort of profound dilemma associated with the notion of omnipotence.

I’m thinking that a Being who is capable of creating the unfathomable order of two trillion galaxies of suns and planets, couldn’t care less about whether or not he (she or it) could create a stone that she (he or it) could not lift.

Furthermore, IC was spot on when he cited that “old chestnut” as being comparable to why a so-called omnipotent Being would be equally incapable of creating a square circle.

It might be a fun riddle to ponder, such as, for example, this,...

The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false.

...however, in the end, it is hardly worth posing as a serious proposition.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with presuming that the Creator of the universe might not actually be quite as "omnipotent," or "omniscient," or "omnibenevolent," etc., as we and our ancient ancestors have imagined him (her or it) to be.
_______

The truth is that the dude wrote this which you skipped:

We know that such a condition is, at the very least, extraordinarily unlikely within physical reality. For me, that is the point at which the paradox begins to break down.

And thus has completely jumped the shark with this crap. It is basic that when discussing God stuff you are talking about the miracle worker, not the guy who obeys the usual laws of physics.

But I think your point is mistaken too Seeds. It is the same order of paradox to be ...

• Incapable of failure and thus able to make a rock so big that you cannot lift while also being incapable of failing to lift it.

• Incapable of failure to project a square circle into a Euclidian space.

• Able to create a married Batchelor

• Incapable of failing, should he choose to create a tasteful neon-pink lycra pant suit.

• Able to exist in order create yourself and also the product of your own creation without prior existence.

• Able to hold a moral opinion about homosexuality being wrongful, and also to create a universal moral fact that homosexuality is wrong, requiring nothing more than that opinion to do so... while somehow that makes this is all fact, and not mere opinion...

All of these things are equally contradictory. It's just a sentence where the thing at one end is logically incompatible with the thing at the other end. Fanman's effort to overanalyse his way out of just one of them is perhaps a bit silly, but IC's effort to do the same is no better.

Your own claim, that God doesn't care about the rock thing is probably true in so far as it goes. I doubt anybody thinks God intends to find out about it empirically. But if this is the only universe, and if there is nothing outside it that explains the existence of God, basically some parent universe that God inhabits for instance, then you are married to one of these paradoxes yourself. If you hold the common Christian belief that God's command is moral truth, then you probably adhere to more than one paradox, and may as well quit being choosy.

It may well be that you personally don't adhere to the notion that that God created himself. Perhaps you believe he's an alien who lives in a much bigger universe than this one, with 700 more dimensions than we have, and that our universe is much like a goldfish bowl to him.

Your position on the metaphysics of morality appears to allow for God being a bit of a bastard, which is fine by me. It's possible that you escape that other paradox too, if you aren't a moral realist then you automatically do.

But I hope you see my point that the tale all the usual religions tell us about the creation of the universe and the properties of the anthropomorphised entities presented as creators of it tend to provoke silly paradoxes about rocks and Batchelors only because they inherently rely on similar paradoxes and just require us to accept those without thinking too hard about them.