Very strong argument, I am curious how you handle these thoughts:
1. An unstoppable force and an immovable object could simply pass through one another. Sometimes well reasoned arguments have a counter intuitive and sneaky solution.
2. I've read salvia trip reports where people claim to have entered realms where 1+1=3. Or where reason breaks entirely. A state of madness. Is this to be ignored?
3. I didn't grasp a definition of omnipotence in your article. I think omnipotence is better defined as 'the space that makes things possible' rather than 'able to change anything at anytime'. Just the premise that something exists rather than not is already mystical - suggesting something unexplainable is happening. There is no higher 'A causes B' for existence, it just exists. If something justified existence, it would have to occur within existence. It's a paradox, and yet here we are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, my responses to each are below:
1. Things can exist on different planes of existence (virtual and physical entities for example), but when we are discussing the same level of existence, the *ultimate level*, and if one "force" simply passes through another entity of the same existence plane, then such an unstoppable force isn't actually a force (it can't affect other things on its level of existence)
2. I cannot conceive of anything truly representing a world where 1+1=3. But let's say such a world is conceivable, and this world contains contradictions so that only the mad can "understand" it. We'd have to abandon Reason, as it cannot be a guide to this world, where everything becomes true (since everything follows from a contradiction). And if everything becomes true, then everything becomes meaningless (hence the title of God being powerless and meaningless). People think that fundamental chaos is a savior to their ideals (like in the context of free will, for instance), as freedom from a structured world, but it is still slavery, just of a different type.
3. I use two definitions of omnipotence (in P5 and P8 above, noting the capacity to do all things and capacity to do all "logicially possible" things) and God comes out powerless in either case. But this is because these two definitions aren't truly separete (not at least if we grant the PSR). If you aren't omnipotent under P5, then given the PSR, you aren't under P8 either. My next article will hopefully do a better job illustrating this point.
This seems like a good argument that there exists no beings which can change necessary truths. But it's not clear to me why that should be what omnipotence is. Contradictions are "things"--you've failed to describe anything coherent when you describe the negation of a necessary truth. So it doesn't seem like it's a limitation on a necessary being to be "unable" to change necessary truths, since there is nothing that being is unable to do.
If a being can't change necessary truths, and necessary truths govern contingent truths through the laws of causation (which can be explained using necessary truths of logic, pursuant to the PSR), then such a being could not change any truths (neither necessary nor contingent).
Well, that's just to deny that there are contingent truths. But, of course, the PSR does not entail necessitarianism. So, the PSR is consistent with the existence of contingent truths.
Yes its accepting determinism, where all facts would be necessary and lead to modal collapse. I'm fine with this belief and I think this is the predominant view (there are very few libertarian free-will types). But we can still understand certain facts as "contingent" although in an ultimate sense they are not.
Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
I actually agree, at least intuitively, with your conclusion. I think the argument needs some work, though.
The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
>Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Either definition is fine for me. I argue that God can't do either.
>Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
True miracles yes, so true miracles cannot exist (otherwise, we'd have a contradiction, and everything would be true as a result of explosion, making miracles trivial)
>The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
If one's god is not omnipotent, then that's fine, the article is N/A. Omnipotence is just not a coherent concept. And I'm not sure what the value of a God is if they are not omnipotent (they would just be another agent).
True miracles, yes, where an act defies logic making God the only explanation. And not physical laws being without exception, but laws of logic are. And laws of logic explain physical laws.
I use 2 definitions of omnipotence in the article, in P5 and P8 (although it’s unnecessary, since these two definitions aren’t truly “separate”, as I don’t believe the article sufficiently emphasized, but hopefully will in the next installment).
Your comments are very much appreciated and I’ll be sure to address these points (and any others you may have) when I discuss the counter arguments to the above.
We might keep in mind that reason is a very poorly developed feature of a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.
Any notion that such a tiny feature would be binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within, demonstrates how poorly developed such a feature really is.
Logic games can be fun, but they're very unlikely to make useful statements on issues of such vast scale.
If that’s the case, we have no business even trying to think up of “God” in the first place, let alone try to discuss him. If God is beyond our minds, let him be beyond our minds.
Billions of people over thousands of years have been sensing something that they often call God. Something huge, all powerful, a source of creation, and yet just out of reach, invisible.
What if what all these many people have been sensing is space?
Not just outer space, which is of course huge beyond comprehension. Also the space within themselves, the space that makes up 99%+ of every atom, the space that infuses every fragment of matter however small.
To get a feel for this sensing, recall the difference between how you feel when you’re alone out at your favorite nature location, and how you feel walking on a crowded urban street filled with traffic. Each of these environments have their own “vibe”, for lack of a better word. It’s hard to explain exactly why we experience these environments so differently, but we do.
For this thought experiment, imagine that space too has it’s own “vibe”, and that some people who are perhaps more sensitive than others, can somehow sense this property of space. If true, this might help explain why the God theory keeps popping up again and again and again all over the world over such a long time in so many different cultures. Space is always there, and some people can feel it.
What Is Space?
Now let’s be careful and not assume that we know what space is. We typically think of space as being nothing more than an empty box which contains various things. But there seems to be more to space than that.
According to science, one of the properties of space is that countless particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And, you’ve probably heard that space is expanding in every direction at an accelerating rate. So, according to science, space is not just an empty box, it is active in some manner, and has some properties of it’s own.
Is Space Religious?
Next, let’s be careful and not assume in a simplistic manner that God=religion and Space=science, and that these are two entirely different subjects which have no relation with each other. Ok, maybe. But it’s not necessarily so just because that’s a common assumption, typically held by those who don’t give such matters much thought.
Is Space Intelligent?
At first it seems obvious space can’t be intelligent.What a goofy idea, right?
But wait, what does “intelligent” mean? Intelligence is a concept which is useful in comparing the abilities of different species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. The context for the concept of intelligence is actually incredibly small, almost non-existent. Such a tiny concept may very well have no relevance to a phenomena as immeasurably huge and pervasive as space. We should probably resist having a debate along the lines of “is space intelligent, yes or no?” given that on subjects the scale of space the most likely answer is that we have no idea what we’re talking about.
We’ve already established that God cannot exist in the mind, he is beyond our comprehension. So this “sensing” cannot be God, as that would mean God would be within our comprehension. We may *call* this sensing God, or impose our own conception of God on this sense, but this doesn’t reflect any truth out there in the world, it’s what we *impose* on the world. God could only be the meaning we impose on this sense.
You’re asking some big questions and I’ll be addressing them on the journey laid out in this Substack. Answers to come.
We haven't established that God can not exist in the mind. You've claimed that.
You write, "We may *call* this sensing God, or impose our own conception of God on this sense, but this doesn’t reflect any truth out there in the world"
Ok, that's an interesting claim. So prove it. Apply your own standards and methodology to your own claims.
For the record, I'm not interested in either promoting or debunking the ideas offered by various religions. I'm just attempting to understand and explain the largest cultural event in human history.
One theory is that many millions of people have sensed SOMETHING, but then they try to explain that in simplistic childlike terms involving cartoon characters etc. They use the only concepts and language they have access to.
It's reasonable for educated moderns to resist the cartoon character stories, but debunking the cartoons does not automatically equal it all being silly nonsense etc.
“Any notion that such a tiny feature would be binding upon all of reality [reason], and thus any gods contained within, demonstrates how poorly developed such a feature really is.”
We’ve established it. If god cannot be contained in our power of Reason, then we cannot exist in a truth in mind. Belief it God would be entirely ungrounded and would have no rightful claim to truth, as “reason” would be unable to ground his belief.
A belief without reason would be like trying to walk without ground, just as we can’t walk without ground to stand on, we can’t justifiably believe without reason (although you’re free to belief whatever you want, I’m just saying what reason requires). See my next articles on “belief” and “truth” which will hopefully explicate this point further.
Very strong argument, I am curious how you handle these thoughts:
1. An unstoppable force and an immovable object could simply pass through one another. Sometimes well reasoned arguments have a counter intuitive and sneaky solution.
2. I've read salvia trip reports where people claim to have entered realms where 1+1=3. Or where reason breaks entirely. A state of madness. Is this to be ignored?
3. I didn't grasp a definition of omnipotence in your article. I think omnipotence is better defined as 'the space that makes things possible' rather than 'able to change anything at anytime'. Just the premise that something exists rather than not is already mystical - suggesting something unexplainable is happening. There is no higher 'A causes B' for existence, it just exists. If something justified existence, it would have to occur within existence. It's a paradox, and yet here we are.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, my responses to each are below:
1. Things can exist on different planes of existence (virtual and physical entities for example), but when we are discussing the same level of existence, the *ultimate level*, and if one "force" simply passes through another entity of the same existence plane, then such an unstoppable force isn't actually a force (it can't affect other things on its level of existence)
2. I cannot conceive of anything truly representing a world where 1+1=3. But let's say such a world is conceivable, and this world contains contradictions so that only the mad can "understand" it. We'd have to abandon Reason, as it cannot be a guide to this world, where everything becomes true (since everything follows from a contradiction). And if everything becomes true, then everything becomes meaningless (hence the title of God being powerless and meaningless). People think that fundamental chaos is a savior to their ideals (like in the context of free will, for instance), as freedom from a structured world, but it is still slavery, just of a different type.
3. I use two definitions of omnipotence (in P5 and P8 above, noting the capacity to do all things and capacity to do all "logicially possible" things) and God comes out powerless in either case. But this is because these two definitions aren't truly separete (not at least if we grant the PSR). If you aren't omnipotent under P5, then given the PSR, you aren't under P8 either. My next article will hopefully do a better job illustrating this point.
Interesting responses, thanks.
This seems like a good argument that there exists no beings which can change necessary truths. But it's not clear to me why that should be what omnipotence is. Contradictions are "things"--you've failed to describe anything coherent when you describe the negation of a necessary truth. So it doesn't seem like it's a limitation on a necessary being to be "unable" to change necessary truths, since there is nothing that being is unable to do.
If a being can't change necessary truths, and necessary truths govern contingent truths through the laws of causation (which can be explained using necessary truths of logic, pursuant to the PSR), then such a being could not change any truths (neither necessary nor contingent).
Well, that's just to deny that there are contingent truths. But, of course, the PSR does not entail necessitarianism. So, the PSR is consistent with the existence of contingent truths.
Yes its accepting determinism, where all facts would be necessary and lead to modal collapse. I'm fine with this belief and I think this is the predominant view (there are very few libertarian free-will types). But we can still understand certain facts as "contingent" although in an ultimate sense they are not.
Yes, what exactly is “omnipotent” accomplishing in the premise?
Our understanding of God is an omnipotent being. If you God is not omnipotent, then this article is N/A.
Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
I actually agree, at least intuitively, with your conclusion. I think the argument needs some work, though.
The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
>Sure, but what is omnipotence? Does it mean changing creation after creating it, or being able to choose differently “before” creating it?
Either definition is fine for me. I argue that God can't do either.
>Do miracles violate noncontradiction?
True miracles yes, so true miracles cannot exist (otherwise, we'd have a contradiction, and everything would be true as a result of explosion, making miracles trivial)
>The issue of omnipotence could be seen as defeating the entire idea of god, or it could be seen as a theological side note. I am ignorant regarding what the theologians have actually said about it, but I imagine that persons who are otherwise convinced of Christianity would simply adjust their understanding of the significance and content (limitations? Haha) of omnipotence rather than conclude they should become atheists.
If one's god is not omnipotent, then that's fine, the article is N/A. Omnipotence is just not a coherent concept. And I'm not sure what the value of a God is if they are not omnipotent (they would just be another agent).
Why do miracles entail contradictions? Do we know physical laws have no exceptions?
Are you sure you’re using the same concept as the targets of the criticism when you both mention omnipotence?
True miracles, yes, where an act defies logic making God the only explanation. And not physical laws being without exception, but laws of logic are. And laws of logic explain physical laws.
I use 2 definitions of omnipotence in the article, in P5 and P8 (although it’s unnecessary, since these two definitions aren’t truly “separate”, as I don’t believe the article sufficiently emphasized, but hopefully will in the next installment).
Your comments are very much appreciated and I’ll be sure to address these points (and any others you may have) when I discuss the counter arguments to the above.
We might keep in mind that reason is a very poorly developed feature of a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.
Any notion that such a tiny feature would be binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within, demonstrates how poorly developed such a feature really is.
Logic games can be fun, but they're very unlikely to make useful statements on issues of such vast scale.
Thanks for the review.
If that’s the case, we have no business even trying to think up of “God” in the first place, let alone try to discuss him. If God is beyond our minds, let him be beyond our minds.
Thanks for your reply too. In the spirit of logic games can be fun, here's another God theory which doesn't come out of a holy book.
https://substack.com/@philtanny/note/c-91980541
------------
Billions of people over thousands of years have been sensing something that they often call God. Something huge, all powerful, a source of creation, and yet just out of reach, invisible.
What if what all these many people have been sensing is space?
Not just outer space, which is of course huge beyond comprehension. Also the space within themselves, the space that makes up 99%+ of every atom, the space that infuses every fragment of matter however small.
To get a feel for this sensing, recall the difference between how you feel when you’re alone out at your favorite nature location, and how you feel walking on a crowded urban street filled with traffic. Each of these environments have their own “vibe”, for lack of a better word. It’s hard to explain exactly why we experience these environments so differently, but we do.
For this thought experiment, imagine that space too has it’s own “vibe”, and that some people who are perhaps more sensitive than others, can somehow sense this property of space. If true, this might help explain why the God theory keeps popping up again and again and again all over the world over such a long time in so many different cultures. Space is always there, and some people can feel it.
What Is Space?
Now let’s be careful and not assume that we know what space is. We typically think of space as being nothing more than an empty box which contains various things. But there seems to be more to space than that.
According to science, one of the properties of space is that countless particles are popping in and out of existence constantly. And, you’ve probably heard that space is expanding in every direction at an accelerating rate. So, according to science, space is not just an empty box, it is active in some manner, and has some properties of it’s own.
Is Space Religious?
Next, let’s be careful and not assume in a simplistic manner that God=religion and Space=science, and that these are two entirely different subjects which have no relation with each other. Ok, maybe. But it’s not necessarily so just because that’s a common assumption, typically held by those who don’t give such matters much thought.
Is Space Intelligent?
At first it seems obvious space can’t be intelligent.What a goofy idea, right?
But wait, what does “intelligent” mean? Intelligence is a concept which is useful in comparing the abilities of different species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. The context for the concept of intelligence is actually incredibly small, almost non-existent. Such a tiny concept may very well have no relevance to a phenomena as immeasurably huge and pervasive as space. We should probably resist having a debate along the lines of “is space intelligent, yes or no?” given that on subjects the scale of space the most likely answer is that we have no idea what we’re talking about.
We’ve already established that God cannot exist in the mind, he is beyond our comprehension. So this “sensing” cannot be God, as that would mean God would be within our comprehension. We may *call* this sensing God, or impose our own conception of God on this sense, but this doesn’t reflect any truth out there in the world, it’s what we *impose* on the world. God could only be the meaning we impose on this sense.
You’re asking some big questions and I’ll be addressing them on the journey laid out in this Substack. Answers to come.
We haven't established that God can not exist in the mind. You've claimed that.
You write, "We may *call* this sensing God, or impose our own conception of God on this sense, but this doesn’t reflect any truth out there in the world"
Ok, that's an interesting claim. So prove it. Apply your own standards and methodology to your own claims.
For the record, I'm not interested in either promoting or debunking the ideas offered by various religions. I'm just attempting to understand and explain the largest cultural event in human history.
One theory is that many millions of people have sensed SOMETHING, but then they try to explain that in simplistic childlike terms involving cartoon characters etc. They use the only concepts and language they have access to.
It's reasonable for educated moderns to resist the cartoon character stories, but debunking the cartoons does not automatically equal it all being silly nonsense etc.
Imho....
“Any notion that such a tiny feature would be binding upon all of reality [reason], and thus any gods contained within, demonstrates how poorly developed such a feature really is.”
We’ve established it. If god cannot be contained in our power of Reason, then we cannot exist in a truth in mind. Belief it God would be entirely ungrounded and would have no rightful claim to truth, as “reason” would be unable to ground his belief.
A belief without reason would be like trying to walk without ground, just as we can’t walk without ground to stand on, we can’t justifiably believe without reason (although you’re free to belief whatever you want, I’m just saying what reason requires). See my next articles on “belief” and “truth” which will hopefully explicate this point further.