h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

But unless we include some statement about the effects of sewage on tea or sugar, I don't think it can be included in our logical world. By adding sewage you create a situation not governed by the "sugar makes tea taste better" premise.

But what if we also have known as true "If r, than not q"?

We really have two premises here:

"Sewage makes tea worse." and "Sugar makes tea better."

So, if adding sewage is e and adding sugar is u, and taste better is b and taste worse is w, than:

If e, then w.
If u, than b.
If e&u, then ??? --- I'd think from what you said that ??? = b&w

Problem--b and w are opposites.


Can you explain what is going on here--the problem seems to exist in the logic itself and not just the language.

Athena. Many people suppose that immaterial things can exist in the material world. OK, they could be wrong. We could take abstractions like 'ideas' but that's a bit of a cheat. How about: minds, souls, spirits? This is where we come to the crunch of whether dualism can be correct.

What I meant to suggest is that time in our own universe is 'material time'. It is standard philosophical thinking that time (as we know it, Jim) requires change in order to exist/be coherent. I can dig that as 'material time'. Material time would require material change. Infinite time would require matter to be infinite in time. That is an actual infinite which isn't on.

But surely thinking entails change that is only incidentally changes of brain states and might not involve anything material. This brings us to another enormous debate concerning the relation between minds and brains. However, I think it permits us another angle on infinite time, if that time is characterised in terms of the immaterial. I don't think the KCA depends on something like this. It might be a line worth investigating, however.

toxx

<>

I don't think it is, so I assume minds to be a property of brains, like other abstractions, such as ideas. However, if we accept the "no ectoplasm" clause, which seems to be standard, then a mind does have a location--it is somehow associated with the brain required for its opperation.

<>

Certainly the thoughts of an immaterial God would involve only immaterial change. However, they do still consist of immaterial change (change in state of the mind). But since the God's only stimulation could come from the material universes of finite time, and the god is completely predictable, he can only have a finite number of thoughts. So his time is finite.

And Craig's conclusion violates your claim that God's psychology can be known:

"Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator."

If this God has a knowable psychology, he cannot be subject to causeless whims, such as one to stand or create a world.

Athena. You have, understandably for one not totally corrupted by philosophy, fudged the difference between 'if p, then q' and 'p makes q'. The first is a logical relation, the second is causal. That is the point I was trying to make to Noggin concerning some aspect of time, as I recall. It is something I'm sure he already knows.

In the real world, you can introduce as many other factors as you like. In science you have to consider them all, or make sure that they aren't there to screw up your experiment! In logic, you introduce one premise; say: "If u, then b", and you can't introduce anything else except tautologies, of which "If e, then w" isn't one. Consider a mathematical equation. "a+b=5". You aren't entitled just to assume that "a=3" and conclude that b=2. However, you can conclude that "a+b-1=4". (rule of subtracting 1 from both sides). Logic is like that.

toxx

OK. Well, the tea arguement is causual, so we have a different problem.

e and u have opposite results. If we imput both causes, what happens? Or does the whole system just break down?--perhaps they should be rephrased as "if only sewage/if only sugar is added".



Do you see my point about Craig's arguement for a personal creator contradicting your discription of one?

Why do I support it? Because, Fathom, your statement about the New Testament is sweeping, and incorrect. In the New Testament, I can think of *one* woman who could be called "evil", and her husband is in it with her! (Ananias and Sapphira...)
Oh, and Salome, I suppose, but then there's Herod in there as well, so, the same thing applies!

<>

But it doesn't - where did you get the idea that Christianity treats women like 'second-class citizens'? I have never experienced that at all, and from what I saw, the Catholic statement is more complex than you'd gather from a soundbite! Neither is it wholly objectionable.

Athena. I suggested that God doesn't have a psychology, but that His reasoning can be understood.



God's decision to create a world is based on the fact that He is perfectly good. A state of affairs with a world of beings with freewill is better than one without. Hence God decides to create such a world.

toxx

<< 'In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatised by society or penalised financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work schedule.'>>

I am wholly in favour of that statement, Andrew! A friend of mine has a son with a disability and a mother with Alzheimer's, but because she is divorced, Social Welfare want her to "go out to work" and spare the whining taxpayer. Of course, she would have to get the Health Department to provide care for her mother and son, so who exactly would benefit? That happens all over the place, BTW.

<<"And what about all those diseases that were seen as punishments from God?">>

They were? By whom, and when?

<>

It would be, if anyone ever claimed that to be true... In fact, I have heard that point of view, from some New Agey type reincarnationists, and a woman who was a naturopath claimed that my mother had died of polymyositis, because of her "bad mental attitude" but I have never heard such sh1te from anyone in any "Triple-O" religion!

Athena. <...perhaps they should be rephrased as "if only sewage/if only sugar is added".> Yup, you're there. The premise is false in logical terms, even though it sounds plausible in real-world terms.



It's kinda late here and I've lost track of that one. Would you mind spelling it out again? Or maybe it's that God, as a person, can choose to act or not. Hey, note that this is subtly different from choosing 'when' to act.

toxx

<>

By "his" in this sentence, I take it you mean God... So where did you come by *that* sweeping assertion? I take it you don't believe in God, except for someone to blame, for what exactly, I am not clear!

"I take it you don't believe in God, except for someone to blame, for what exactly, I am not clear!"

Perhaps for the evil in the world which he could cure, but doesn't. Even if he can't interfere with human behavior because of free will, surely he stop a few diseases. THere are plenty of natural disasters that *could* be stopped.

"<< 'In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatised by society or penalised financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work schedule.'>>"

"I am wholly in favour of that statement, Andrew! A friend of mine has a son with a disability and a mother with Alzheimer's, but because she is divorced, Social Welfare want her to "go out to work" and spare the whining taxpayer. Of course, she would have to get the Health Department to provide care for her mother and son, so who exactly would benefit? That happens all over the place, BTW."

I think the objection is the the assumption that women must work in the household, it is only a matter of whether they do so all the time or also choose to work outside the home. If you read it carefully, I think that is the implication of the Grand Inquizator's statement.

"<>"

"But it doesn't - where did you get the idea that Christianity treats women like 'second-class citizens'? I have never experienced that at all, and from what I saw, the Catholic statement is more complex than you'd gather from a soundbite! Neither is it wholly objectionable. "

Well, first of all, I was responding to a person who directly said it does and was pointing out why followers of ANY religion that treats them as second-class citizens might be willing to accept that treatment. As for your claim that Christianity doesn't treat women as second-class citizens, that depends on which sect you're talking about. Maybe your sect doesn't, but there is a lot of variation. I'm sure you can find the Old Testament quotes that treat women as less important than men and, while you may say that the Old Testament isn't scripture, many of your fellow Christians, such as the author of the letter from the Vatican, seem to believe it is. And let me see--women can't be clergy in many sects--such as Catholocism. Since the clergy make the final descisions about what the church's view is, women have no control over these matters and men do.

If you can't see this, you're either blind or willfully not looking at what you don't want to see.

Adelaide,

I think it's reasonably obvious that I don't believe in god. As for someone to blame, I may blame certain religious leaders for atrocities carried out in the name of their own particular deity but it would be illogical for me to blame a non-existent entity myself, would it not?

I should point out that the 'diseases as a punishment from god' quote came from someone else and I was responding to that with a faintly sarcastic comment using cystic fibrosis as an example.


Now, let me quote this interesting passage again:

" 'In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatised by society or penalised financially, while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so with an appropriate work schedule."

I think the key word in there is "also". There is something implicit in this statement that women should devote their time to the household but some women may wish to work AS WELL. Not 'instead' but 'as well'.

I accept that "however screwed up his mind is" was pejorative and if you found that offensive then I'm sorry.

F

Toxxin,

I'm struggling with this concept of an immaterial god.

If god is not composed of material, however alien a material (compared to our own experience) that might be, then what is he composed of? And where did this 'immaterial' material come from? If he is composed of nothing, what is the difference between something which is composed of nothing and something which doesn't exist?

F