"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Asmodean]

...but the whole thought experiment is in fact stupid, unless you can demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

Seems to me it's a given that the God who, "in the beginning [of time] created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]," would be outside of that particular time-space-matter configuration.

No.

1. You are imbuing words with meaning which they do not necessarilly posess. Earth is a subset of matter. Heaven is, if defined as "that which is above ground", a subset of space. A beginning does not have to denote the beginning of time at all.

2. You can build a house and still live in it, be composed of the same kind of matter as it and be perfectly observable by it. A cheap metaphor, I know, but it follows the logic you have been pushing for quite some time now.

Now, rather than getting bogged down in some ridiculous semantc argument, would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain that your thought experiment is valid:

demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

A [weak] philosphical construct is not a proof of concept.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I guess I should define "why" in this context. There are two components to it: that a god could occupy dimensions other than spacetime and that it would, in the sense that the dimensions we can easly percieve are insufficent for such a creature.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

It's a hypothetical. Assume that you could, at one time, contemplate the full complexity of God. This is a thought experiment. Wouldn't you intuitively think that such complexity had been designed?  Of course you would! 

Obviously, to "contemplate the full complexity of God" I would have to have faculties that I don't currently possess -- faculties I frankly can't even imagine. Now since I can't even imagine the kind of faculties necessary for such comprehension, it would be silly for me to speculate on the kind of intuitions that those unimaginable faculties might cause to arise in someone so endowed.

Most mathematicians tell me that the number of positive integers, and the number of positive integers that are odd, is equal (because the one set can be mapped onto the other); maybe they're right; maybe they're not. I don't know. But I strongly suspect (as other mathematicians do) that the question is beyond our comprehension. I put your thought experiment in the same category.

God is more complex than the human brain or the guitar amp you built.

I think you're making the same kind of implicit assumptions with that statement as above. You're assuming that complexity in our minds and time-space-matter universe is the same kind of thing as complexity in God's domain and that the two can thus be compared. I'm not sure that's the case. Theologians for centuries have been telling us that God is simple, not complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity).

Your a priori presumption in your argument is that this level of complexity (amps and brains) requires a creator. You would presume that something exponentially more complex would also require a creator.

Just to be clear, my argument in this case could be boiled down to:

Major premise: I know that I have designed and constructed complex mechanisms like guitar amps.
Minor premise: The human body has many attributes in common with those complex mechanisms.
Conclusion: It is not unreasonable to believe that the human body was designed and constructed by somebody.

But I wasn't arguing the existence of God with my pictures of amps and bodies (see my next response). I was simply asking if the parallel was as obvious and compelling to others as it was with me. And I'm still surprised at how difficult it is to get a simple response to that query.

You can't apply a presumption to an amp or a brain and then not apply it when you get to God.

Sure I can -- because God is not a conclusion in my way of thinking, but a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (without proof) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." I've made this clear in numerous posts. I assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me; I don't try to prove the existence of God by any means because I don't think it's possible to do so; I think that's starting at the wrong end. I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.

Classic Christian theology says that God was not created - he is the uncreated creator. If something as complex as God was not created, then neither is it necessary for anything else to be created.

You're forgetting that Classic Christian theology also says that God is not complex, but simple. See above.

If you want to believe in God, that's fine. So do I. But don't base your argument on a logic that cannot be substantiated.

Again, I'm not arguing for the existence of God; I'm assuming the existence of God and seeing where that leads.

Furthermore, to say that "God is Design" is coming pretty close to pantheism - it appears to equate God with the forces of the cosmos.

I understand that such statements can be misunderstood. As when "God IS love" is taken to mean "Love is God." But I think it would be difficult for anyone to mistake me for a pantheist; that's been made clear on the numerous occasions where I've defined Theology as "the Study of God and His Works" (with all the specialized sciences as contributors to that overarching study).

[Magdalena]

...People like you have had it your own way ever since the first ancestor screamed in fear waking up from a dream. But no longer Gerry. Your mythological and superstitious ideas are going to wither and die because they are wrong...

I'm gonna have to agree with Tank...

[Gerry Rzeppa]

1. You are imbuing words with meaning which they do not necessarilly posess. Earth is a subset of matter. Heaven is, if defined as "that which is above ground", a subset of space. A beginning does not have to denote the beginning of time at all.

It's poetry, dude. Poetry. You've got to read it like it was written.

2. You can build a house and still live in it, be composed of the same kind of matter as it and be perfectly observable by it. A cheap metaphor, I know, but it follows the logic you have been pushing for quite some time now.

I don't know about your metaphor being cheap, but I don't think it's helpful. I can build a house because I have existence outside of and prior to the house. A more appropriate analogy for a God within a universe creating that universe would be a guy building his own body before that body existed; which is unimaginable. Hence the need for the Creator to be outside of and prior to His creations.

...would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain that your thought experiment is valid: demonstrate why a god would occupy dimensions other than spacetime.

See immediately above. A God who is part of a universe can't exist unless that universe first exists, and thus wouldn't be there to do the necessary creating.

[Asmodean]

I don't know about your metaphor being cheap, but I don't think it's helpful. I can build a house because I have existence outside of and prior to the house. A more appropriate analogy for a God within a universe creating that universe would be a guy building his own body before that body existed; which is unimaginable. Hence the need for the Creator to be outside of and prior to His creations.

No. You latched on to the wrong end of the metaphor fo starters. And then, we are not talking about the Universe. We are talking about spacetime and your claim that a god occupies more or other dimensions. Your analogy is no more appropriate than the one I provided in that regard.

...would you kindly do the following if you wish to maintain
See immediately above. A God who is part of a universe can't exist unless that universe first exists, and thus wouldn't be there to do the necessary creating.

No. You can not just make a presupposition that a god created the Universe, even if we assume for a moment that one did create this planet, or even this galaxy. Not without at the very least explaining the process of thir creation.

Secondly, a sytem that predates another can very well become a part of the newer system. Sewer networks and building foundations come to mind. Solar systems, if you want to scale things up a bit.

As I said, a weak philosophical construct does not constitute a successful proof of concept.

EDIT: I have a case of keyboard failure (I type a lot faster than it can process), so point out any incoherence that slips my proofreading.

[Tank]

Gerry you are a liar. You know full well that evolution theory is not in dispute, except by idiots and liars.

I do not know that. From my dictionary: "Idiot, noun: A person of subnormal intelligence; liar, noun: a person who tells an untruth with the intent to deceive." I'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied. Evolutionary theory is clearly disputed by lots of intelligent, well-informed people.

If you didn't know that the ToE is not 'a theory in crisis', consider yourself informed and your ignorance lifted. And the scientist you referred to are agenda driven idealogs and therefore cannot be trusted they put their delusions before their scientific professionalism. The may call themselves scientists but their delusions rule their output.

Michael Behe, that joke of a man! Even the university he worked for distanced themselves from his stupidity. He admitted that by his own definition of science that astrology would be considered scientific.

Transcript of Kitzmer v Dover page 11

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

A I'm sorry?

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

[Tank]

...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

[Siz]

I assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me; I don't try to prove the existence of God by any means because I don't think it's possible to do so; I think that's starting at the wrong end. I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.

Really?
Sincerely, truthfully?!

Didn't think so.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

And then, we are not talking about the Universe. We are talking about spacetime...

I don't find the concept of spacetime helpful. Space and time are two very different things to me, not to be confounded. As Edwin Bevan put it, "...this coupling together of Time and Space has been the cause of a good deal of confusion in thinking. Time and Space are not analogous, except in respect to a few of their characteristics -- such as that of being measurable. Time is unique. Time also, it is plain, belongs much more intimately to the life of the spirit than space. Spatial objects are around us, outside us; our feelings and thoughts have no spatial dimensions but they do have temporal succession. We can, I think, imagine a universe in which there was no space, but only a succession of feelings and emotions: we cannot imagine a universe in which these was no Time, that is to say, no [succession of] events."

...and your claim that a god occupies more or other dimensions. Your analogy is no more appropriate than the one I provided in that regard.

I think it is a good analogy. The creator of something (say, the builder of a house) typically has existence outside of, and prior to, the existence of the thing he is creating. This is the normal concept of creation, and what (I believe) is typically pictured by Christians everywhen and everywhere. How many spatial dimensions exist in God's domain, I of course don't know. Maybe, considering the importance of the Trinity in Christian thought, it is just three. But that's not the point of the Flatland analogy.

The Flatland analogy is about things beyond our experiences and capabilities and how they might appear to us if we were to get a glimpse of them crammed into our limited domain. It's a clue regarding why the God of the Bible may appear in one instance as a burning bush that isn't consumed, in another as someone hovering over wheels within wheels full of eyes, and in yet another as a Man who can walk on water and give sight to the blind.

No. You can not just make a presupposition that a god created the Universe, even if we assume for a moment that one did create this planet, or even this galaxy. Not without at the very least explaining the process of their creation.

Sure I can; people accept all sorts of things they can't explain. Exactly how do I move my fingers to type these words? I don't really know; it just sort of happens. So I accept it as a reality (even though I don't understand it), and move on. The God of the Bible, as I've said elsewhere, is not a conclusion for me, He's a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (though unproven) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." And we can choose any postulates we like.

Secondly, a system that predates another can very well become a part of the newer system. Sewer networks and building foundations come to mind. Solar systems, if you want to scale things up a bit.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the creator of a system who by definition must exist outside of, and prior to, the system he creates -- not mere parts of a larger assembly. Now that creator may later choose to "enter into" that system and thus become part of it (as a playwrite making a cameo appearance in his own play) -- but he still must exist first. (Christians believe this kind of thing happened in the Incarnation). Or he may even create the system out of pieces taken from himself (like a work of art made of toenail clippings) or even pieces still connected to himself (like a fancy hairdo) -- but the toenails and hairs must exist first. (Christians believe this kind of thing also -- "in Him we live and move and have our being," etc.)

But I fear we're talking past each other. Perhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.

[xSilverPhinx]

...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Wow Gerry. Your ignorance is obvious here. Now I'm so not sure whether you're incapable of grasping concepts or if you just don't want to.

You lost what little credibility you had and I agree that this has turned into a board game with a pigeon. I feel for you Gerry, as if I were at a funeral. 

[Gerry Rzeppa]

I assume that God exists, and see where that logically leads me... I also assume, in a different train of thought, that God does not exist and see where that logically leads me. Then I choose between the postulates (God, no God) based on the logical fruit that each postulate bears.

Really? Sincerely, truthfully?!

Yes. I described four of my reasons for choosing the creationist paradigm above; I'll repeat them here:

First, the evolutionary process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler. Specifically:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.

Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well. Downright depressing, in fact. Here's an example. This morning I received an email update from a Christian song site where some of my own songs are posted. It said:

"It started out as a little chorus that I sang to my children. Then we found out my father had cancer, our "adopted" son was shipped off to Iraq, and our youngest child and only daughter passed away - all within 3 months. I completed the song and we began to use it just before Papa started his treatments. He developed terrible nightmares due to the medication. One night he woke up in a cold sweat, panic stricken with his heart racing. This song came to his mind and he began to sing it! The reality of it struck him and he was able to chuckle, lay down and go back to sleep. The song literally pulled him through......us, too, I guess! Our church still requests it nearly every service. After all, it really DOESN'T matter what is on your plate, because with Jesus in your heart, EVERYTHING'S GONNA BE ALRIGHT!" I hope this song will bless all who hear it - feel free to pass it on and God bless you! Much Shalom, Rebecca"

I don't see where the evolutionary paradigm offers such people any comfort in times like those described above; and I certainly don't see how it could ever inspire the kind of song she's talking about. Here's a link to the song: http://4praise.com/cgi-bin/files/mp3/5668.mp3

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years. Again, from above:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person. Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!"

In short, the creationist paradigm is simple, familiar, intuitive, hopeful, and actually gets things done. The evolutionary paradigm is none of those things. So I choose the former.

[Eric V Arachnid]

In short, the creationist paradigm is simple, familiar, intuitive, hopeful, and actually gets things done. The evolutionary paradigm is none of those things. So I choose the former.

Evolution through natural selection may not be cosy and comforting but it does at least fit.
Creationism simple? it's got more patches on it than a boy scout field marshal.

[Siz]

I don't want to converse with you, dude, I just wanna tell you what I think then move on.

[Asmodean]

I don't find the concept of spacetime helpful. Space and time are two very different things to me, not to be confounded.

What they are to you has no bearing on what they actually are.

As Edwin Bevan put it, "...this coupling together of Time and Space has been the cause of a good deal of confusion in thinking. Time and Space are not analogous, except in respect to a few of their characteristics -- such as that of being measurable. Time is unique. Time also, it is plain, belongs much more intimately to the life of the spirit than space. Spatial objects are around us, outside us; our feelings and thoughts have no spatial dimensions but they do have temporal succession. We can, I think, imagine a universe in which there was no space, but only a succession of feelings and emotions: we cannot imagine a universe in which these was no Time, that is to say, no [succession of] events."

Bah! Time belongs where ever energy changes state. That happens on a much larger scale with inanimate objects, so that time vs life bit sounds like drivel to me. That's not unusual in philosophy, by the way. If you insist on quoting pople to try to make your point, I am generally prepared to accept prof. Stephen Hawking, prof. Lawrence Kraus or, for example, prof. Leonard Susskind as authorities on matters of physics of spacetime. You can try quoting those gentlemen to me.

If spacetime confuses you, that is your problem, not spacetime's.

The Flatland analogy is about things beyond our experiences and capabilities and how they might appear to us if we were to get a glimpse of them crammed into our limited domain.

Other dimensions are not.

It's a clue regarding why the God of the Bible may appear in one instance as a burning bush that isn't consumed, in another as someone hovering over wheels within wheels full of eyes, and in yet another as a Man who can walk on water and give sight to the blind.

Do you seriously find those tings even remotely impressive or possibly accurate? Beause the simplest explanation for a bush on fire is wood burns. Bullshit may very well accont for the rest. Religions are generally a product of unintelligent, uneducated, nasty societies and people living simple, yet often brutal lives. Those people are too unsophisticated to even fantasize about the actual complexity of the world around them, and so they fantasize about equally simple gods to explain what they see and therefore tend to trust. Thus, the bullshit of religion is born. Now would you not say this scenario is more likely than "divine significance" of a flammable object on fire?

Sure I can; people accept all sorts of things they can't explain. Exactly how do I move my fingers to type these words?

You really don't know? Well, that's beside the point. Yes, presuppose all you want, but few people of intellect will take you seriously if you just pull assumptions out of your ass.

The God of the Bible, as I've said elsewhere, is not a conclusion for me, He's a postulate: "a proposition that is accepted as true (though unproven) in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning." And we can choose any postulates we like.

Logical reasoning? You do know that logic can be perfectly sound, and yet dead wrong, yes? I postulate that your postulate is wrong for the aforementioned reason.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the creator of a system who by definition must exist outside of, and prior to, the system he creates -- not mere parts of a larger assembly.

Sorry, read several religious texts and that definition just. Wasn't. There. If you define something through some effort of philosophy or personal interpretation of an unverifiabe souce, it's definition may well be worthless. It is then up to you to build up a framework around it so it can support its own weigt.

But I fear we're talking past each other. Perhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.

A gas cloud collapses due to gravity and forms a new star. The disk of debris around it frms a system of planets and moons. The matter, its energy, gravity, etc predating the new solar system are still very much within it, even after having created the system.

EDIT: Still on the same faulty keyboard. Can not be bothered to right all the small flaws; the post is a bit too long for that.

[Crow]

Wow Gerry. Your ignorance is obvious here. Now I'm so not sure whether you're incapable of grasping concepts or if you just don't want to.

Davin clearly highlighted that this was the case multiple times in other Gerry threads. No different than any other moronic creationist trying to obfuscate their agenda by imitating the posturing of academia without actually having any of the learning or credentials to back it up. With any attempt to gain credibility highlighting how basic their understanding of different industries is that no professional would even take seriously and appearing as nothing more than a postulating cowboy. What's even worse and I haven't personally seen before is trying to gain credibility and authority by name dropping frauds, disreputable individuals and disgraced self proclaimed intellectuals that were disgraced specifically for the topic at hand.