Vatican says aliens could exist

[Kaylia]

Ill say it again:
So your saying your god doesnt know the future?

And secondly, you dont get to "assume" that god exists in all your logical arguments. Thats like saying "lets have a debate, but assume Im right lol".

We are arguing about the definition of an omniscient god. If you don't want to accept the concept of god, there is no point debating about the "omniscient" part in the first place. Your argument involved a determinist universe, which is not something you can postulate in this scenario since it goes against the premise itself.

The point I was trying to make when I replied to Senoska is that certain premises could allow an omniscient God, and a free will at the same time. Those 2 concepts are contradictory only when there is absolute determinism.



To answer your question about the scenario I proposed, I would say that he as a good idea where the universe is going, but the choice itself is left to people's free will, which could be considered to be a random element. Can omniscience exist with true randomness? Yes it can. The definition of omniscience is "knows everything that can be known", and randomness can't be known. God's infinite knowledge would be similar to a chess players who can see every possible outcomes, the board representing the universe.

Can you yield that definition of and infinite uncontradicting god?

A god that is everything. A god at the beginning of everything..etc. Conscious being or not, tell me where the contradiction is.

Since you seem to be a big fan of determinism, can you tell me how you answer the "first cause" problem? If the world is infinite, determinism can't exist.

[Blarg]

Well what about a god that knows who you are at the deepest levels so well that he can 'guess' what you will do with 99.9999999999% accuracy. If I create something I should have a pretty damn good idea of how it will work in different situations. Basically who you are was fine tuned to a certain way by god upon your creation in way that while you may surprise god 1 time out of a google he will know what you will do the rest of the time.

[Neosutra]

If the world is infinite.. determinism cant exist?

The universe contains a finite amount of matter/energy. Finite.

As for the first cause problem, study string theory, expansion theory, quantum physics, and big bang cosmology before you dismiss it as "unknowable".

And your statement Kaylia of "god is everything" is in itself a contradiction. You say you worship the universe itself(i.e. if your god IS everything, you basically worship the dirt, the air, the sky, the stars, your basically a pagan right?). You cannot yield a definition for an infinite god that isnt self contradicting.

In the end you have to concede that you just cant define your god. In which you have to admit you dont know what you believe(or you know that you believe something, your just not sure what it is... >.>).

[Kaylia]

If the world is infinite.. determinism cant exist?

The universe contains a finite amount of matter/energy. Finite.

As for the first cause problem, study string theory, expansion theory, quantum physics, and big bang cosmology before you dismiss it as "unknowable".

Studying it is what I'm doing. I'm completing a physics major and hoping to continue with a master degree in theoritical physics. It's not like I'm totally ignorant about those topics.

I think you missed my point. I never said you could not find the "next cause", I'm saying you won't find a causeless cause. Why is there 6 lepton, 6 quarks? Why every particles have a particular mass? Why the universe exists, or what caused the big bang? If your answer is "because it's like this", you're basically using the same argument most people use to define God. If it's not valid for them, it's not valid for you. I know there is physicians who don't mind that, but I think it goes against science itself to say something like this.

Also, the theory you mentioned don't explain the causes of those phenomena, they simply describe them. String theory for example has many flaws. It works because they make it works mathematically, but you could compare it to people trying to explain how the sun revolved around the earth 500 years ago. Their model worked pretty damn well and would describe the position of the Sun and planets accurately, but it wasn't a good description.

The whole point of determism is to predict everything. If something has no cause, you won't be able to find an explanation, and without an explanation, you can only describe certains aspect. Philosophical concept such as the soul are usually said to transcend time. If there is a beginning, then the soul would come right before it and modify the original parameter. (This last line was an answer to the first argument concerning free will vs determinism).

And your statement Kaylia of "god is everything" is in itself a contradiction. You say you worship the universe itself(i.e. if your god IS everything, you basically worship the dirt, the air, the sky, the stars, your basically a pagan right?). You cannot yield a definition for an infinite god that isnt self contradicting.

You're confusing both arguments. The one I had with you concerned free will and omnisciences in a setup similar to what Christian believe in. It has nothing to do with my beliefs. The one you quoted later was an answer's to Kaelen's post who said God is illogical in every scenarios. I'm saying it can be problemetic at time, but not always.


When I say god in this context, I'm talking about a being, conscious or not, that has something to do with the creation of our universe (and more if there is more). The "first cause" if it's finite, or the equivalent if it's infinite. It's not something I workship, it's not something I fear, it's simply one possible answer to explain the existence of this world. You can add more conditions and specifications to this definition like religions do, but they are not needed.

To be sincere, I'm completly missing the contradiction in your quote. Could you explains it in a more formal way using those term
[edited version. woozie has the old one in his quote]
set A = god
A >= universe
set B = mankind
B is a subset of A
B can't be equals to A, since there is more than B in A.
Feel free to add any premises, because that's probably where you see a contradiction

When I said that God has to be defined at the infinity, I was talking on the premise that the world is infinite. God can't be a part of this world, or he wouldn't be a god. That's why you have to make him at least equal to the whole universe

In the end you have to concede that you just cant define your god. In which you have to admit you dont know what you believe(or you know that you believe something, your just not sure what it is... >.>).

What I believe in is a probability that god exist, and an equal or smaller probability that he is conscious. I say probability because no logical argument is ever going to demonstrate that god does in fact exist, or doesn't exist.

Because of this, I'm going to argue with people who says "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" because only a flawed argument could eliminate one of the two possibilities.


[edit]
Took me 3h to write this...I hope it was at least readable. The 3rd part is the only one I care about if you don't want to read or reply this posts. Rest is just a big mental exercice to push my arguments as far as I can.

[Woozie]

To be sincere, I'm completly missing the contradiction in your quote. Could you explains it in a more formal way using those term
A= God B=universe C= us
B is a subset of A, C is a subset of B

I'm assuming that in your view, set A would only contain one element, that being God, right? There's nothing else other than God that can be considered God, right? Because if that's the case, then A only has two subsets; the empty set and the set A itself. Assuming the universe isn't the empty set (for obvious reasons) then we get B = A, meaning the universe IS God. Then the same logic could be used to prove that us = God. Meaning all of us are God.

Or am I just interpreting this wrong? It's 4am and I'm a little drugged up off of my sleeping pills so I'm not thinking clearly.

I think this is just a matter of me not understanding what these sets mean. Like when B = Universe, does that mean the one object (that being the universe) IS B? I'm assuming B would be the set containing the universe, and the universe is an element of B. In this case, it makes no sense to assume that B is infinite (even if the universe is infinite in time and/or space).

If B is not the set containing the Universe, but instead is the universe itself, then how is B even a set? Basically, what I'm asking is, how would you describe the elements of A and the elements of B? Once I'm sure about the answer to this last question, I'll be better able to understand your point.

[Beckwin]

That's an interesting post. But something has kinda jumped out at me:

A= God B=universe C= us
B is a subset of A, C is a subset of B.
If B is infinite, then A has to be infinite is well.

So you define God as infinite. Makes sense I guess. But-

Philosophical concept such as the soul are usually said to transcend time. If there is a beginning, then the soul would come right before it and modify the original parameter.

I feel like this idea implies that we too are infinite. Like God. And to my knowledge, you can't say infinity is greater than infinity, or infinity is less than infinity. Either you're saying that we are God, which is I guess a potent humanist view and a metaphysical one as well, yet at the same time kinda undermines the idea of a God in the first place making it pretty atheist -OR- you're saying that God subtracts something from us or exerts a control in some way to maintain superiority, which again I think brings us back to a lack of free will and a definition of God based on what doesn't exist.

[Woozie]

And to my knowledge, you can't say infinity is greater than infinity, or infinity is less than infinity.

Actually, that's wrong. Not all infinities are created equal. For example, two sets can both have an infinite number of elements, yet one set can be larger than the other. There's a famous proof of this statement, but I can't remember what it's called.

[Kaylia]

I started with proposition, than changed them to set before posting. I probably got lost inbetween. I will rewrite that part tomorrow, because I can't think clearly either at 4am.

[edit]
set A = god >= universe
set B = mankind
B is a subset of A
B can't be equals to A, since there is more than us in A.

[Beckwin]

See this is why qualifying statements is awesome, because my knowledge of mathematics definitely doesn't go that far XD

still, on the premise that God created the deliberately lesser human infinity maintains a lack of true free will; we've been consciously limited in some regard.

[Blarg]

And to my knowledge, you can't say infinity is greater than infinity, or infinity is less than infinity.

Actually, that's wrong. Not all infinities are created equal. For example, two sets can both have an infinite number of elements, yet one set can be larger than the other. There's a famous proof of this statement, but I can't remember what it's called.

I always thought this was the case but I was afraid to say it cause I was scared of being completely wrong and looking dumb. Not scared to say in this topic but just in general when things like that come up.

[Kaylia]

I feel like this idea implies that we too are infinite. Like God. And to my knowledge, you can't say infinity is greater than infinity, or infinity is less than infinity. Either you're saying that we are God, which is I guess a potent humanist view and a metaphysical one as well, yet at the same time kinda undermines the idea of a God in the first place making it pretty atheist -OR- you're saying that God subtracts something from us or exerts a control in some way to maintain superiority, which again I think brings us back to a lack of free will and a definition of God based on what doesn't exist.

In a non determinist universe with souls and God (something similar to Christhian), I would say that both concept have to be similar to works. Free will basically mean you're not bound by the matter, and such statement imply your being is something above the universe. From our standpoint, something greater than the world/universe has to be infinite

How you define the rest in this context is up to you, but you could say that God's created lesser copy of himself, adding more specimen to the set, that he is a greater infinite (another set above)..etc. Not sure if those 2 examples works with free will, but I'm too tired to think.

In the universe I was proposing earlier, human would be a part God, and not God himself. A subset is not a set, but an interval/dimension within the set.

[Kaylia]

This topic should be locked after midnight, and reopened in the morning. Arguing at this time of the day is not good for the brain.

See this is why qualifying statements is awesome, because my knowledge of mathematics definitely doesn't go that far XD

still, on the premise that God created the deliberately lesser human infinity maintains a lack of true free will; we've been consciously limited in some regard.

Qualifying statement is indeed awesome. Can't always be right, and you need a backdoor to save your face when you mess up your argument.

Incidently, this is why I love mathematics so much. You don't waste time on the semantics and pay more attention to the logic instead. It's easier to find a flaws this way (took Woozie 30sec to find a mistake in my post), and you don't get lost in circular argument.

[Neosutra]

Good grief, all this debate while I was asleep Q.Q

But basically Kaylia I find it facinating that youve overlooked one thing:

You say god > universe. I.E. god greater/more powerful/more infinite than the universe.

Assume that the universe contains a finite amount of matter/energy X.

Your entire argument is that you cant concieve of how X could have come to exist, so it must have been created by Y, an even LARGER amount of matter/energy, and this time, it has sentience.

Your dismissing the likelyhood of X existing via a circular argument on causality(when you know there are theories to explain it or suggest possible explainations), and putting in the original cause as an even greater and more complex value than X... The only difference is you say Y cannot be questioned/understood.

Thats like looking at a 4 ton weight and an 8 ton weight next to each other, and saying "its impossible for me to pick up the 4 ton weight, so I must be able to pick up the 8 ton weight". If you are really attempting to argue causality, then your arguing against theism, not for it.

[Kaylia]

Technically, I covered that point when I said God as to be at least equal or greater than the universe. If the universe has a finite amount of energy, then God need to be greater than that finite amount, or you would create a contradiction (you could find something greater than god, or a cause to God). If the universe is infinite, then God has to be at least equal or greater than that infinite.

I never said I could make the demonstration that God can exist. I can however make the demonstration that you can establish the concept of God without creating a contradiction with the definition . If I believe there is a probability that God can exists, I've to believe that there is a probability that God does not in exist. And yes, I know this is kinda trivial, but it's the only position I can take and defend.



The circular universe argument is a good one but I don't think it works with determism. (always remind me of the episode where Homer Simpsons talk to Hawking about a donut shaped universe),
A -> B -> C -> A
If I take a measurement on A to predict B, I have to interact with it, and because of that, B will be modified, C will be modified, and A will be modified again, making your measurement wrong. Everything would have a cause, but nothing can be defined.

Then there is the problem, "why such universe appeared". It imply that there is chaos on a level above, and that chaos can't be "nothing".

Your dismissing the likelyhood of X existing via a circular argument on causality(when you know there are theories to explain it or suggest possible explainations), and putting in the original cause as an even greater and more complex value than X... The only difference is you say Y cannot be questioned/understood.

Thats like looking at a 4 ton weight and an 8 ton weight next to each other, and saying "its impossible for me to pick up the 4 ton weight, so I must be able to pick up the 8 ton weight". If you are really attempting to argue causality, then your arguing against theism, not for it.

If God is located at the infinity, you wouldn't be able to understand/explain it from our frame of reference. You can only propose it as an explanation.

[Neosutra]

The universe is not infinite.

You dont get to assume infinity then associate your concept of god with a greater version of that.... which does -nothing- for your logical case but allow you to say "its beyond our understanding".

You cause more problems with an infinite god than a finite one. You have just decided to ignore those logical problems, and you still havent developed a non contradicting definition of an existing infinite god.

If your saying you cant know anything about your god, then your stating your an agnostic at best.

[Woozie]

The universe is not infinite.

Not saying I disagree, but that statement is up for much, much, MUCH debate.

[Neosutra]

The universe is not infinite.

Not saying I disagree, but that statement is up for much, much, MUCH debate.

I meant infinite in quantitative mass/energy, not the entirety of what came before it or what dimensions lay beyond it.

I would cover my bases to more accurately say "Our space time universe is finite in mass/energy".

And before kaylia responds with "well my gods exists in those other dimensions", we are associating anything that reacts with this physical universe as part of that mass/energy total as they would have attributing forces with them.

[Kaylia]

The universe is not infinite.

You dont get to assume infinity then associate your concept of god with a greater version of that.... which does -nothing- for your logical case but allow you to say "its beyond our understanding".

You cause more problems with an infinite god than a finite one. You have just decided to ignore those logical problems, and you still havent developed a non contradicting definition of an existing infinite god.

If your saying you cant know anything about your god, then your stating your an agnostic at best.

We arent talking about the same thing. You're talking about the geometric shape of our physical universe and energy, I'm talking about our physical universe including its cause, and the cause of that cause. Saying the universe is finite in every aspect is taking a huge guess, and there is no scientifical evidence of it either. If you can find me an evidence that our physical universe has no cause, do the world a favor and tell us.

Which logical problem an infinite God create? You repeated this many times, but I don't see where the contradiction is.


And who said my position was not agnostic? That's where I would place it as well.

[Neosutra]

The universe is not infinite.

You dont get to assume infinity then associate your concept of god with a greater version of that.... which does -nothing- for your logical case but allow you to say "its beyond our understanding".

You cause more problems with an infinite god than a finite one. You have just decided to ignore those logical problems, and you still havent developed a non contradicting definition of an existing infinite god.

If your saying you cant know anything about your god, then your stating your an agnostic at best.

We arent talking about the same thing. You're talking about the geometric shape of our physical universe and energy, I'm talking about our physical universe including its cause, and the cause of that cause. Saying the universe is finite in every aspect is taking a huge guess, and there is no scientifical evidence of it either. If you can find me an evidence that our physical universe has no cause, do the world a favor and tell us.

Which logical problem an infinite God create? You repeated this many times, but I don't see where the contradiction is.


And who said my position was not agnostic? That's where I would place it as well.

Our universe is not defined as containing the mass/energy of whatever caused it, it is a defined as all the matter/energy that came from the big bang. But thats not to say there isnt much much more beyond our own universe (multideminsion/different space-times, etc). Are you saying your defined god created all those causes too? Or do you beleive there is a set "beginning" somwhere where he/she was the original cause? And what caused him? Do you not find it a bit vain that a being capable of creating ALL the matter in the universe would occupy themselves with some rotting eco-matter on one of the rocks gradually drifting into yet another gas ball, AND have the same personal/emotional flaws/feelings as one of the species on that planet orbiting that gas ball? (One of the gazillion billion that are out there in the gazillion billion galaxies.)

And the logical flaws of defining an infinite god have been touched on multiple times in the last 2 pages of this thread.

[Kaylia]

And there is nothing I didn't address. That's why I'm asking you to put it in a more formal way.

The argument in your previous post is ridiculous, because you use your definition of what is bad to explains why a sentient God can't exist. First of all, God is the being who created the universe, why does it matter if there is rotting biomatter or not in it? You can have the concept of God without giving human any importance. Secondly, what's wrong with rotting biomatter?

On topic..or not, interesting discovery about the barionic matter between galaxy.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/81c6b13a ... 7bdd6.html