Paradox of Nothingness short version

[Alumno deVerum]

If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being. But is the world logical? I don't know. But I must assume it is because I can only think logically and it appears to behave logically and that is all the evidence I have to go on. And if it is that means it can be explained.

Assuming the world is logical it seems to me there are two and only two possibilites here; 1- the universe can explain itself because that reason for being is intrinsic to it. 2-the universe is contingent on something else that has a logical reason for being intrinsic to it.

Eternity is a fact I have no problem with but just pushing "causes" back in time (or even outside of time for that matter) one after another without end seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. It is in my opinion nothing more than a linear version of a circular argument. The system may go back forever but what explains the system itself? Why should it exist at all?

Now do I have any reason to believe the universe can explain itself? Well what is the universe? Science tells me it is an energy field that exists in a continuum, formed in the big bang, that curves in various places and in various degrees. The greater the curvature the greater the energy. Also energy, according to Einstein, is equivilent to matter. There is an argument that presents itself here. If the outward expansion of the universe exactly balances the force of gravity trying to pull it all back in then the curvature of the universe as a whole would be zero. So matter then would also be equal to zero or nothing. That is the universe just popped into being like a virtual particle out of the void because of the inherent uncertainty arising from quantum physics.

This argument attempts to make a connection between something and nothing (if matter is just a form of energy it, too, is equivalent to zero or nothing) but in my opinion it actually fails because it uses the term zero (0) incorrectly.

The fallacy here, it seems to me, is that the argument equates zero meaning "nothing" with zero meaning "no difference". In other words it is ambiguous. I could put an ounce of gold in each pan of a balance scale and it would indidcate zero meaning no difference but I would still have two ounces of gold.

Zero meaning nothing is not the same. You can not divide zero and get any answer other than zero. Half of nothing is still nothing. And since complexity seems to arise from simplicity not the other way around and this seems to be the simplest possible description of the universe (half the energy,gravity, is positive and attractive and goes this way- the other half, the force of the outward expansion, is negative and repulsive and goes the opposite way) I have no reason to assume there is any intrinsic reason for being to be found materially.

Besides even virtual particles seem to require an infusion of pre-existing energy in order to become stable and thus "real" and where did that come from? It appears for uncertainty to explain anything you must first have something to be uncertain about.

In fact the Polish mathematician Jacob Bronowski, author of the book The Ascent Of Man, found the term "uncertainty" so misleading he proposed using the word "tolerences" instead. After all that there are 36 possible outcomes on a roll of two 6 sided dice is certain it is only the actual value that comes up on any specific toss that is unpredictible. Our universe may be the same. Uncertainty may indeed have played a role in its formation and the way it turned out but where did the dice come from? Why is there uncertainty about nothing?

Now again asking, "How can something come from nothing?" may be the wrong question. For the time being we could rephrase it and ask why is there something instead of nothing? Or what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?

If the world is logical then it is subject to the rules of logic. Terms in a sentence are qualified by the copula using a form of the words is or is not. By applying the words is not to the concept of "being" as a whole you will get a non-arbitrary logical definition of nothingness as "no being" which, since it applies to the concept as a whole, is absolute..

Now here is where the contradiction arises. Ideas are not concrete things but that does not mean they are not something. I can distinguish between a 9 which is an odd number and a square and an 8 which is an even number and not a square. They have different properties and are therefore things in their own right as concepts. But concepts seem to require a mind to exist. That is they are contingent on an observer.

The example I use are stones and coins. I can hold 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold in my hand? I can sense no other property they have in common other than they are physical but changing the quantity doesn't seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group. So the number itself is not intrinsic to either group. I can understand the number 9 but I can not point to anything in nature and say this is the number 9 by itself. I can only think about it.

Nothingness is likewise a concept. After all we are thinking about it now. But if it is a concept then nothingness is not nothing. That is a paradox and in logic paradoxes can not exist. What happens when an irresistible force collides with an immovable object? An inconceivable event of course. Paradoxes must be dismissed as inconceivable and nothingness is a paradox therefore I must conclude a "state of nothingness" can not exist. Just saying "non-existence exists" is absurd. The only way to avoid a paradox is to have a state of existence instead of non-existence.

Absolute nothingness is to my mind an impossibility. Absolute means just that. Absolute. No properties at all. Not even potential. That means it can not even be thought of as there would literally be nothing to think about (and no one to think it anyway). But, again, since we are thinking about it nothingness can not be absolute. Nothingness is the only thing we can think of in completely negative terms except for the fact it can be thought of.

Also in logic things must follow or you have a non-sequiter. In the syllogism itself it is the middle term that unites the major and minor premises and leads to a conclusion. In life it is the DNA passed from one generation to the next that permits the evolution of species. And in pool it is the energy transmitted from the stick to the balls that allows the game to be played.

So, following from the definitions just established, whatever that fundemental state is it must also be a concept as that is the only thing being and nothingness have in common. That is, to be clear, the concept of nothingness exists but is self-contradictory and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable and non-contradictory. This is not an assertion anything came from absolute nothingness which I hope to have shown I have no reason to believe is possible. And because concepts must be observed by a mind that fundemental concept must be self-referential as there is nothing else to see it. That means it can say I AM, which is the same self-referential foundation of the mind we all share, and thus hold Itself in existence. Therefore it is a self aware observer and since it is fundemantal it is prime. Therfore it is the Prime Observer.

Does this match what I see in the world? Yes. Einstein showed that matter is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger then showed that energy can be manifested as a wave. Lastly Max Born showed that waves are just probability distributions which are mathematical in nature and mathematics is just the logical organization of numbers which are concepts.

Some materialists argue that numbers are just manifestations of processes in the brain we impose upon the world. But I have no reason to accept that either because it too is a circular argument. You can't just assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. If the universe and the things in it are basically concept then so is the brain. The brain is an organ made of tissue composed of cells built from organelles fashioned out of atoms which are particles made of energy...

A better tactic I think would be to counter the argument by saying it must be wrong because it holds paradoxes can not exist yet we see paradoxes all around us especially in physics. For example quantum theory says particles are also waves isn't that a paradox? Maybe. Maybe not. To know for sure that was a true paradox and not an illusion that results from our limited experiance we would have to have a complete theory of everything. But we don't. So we must regard any theory that asserts anything paradoxical as incomplete which physics is. In fact there are theories that do seem to suggest wave/particle duality is an illusion (Julian Barbour's quantum state theory of the universe for instance.)

Asserting God as a solution to a problem is called the argument from incredulity. The trouble with it is that answer does not follow from the problem to be solved. Ancient people couldn't explain life so God must have created it. I don't think I've done that here. The conclusion that there must be a "Prime Observer" follows directly from the premises. It is not something I just threw in to fill some "gap". In fact as I look back on it I don't see how I could come to any other reasonable conclusion"

[Alumno deVerum]

The Non-creator God

One of the most common questions asked of Deists who doubt divine intervention is how can a God incapable of interferring in the world "create" that same world? The short answer is God doesn't "create" the world.

This does not mean the world is not contingent on God. I have written before why I think a Deistic God probably exists so I won't go over it again here but I will elaborate a little on why I think it unnecessary to think of God as an active "creator".

I call myself a "natural idealist" because I think the world is fundamentally concept. This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world. Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter is just a form of energy. Then Erwin Schrodinger showed energy is manifested as a wave. Finally Max Born proved that waves are just how mathematics distributes probabilities.

If the universe is nothing more than probability waves manifested as space/time then it could "precipitate" naturally out of what I call the "Prime Observer". Utilizing a technique first developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier complex ideas may be produced by adding together many different frequency waves making one wave with a distinctive shape. If all possible waveforms, positive and negative, are added together the resulting “shape” would be a single flat line (not no line).

As the source of all being the Prime Observer then could be thought of as a perfectly smooth self-referential concept analogous to a sphere (remember this is just a device to help us think about something far beyond our experiance). God, then, would be the simplest possible concept but contain within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Imagine a perfect sphere. "Ripples" could emerge soley by chance on the surface of such an object simply because it is possible for them to. As long as they don't occur simultaneously and cancel out such probability waves may arise unprompted. If the crest of a wave equals its trough then there is no net difference in the overall geometry of that sphere. That is there is no change in it as a whole.

Applying this to the world we see around us we could say any combination of waveforms that don't cancel out could spontaneously emerge (as long as they are balanced) simply because that which we call "God" is aware of them. Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don't result in contradiction. Thus since all possibilities are already incorporated within It God does not need to "cause" anything. As long as the chance of them occurring does not equal zero they will happen all by themselves. This has the potential of solving several problems among them:

1- It shows how God can be the source of all being and remain immutable.

2- It could explain why our universe is predominately matter by saying we could have a sister universe that is mostly anti-matter (if the world is contingent on God then God must be able to explain the physical properties of the world).

3- Why the world seems designed for life by holding all possible worlds may emerge including those that are barren and we just happen to be in one of the few that has physical laws that allow the formation of planets that can support life. Kurt Godel pointed out the philosophical difficulties of mathematical descriptions of the world based on axioms. Why these rules? Why not others? May be those questions can simply be avoided if all non-contradictory axiomatic models, manifested as universes, are possible.

4- If Deism is true why would God would abandon It's creation? The world was not "created" therefore it was not "abandoned". You can't blame the evils in the world on God.

5- If God exists then why does It exist? God exists in order to avoid the "paradox of nothingness" and holds Itself in existence because It is self referential thus allowing God to say "I AM" the same foundation of the self we all share.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

For a more complete explanation of this form of Deism please check this link:

http://dynamicdeism.org/forum/phpBB2...pic.php?t=1802

[Cuddles]

If the world is fundamentally logical then it must have a logical reason for being.

Nope.

[Jocky]

Alumno, this theoretical flatline "God" you postulate: do you think it can actually do anything - and if so, what?

[vbloke]

Nope.

*applause*

[ergry]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.


Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP society.

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?


ergry

[Mongrel]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

We can't disprove to 100%, logical arguments tend to fall over when trying to prove a negative, but we can say confidently Evidence points to a near certainty that there isn't a greater being

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

This sounds like it's leading to Pascal's Wager

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.

If you have to work that hard to 're-image' deities don't you think it shows a fundamental flaw in the belief to begin with? Watch Dogma for a parody example

Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.

If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP society.

Which version of Buddhism? As for "skeptic Buddhists", I can't answer for CSICOP but I know of a few over at the JREF boards

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?

What about it? Does it make a difference if he's a skeptic and an atheist? What if they're non-skeptical and atheist?

[Admin]

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

I think this is the key to the question of God's existence.

There is absolutely no way at all of examining the claim so that renders any such claim or counter-claim meaningless.

I think that it was around the time of Thomas Aquinas that God was finally promoted (relegated?) to the position of a truly supernatural being. In other words, God is not only unknown to Man but unknowable by Man.

[ergry]

Question 1. This is UK Skeptics, why not UK Sceptics? -- because I would imagine that sceptics would be the spelling used if the founders are British nationals.

Question 2. Do we have a tally of members here as regards the lands from where they are transmitting their messages?

I asked these questions of the administration by email using the contact us link; but they have not yet answered me...

=======================

I asked certain questions in my first message here which are really invitations to members here to react so that I could see whether other people have similar opinions.

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.


Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

If I may, I like to bring in the query from people here whether a skeptic can find Buddhism consistent with his skepticism, as skepticism is understood here or better still among the proponents of skepticism in the CSICOP society.

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?

Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

-------------------------------

Thanks, gentlemen, for your reactions, but I notice that there is emotionalism in the following text from Mongrel:

Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.

I might be mistaken however about the emotional mood of that text; in which case please ignore my impression.


About atheistic Buddhists who are skeptics, I am just curious how their being skeptics can be consistent with their embrace of Buddhism.

This brings in their protestation about the kind of Buddhism that is being understood.

But this question is a digression somewhat from the real topic of the present thread which is basically about proving or disproving the existence of God.

My own position is that in the last analysis, reason cannot get to prove either way in regard to God's existence; of course we can get into all kinds of qualifications and reservations on either side of the conundrum.

But since God is already a fact in human history which is the only history that should ultimately be of concern to humans and humans only, humans might as well study the advantages and disadvantages of the belief in God, and enhance the advantages while diminishing the disadvantages to nil as soon as possible.

What about myself? That is what I am doing for myself, maximizing the advantages of belief in God and minimizing the disadvantages -- and finding out whether other humans might share my kind of mindset.

I could also start with the disadvantages instead of the advantages, and drum on the disadvantages; but that is not to all appearances the psychology of humans, namely, that their psyche longs for a belief in God; so, better we work to enhance the advantages while doing away with the disadvantages -- or achieve the best compromise for all humans.

ergry

[Mongrel]

Question 1. This is UK Skeptics, why not UK Sceptics? -- because I would imagine that sceptics would be the spelling used if the founders are British nationals.

I believe that John Jackson chose the Skeptics spelling as it would get more hits.

Thanks, gentlemen, for your reactions, but I notice that there is emotionalism in the following text from Mongrel:

Rubbish - Most people come to Atheism after thinking about why they're religious and the tenets of their particular religion. Granted a small minority use atheism as 'rebellion' (far less over here than in the US I reckon) but even that can lead to thinking about it.

I might be mistaken however about the emotional mood of that text; in which case please ignore my impression.

So I'm a normal human being,with emotions, defending my point of view I'm emotional - OK I put my hand up to that one. But to then say I put my point across with emotion (mildly pissy in this case) therefore Atheist = emotional decision is a logic flaw of the most absurd order. (Association fallacy?)

But this question is a digression somewhat from the real topic of the present thread which is basically about proving or disproving the existence of God.

This brings in their protestation about the kind of Buddhism that is being understood.

You asked a question, I asked for clarification of a term, call me funny like that but I like to answer questions as accurately as possible. As for the original question there's no reliable evidence for God\s and it's not possible to prove a negative - I'll stick with the evidence thanks.

My own position is that in the last analysis, reason cannot get to prove either way in regard to God's existence; of course we can get into all kinds of qualifications and reservations on either side of the conundrum.

Pascal's wager again - go follow and read that link in my last post

But since God is already a fact in human history which is the only history that should ultimately be of concern to humans and humans only,

Wars and pacification of the masses by an elite few - woot!!1!

One quick question - What evidence do you have for the existence of God\s?

[Jocky]

I asked certain questions in my first message here which are really invitations to members here to react so that I could see whether other people have similar opinions.

Ok, I'll play.

The way I see it, human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God.

I basically agree, for the reasons which John has stated above. God is the ultimate unfalsifiable hypothesis. For this reason, I choose to describe myself as a skeptical agnostic rather than an atheist.

Since that is a limit for the present of human reason, for we cannot be sure about the future, it might be more productive to find out what are the advantages of believing in God or not.

Like Mongrel says, this is Pascal's Wager - which has always struck me as a breathtakingly cynical reason for believing in anything.

One thing sure is that the concept of God needs an overhauling from that proprietary to mankind of the traditional monotheistic schools.

An alternative - review the benefits which past generations (arguably) reaped from belief in God, and overhaul them in a humanistic context. Why should unquestioning faith in the existence of sky pixies be a prerequisite for motivating people to be nice to each other?

BTW, I agree with the implicit suggestion here that religion has no place in state funded education.

Both theism and atheism are emotional mindsets of man, i.e., why people are theists or atheists is not a matter of the mind but of the heart.

People choose their preferred God labels for all kinds of reasons, and I would be wary about generalising about them too much. For instance, I call myself an agnostic - but some may consider my position atheistic, others may feel that I am a closet believer.

What about an atheist if he is also a skeptic?

What about him? In my view there is no contradiction between skepticism and atheism, nor with some brands of theism. Skepticism is about using critical thinking and the scientific method as an approach to evaluating real world claims. It has nothing to say about abstract theology unless it makes such a claim - at which point it stops being proper theology and starts being woo

[ergry]

What about him? In my view there is no contradiction between skepticism and atheism, nor with some brands of theism. Skepticism is about using critical thinking and the scientific method as an approach to evaluating real world claims. It has nothing to say about abstract theology unless it makes such a claim - at which point it stops being proper theology and starts being woo

I was referring to skeptics who are Buddhists, whether their being skeptics could be inconsistent with their being Buddhists. Of course this question is not exactly apropos of the thread.

I have come across skeptics who are Buddhists and claim that being Buddhists is not inconsistent with being skeptics, because Buddhists are atheistic.

To my impression there is something strange in this reasoning. What about critical thinking as the hallmark of being a skeptic? and concentrated focus on evidence?

What do you gentlemen say?

About God's existence can't be proven or disproven with reason, yes, I agree with you that the logical position would be agnosticism.

But on the practical level, to arrive at a harmonious mankind, it might be more feasible to reduce the disadvantages of belief in God and increase the advantages, than to get into loggerheads with traditional theists represented by Christians, Judaists, and Muslims.

ergry

[ergry]

About Pascal's Wager, what I understand is that it is better to play safe by believing in God than by not believing, because if it should turn out that God does exist, then it would be beyond remedy after death for those who opt to not believe; however, if it should turn out that God does indeed not exist, then nothing is lost or wasted by believing.

Is that wager like since we cannot be sure whether we would be hit by a meteor or not on going outside the house, to play safe better not to go outside the house?

It seems that when it comes to God Pascal would play safe, even though he would still go outside the house even not sure that he would not be hit by a meteor.

What is the difference then between God and a meteor hitting you? which Pascal appears to give supreme importance to?


Evidence for the existence of God or non-existence of God, maybe the essential question should be what kind of evidence and how much evidence.


You can't prove a negative, therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist; wherefore it is not justified to posit the non-existence of God?


Can we then all agree that for the present logic or human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God?


ergry

[Jocky]

I was referring to skeptics who are Buddhists ... and claim that being Buddhists is not inconsistent with being skeptics, because Buddhists are atheistic ... What about critical thinking as the hallmark of being a skeptic? and concentrated focus on evidence?

There's an interesting thread here which discusses this very subject. I certainly learnt a lot from that discussion. Take a look.

About Pascal's Wager ... Is that wager like since we cannot be sure whether we would be hit by a meteor or not on going outside the house, to play safe better not to go outside the house? ... What is the difference then between God and a meteor hitting you?

For a start, meteors are known to exist but God is not

IMO, staying indoors to protect yourself from meteors is just as pointless as believing in God because of Pascal's Wager. The wager posits that there could be an omnipotent omnescent creator deity who is so neurotic and insecure that it would condemn souls to an eternity of punishment for failing to believe in it, despite the fact that it deliberately created reality in such a way that its existence was unverifiable. To me, that seems an absurd contention - frankly, I reckon I'm more likely to get hit by a meteor than that turning out to be true.

You can't prove a negative, therefore you can't prove that God doesn't exist; wherefore it is not justified to posit the non-existence of God?

No. On that basis, you cannot prove that I do not have a dragon in my garage.

I would say that it is a defensible argument to posit the non-existence of God. When there is no falsifiable test and a total lack of evidence, it is reasonable to proceed on the assumption that something does not exist until such time as there is evidence to the contrary.

There is a difference between absolute proof and reasonable deduction. If you hold out for the former, you will never prove anything.

[Cuddles]

About Pascal's Wager, what I understand is that it is better to play safe by believing in God than by not believing, because if it should turn out that God does exist, then it would be beyond remedy after death for those who opt to not believe; however, if it should turn out that God does indeed not exist, then nothing is lost or wasted by believing.

God is supposed to know all your thoughts. Do you really think that an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being can't tell who is sincere in their belief and who is trying to play them? Pascal's wager is probably the most incredibly stupid idea ever.

Can we then all agree that for the present logic or human reason cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God?

Depends what you mean by "god". If you mean god as the general concept of some unspecified higher power then of course we can't prove anything. On the other hand if you actually define what "god" is, then of course we can. The new age theist "some kind of vague higher power that makes us feel good" can never be proven or disproven. The gods that most people believe in, like the Christian god, can very easily be disproven because material statments are made about them which can be tested. It's interesting to see that when people who believe in a god like this are challenged they shift their opinion to the thesit view which is nothing like the actual god described in the bible (or other holy book of your choice).