Tuesday, 08 November 2005
Necessary Being vs. Necessary Being with Cognitive Functions.
Personally, I think what is in bold signifies the clash of perspectives here...
TkOvrTWrld: You wanted the to the point overall version?
TkOvrTWrld: Or do you want to wait?
Joveia: preferably wait till november 24 but at that time, yes to the point version
Joveia: if it's ok
TkOvrTWrld: It's done.
TkOvrTWrld: I can refine it though.
TkOvrTWrld: For an agnostic case, its a nice demonstration of applied theory.
TkOvrTWrld: It was just easier to go through section by section since it was so long.
TkOvrTWrld: I wasn't sure if I could pull it all together.
TkOvrTWrld: But sometimes prodding does the trick.
Joveia: well we'll see
Joveia: out of interest, what is your main refutation?
Joveia: your main rebutting defeater?
TkOvrTWrld: that not only did you not do what you set out to do, but that your arugment even if successful still fits snuggly in the mold of a metaphysical scam.
Joveia: well, it's easy to say that, but how is that point achieved?
TkOvrTWrld: A couple ways, the idea of a divine mind as the necessary being is untenable, a Christian should be held to stricter standards than "it could be true" inductive arguments in order to validate the supposed real interpersonal relationship their religion professes to be the case, how an infinite mult-verse is a more parsimonious option than God the Father, and further examples of how, "it could be true" arguments are just as possible.
Joveia: let me go through that
Joveia: first this is not necessarily an argument for Christianity, rather an argument for general theism, and it is quite obvious that if there is an INFINITE number of multiverses then that is not simpler than and infinite God, in fact it is LESS simple because it is an infinite set of large objects
Joveia: thirdly 'it could be true arguments' may be possible but that does not make them more plausible
Joveia: lastly 'necessary being' implies necessarily a divine mind, and the teleological argument is itself an argument to a divine mind
TkOvrTWrld: Well, you stated that the background was Christianity, and an infinite multi-verse is a simpler uncaused causer...size matters not, I've presented two options that are plausible and could be true, and the necessary being could be a necessary state of being...not a person.
Joveia: the background is Christianity but that is too large an area to canvass at the moment, secondly no the multiverse is not simpler, size does matter. it's not an argument over if your options are plausible, or whether they should be true, but whether they are MORE PLAUSIBLE than my ideas
Joveia: necessary state of being doesn't make sense - if something shows evidence for design it points to a designer - a design means intelligence
TkOvrTWrld: I do cover even deism, and its no secret this is to justify Christianity, and size matters not when infinites are involved, and I do believe a multi-verse is more plausible...and if a necessary state of being doesn't make sense...I fail to see how an upgrade..a divine mind is more sensical
TkOvrTWrld: I state things more contextually relevantly in my upcoming post.
Joveia: you won't win if you use the multiverse, it is plain to anyone that an infinite multiverse isn't parsimonious
TkOvrTWrld: If you are taking God the Father seriously, it is.
Joveia: do you know how rare scientific theories are that use infinitely large components?
TkOvrTWrld: Any argument against an infinite multi-verse can be leveled at an infinite divine mind.
TkOvrTWrld: And if it fails...I fail to see how a divine mind succeeds in that wake.
Joveia: perhaps, but then neither explanation is superior to the other, allowing the theist to justifiably believe in God, plus I think that the infinite universes are less parsimonious still, infinite sets of 5 are less parsimonious than infinite sets of 1
Joveia: a divine mind is justified by the evidence of design
TkOvrTWrld: No, because a divine mind doesn't make sense of a necessary being. Anything with cognitive functions is silly at that level...however a multi-verse generates all possible worlds without cognitive thought...thus accounting for the appearance of design.
Joveia: it's silly because you say so? you fail to explain that without the multiverse, evidence of design is explained MUCH better by the hypothesis of said necessary being with a mind, which is ultimately not defefatable
Joveia: plus you're ignoring that it's less parsimonious as I said last round and also there's no evidence for multiverse, plus the evidence for design inherent in the theistic argument
TkOvrTWrld: Well we are of the sort to determine what is silly and what is not. A multi-verse explains the constiution of the universe better, because it is simpler as God the Father is supposed to be...in comparison, i would think that would be clear. You might be arguing that generating all possible worlds is not very frugal...but we're not buying diapers here. I was taking it to mean that the least complicated explanation as we do not have to accomodate how the necessary being is a person. What evidence of a multi-verse are you looking for? On those terms it is at least on par with God, the Father.
Joveia: no it's not. the multiverse as I said before is like arguing infinite sets of 5 is simpler than infinite sets of 1. Plus there's the problem that even if it wasn't, the multiverse explanation would not be one single shade better than the theistic explanation, allowing either side to justifiably believe, which is all my argument needs, plus the fact you still haven't answered that the multiverse has no evidence for it whatsoever whereas there is evidence for design inherent in the teleological argument
Joveia: the 'necessity' of an infinite being does not add or detract from any parsimony, plus
TkOvrTWrld: adj : excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every indulgence
TkOvrTWrld: a multi-verse is not "indulging" it just is
Joveia: it's a philosophy of science term, which you don't know much about
Joveia: it is indulging. it is a theory where one of the components is infinite - thus as simplicity is a virtue it is less likely to be true a priori than one where the component is less complicated
TkOvrTWrld: its just occam's razor
Joveia: occam's razor is what you're fighting against here.. if I believe in occam's razor along with every scientist on the planet and every philosopher, how is your argument going to convince me or any other similar theist?
TkOvrTWrld: which favors an uncomplicated multiverse by nature over an ultimate divinely complicated cognitve mind
Joveia: an 'uncomplicated' multiverse which is still infinite and an even greater infinite than God, that is itself complication
TkOvrTWrld: but its unspecified complication
Joveia: the 'mind' part adds or detracts nothing. it is the simplicity and parsimony of the explanation
Joveia: a complication is a complication, whether it is explained or not, if it is infinite
Joveia: this is a good explanation of occam's razor http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html
TkOvrTWrld: a mind is a decision making entity...which requires the specified complication of a designer in your opinion...thus making God, the Father need a God, the Grandfather...something a multi-verse does not require.
Joveia: uh, did you even read my article?
Joveia: you can't establish something even God needs a designer unless you can establish it is UNLIKELY
Joveia: establish God as a mind, given a god is unlikely
Joveia: given a god, are God's characteristics of intelligence unlikely?
TkOvrTWrld: are you asserting I'm not familar with occam's razor?
TkOvrTWrld: I would say so.
Joveia: well, why else are you arguing for a multiverse
TkOvrTWrld: cuz I think its a simpler explanation
Joveia: ok, show God's intelligence is unlikely given a god
Joveia: if you think it's simpler you obviously don't know occam's razor
TkOvrTWrld: how are we given a god?
Joveia: I've explained to you time and time again
TkOvrTWrld: because of the inference of design...which is the same as that which a multi-verse covers as well?
TkOvrTWrld: The inference could go like this:
Joveia: well, it's like arguing over whether a rock formation needs a designer. no one is arguing about whether there are rocks, they are arguing about the formation. to establish design you must establish that whatever characteristics of a substance is unlikely
Joveia: given a mind, why must that mind be complex?
TkOvrTWrld: Our universe has a particular constitution...
TkOvrTWrld: we have a universe...perhaps there are others
TkOvrTWrld: with different constitutions
TkOvrTWrld: that may or may not be as appropriate for accomodating ourselves...
Joveia: you're still not explaining, multiverse is LESS SIMPLE as I have said, or else it is EQUAL (I win there) and that doesn't discount the positive evidence for design in the absence of evidence for a multiverse
TkOvrTWrld: thus avoiding the inference of design
TkOvrTWrld: A divine mind must be complex in order to make decisions
TkOvrTWrld: What else is a divine mind?
TkOvrTWrld: Accept some nebulous magic black box
TkOvrTWrld: for making our inferences justified
Joveia: the mind could either be divinely simple and our notions of complexity with minds are a posteriori, or else it could be necessarily complex
Joveia: your 'black box' the multiverse isn't better
TkOvrTWrld: it is because it does not have the cognitive function specification
TkOvrTWrld: it fits the defnition of God, the Father better than God the Father does.
Joveia: your argument only works unless you establish god needs a designer. you can't do that without showing god's characteristics are unlikely
Joveia: the complexity of cognitive funciton specification is a made up part
TkOvrTWrld: a mind is as unlikely as anything you've shown to be unlikely
Joveia: show god's characteristics are unlikely then. in what ways could god be different?
Joveia: plus there is the possibility of necessary 'complexity' with the divine mind
TkOvrTWrld: he could be an appathetic multi-verse...that just is, eternal unchangable...etc...that generates all possible worlds indiscriminately without regard for interaction
TkOvrTWrld: with no humanized characteristics
TkOvrTWrld: that make more sense of humans attributing them to the necessary being, that it actually needing them
Joveia: that is still ignoring my point 1) it is LESS SIMPLE infinite sets of 5 compared to 1, 2) theism as justified beliefs still wins if they're equal and 3) there is no evidence plus evidence for design
Joveia: answer that
TkOvrTWrld: I have.
Joveia: saying it is 'apathetic' 'eternal' and 'unchangeable' doesn't answer it
Joveia: you've got to show how you're NOT putting in an INFINITE component into your theory
TkOvrTWrld: no, a multiverse...not all its extents is simpler than a divine mind...
TkOvrTWrld: its extents being the infinite number of possible worlds
Joveia: a multiverse is all that it is, including its extents
TkOvrTWrld: not the part I'm talking about.
Joveia: a multiverse is INFINITE. there are an INFINITE number of worlds
Joveia: that is what a multiverse IS
TkOvrTWrld: It can be infinite and generate all possible worlds
Joveia: you're ignoring my central distinction
TkOvrTWrld: God the Father and the multiverse are equal in explanatory power...you lose, because it is an extra non-sensical criteria added to make it a cognitive mind
TkOvrTWrld: therefore the multiverse is the infinite of ones and God the father the infinite of 5s
Joveia: no, I win because the multiverse is infinite sets of 5 rather than 1, which you have ignored, and secondly because if both sets are infinite than either is as parsimonious and hence either can be adopted
Joveia: you're not understanding me
Joveia: plus a cognitive mind is not 'nonsensical' out of your head
Joveia: God himself is an infinity of ONE BEING. the universe is an infinity of VERY LARGE UNIVERSES
TkOvrTWrld: it is if you don't need it to be true
TkOvrTWrld: but that's not the part I'm comparing with God the Father
Joveia: you had better compare it or your explanation loses
TkOvrTWrld: Because for all you know, God makes all sorts of creations
TkOvrTWrld: and could be in comparison just as complicated
Joveia: that's an 'ad hoc' response designed to rebut my comment
TkOvrTWrld: but then you are still left justifying the mental part
Joveia: we are taking the simple theory
TkOvrTWrld: no, its not
Joveia: 'God' versus 'multiverse'
TkOvrTWrld: necessary being vs. necessary being with cognitive functions
Joveia: the mental part isn't a part at all, God can be necessarily 'complex'
Joveia: explain how your 'necessary being' without cognitive functions can design a universe please
TkOvrTWrld: and I think that fits the description of a multi-verse better than a god
TkOvrTWrld: it generates all possible worlds.
TkOvrTWrld: and this is one of them
Joveia: you're just ignoring all my points, your multiverse isn't SIMPLER
TkOvrTWrld: no, I'm not.
Joveia: how many times do I have to explain it
TkOvrTWrld: As many times as you don't understand my response
Joveia: an INFINITE MULTIVERSE means an INFINITE number of worlds which is just as good if not worse than an INFINITE god
Joveia: because of parsimony your explanation is worse
TkOvrTWrld: I assert the contrary.
Joveia: so lets discuss that shall we?
TkOvrTWrld: If I say I'm comparing one possible necessary being to another...that's what I'm doing.
TkOvrTWrld: I'm not bound by other conceptions.
Joveia: this necessary being would be the universe right?
TkOvrTWrld: I've used the term "necessary being" all along to distinguish from the universes generated
TkOvrTWrld: its not the universe
Joveia: you still have failed to explain how your explanation is simpler hence better
Joveia: a necessary being without intelligence cannot design a universe
Joveia: it's that simple
Joveia: you still aren't answering my point about the infinite number of universes not being simple
TkOvrTWrld: design is your word...I use the word constitution
Joveia: occam's razor cuts out 'infinities'
TkOvrTWrld: god is an infinite...therefore cut out
Joveia: it cuts yours worse
TkOvrTWrld: if their both cut from the team...no one is playing
Joveia: no, I win because the theist is, all things being equal, JUSTIFIED in their theistic belief
Joveia: you lose because there is justified theistic belief you have no answer for rebutting
Joveia: plus I dispute they're equal as I said before
Joveia: call it 'design' or 'constitution' the thing is still what we would know as design, which is purposeful arrangement
TkOvrTWrld: but you assume purpose, therefore your assumption is part of your conclusion
Joveia: no its not, I use the argument to reduce reductio ad absurdum the atheist claim that the universe has no inherent goal or purpose and yet life exists when there are other possible universes
TkOvrTWrld: If every arrangement is...there is no need to call one designed and the infinite of others not
Joveia: that is a priori unlikely
TkOvrTWrld: but a divine mind is "unlikely"
Joveia: show it is unlikely by showing it is unlikely god would be intelligent
TkOvrTWrld: And we already have one universe...why not a million more?
Joveia: problem of parsimony as I"ve been repeating
TkOvrTWrld: but I'm not professing any god
TkOvrTWrld: so how can I answer your loaded question?
Joveia: but YOU have a problem with your unparsimonious explanation versus MINE
Joveia: you to rebut me must point out a flaw in MY worldview
Joveia: you don't need to believe in god to do that
TkOvrTWrld: no, you do, because your's has an excessive parameter of intellighence
Joveia: a parameter of intelligence doesn't defeat the infinity of the multiverse, infinitely complex, plus it is indicated by the design
Joveia: whereas your multiverse has no evidence
Joveia: your 'greater infinity' is less parsimonious despite intelligence
TkOvrTWrld: if we are using a blind definition of parsimonious
TkOvrTWrld: which I'm not
Joveia: I"m using the philosophy of science definition and in that way
Joveia: you just made up the words 'blind definition' it has no meaning
Joveia: parsimony is parsimony
TkOvrTWrld: I think both those words have meaning
TkOvrTWrld: and together, they do in context here.
Joveia: my definition of parsimony is the same definition any scientist or philosopher of science would use
TkOvrTWrld: so is mine...
Joveia: you don't know what it is, otherwise you wouldn't say a multiverse was more parsimonious than a God.. despite being infinite and a greater infinite
TkOvrTWrld: and yet a divine mind...is more complicated...specified complication of cognitive functions...than just an infinite number of indiscriminately generated universes.
Joveia: the extra complexity of cognitive functions is small fry compared to the extra complexity of your infinitely numerous and quite large universes
TkOvrTWrld: small? Its an infininite mind! There's nothing more complicated!
Joveia: the infinite god, in terms of parsimony is not 'doubled' as a god and a mind, it is an infinitey all by itself. one god equals only ONE infinity
TkOvrTWrld: an infinity of infinities is no bigger
Joveia: an infinite set of universes is more complex than a single infinite mind, the universes each are large
TkOvrTWrld: and you have no way of asserting god hasn't created an infinity of other universes
Joveia: that's not part of my hypothesis I'm comparing to yours
Joveia: there is just as great a chance he hasn't
TkOvrTWrld: But I'm balancing the comparison appropriately
Joveia: you can't 'ad hoc' add that to your rebuttal
TkOvrTWrld: Because I'm comparing one necessary being to another.
Joveia: the thing is that an infinite number of god-created universes isn't part of the explanation I"m offering
TkOvrTWrld: and therefore I can compare the fruit of one to the fruit of the other.
Joveia: it's not balanced, your multiverse is still more complex
TkOvrTWrld: no it is
Joveia: as I said it's not part of my hypothesis
TkOvrTWrld: but it is fair.
Joveia: it's not fair because it's not part of my hypothesis!
TkOvrTWrld: no, its fair, because its a valid comparison
TkOvrTWrld: its not fair that an infinite number of universes gets the title of more complicated than an infinite mind, of which there is no parallel
Joveia: parallels isn't important here its terms
Joveia: your terms are larger
Joveia: to explain the appearance of design
TkOvrTWrld: but you are setting the terms merely to win the debate. How is that fair?
TkOvrTWrld: Anyone could see, that I am being fair in comparison
Joveia: the terms are terms anyone would use if they had training
Joveia: okay then explain how an infinite number of large universes is simpler than an infinite god
TkOvrTWrld: I've been doing this since you were ten.
Joveia: okay, how?
TkOvrTWrld: I already have.
Joveia: cognitive functions to god doesn't equal the complexity of the multiverse
TkOvrTWrld: Denial is not a suitable counterargument
TkOvrTWrld: oh it does
TkOvrTWrld: there isn't anything more complicated than a mind
Joveia: says you
Joveia: the terms of your theory are infinite, the terms of my theory are infinite, yours is worse
Joveia: yours is a greater infinite
Joveia: it's really that simple
TkOvrTWrld: no, yours is, because you can't account for the cognitive part of your necessary being.
Joveia: yes I can, god is necessarily possessing of a mind
TkOvrTWrld: but that assumes theres a god
TkOvrTWrld: you flubbed
Joveia: we're comparing hypothesis!
Joveia: not assuming
TkOvrTWrld: but its the same thing
Joveia: your hypothesis versus mine
Joveia: mine has a god, yours doesn't
TkOvrTWrld: saying "god has a mind" is like saying "lemons are fruit"
Joveia: my idea of god, my hypothesis I'm offering has necessary cognitive functions
TkOvrTWrld: duh, and those are what are in comparison to not needing them
TkOvrTWrld: to being not parsimonious
TkOvrTWrld: not as parsimonious
Joveia: which you still haven't shown yours is simpler despite an infinite number of universes which are each very large
TkOvrTWrld: so you are saying that if I have an infinite number of basketballs...and an infinite mind, that the basketballs are less parsimonious than the Divine mind?
Joveia: larger than basketballs, universes
Joveia: but basically yes
TkOvrTWrld: lol, say that on your blog
Joveia: I dare you to post this conversation on YOUR blog
TkOvrTWrld: I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Joveia: let people see
Joveia: the whole thing, mind
TkOvrTWrld: I will post the whole thing...I just want you to post that last bit.
Joveia: I'm not going to waste time, you post it on your blog, if my POV is stupid then people will laugh at me no doubt
TkOvrTWrld: I'm content to just post what I had originally.
TkOvrTWrld: Embarassing you isn't a priority.
Joveia: because you've been thrashed?
Joveia: I'm daring you here
Joveia: post both if you must
TkOvrTWrld: There's no necessity, but I will. Spelling errors and all.
Joveia: I'm not ashamed of mispelling a few words
TkOvrTWrld: I think I mispelled intelligence...which is a big fo paux.
TkOvrTWrld: in my book
Joveia: it's faux pas
TkOvrTWrld: I believe there are actually different spellings of that phrase
TkOvrTWrld: I could be mistaken.
TkOvrTWrld: but it looks as though you are correct
Joveia: well, post this on your website, the whole thing, and I'll go off to dinner right about now
TkOvrTWrld: dinner? where do you live?
TkOvrTWrld: good day, then
Joveia signed off at 2:26:56 AM.