• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Syed's Mega-Thread

Examining the "God" of Syed, part 6

A possible defence

One might also try to defend the concept of "God" and supposed "free will" as presented by Syed, in the 'K' kills 'V' scenario, by saying that since 'K' is a human, and for some reason, "God" maybe doesn't know anything which happens as a result of an instance of individual supposed "free will", (in this case, by 'K'). But one must be careful of the consequences of this conjecture.

To illustrate what I mean, I ask the reader to NOT think of anything to do with elephants for 30 seconds. Before you begin, should you decide to try, then be determined to avoid all thoughts of the animal, or its name, (elephant). OK, try now . . . then read on.

Now look at you right hand, and move it a tiny amount. Now just check out what you do for say 1 minute, (no instructions on what to do except observe).

The act of not thinking about elephants is an act of supposed "free will". You probably failed, because to make sure that you were not thinking about elephants, you had to think about elephants. This says something about how "free" our "will" happens to be.

Now try and think of an orange coloured railway locomotive. If you can do it, then it looks like an act of supposed "free will", and I don't doubt that Syed would agree that the thought of an orange loco. was not an accident, but something "freely" done. So some thoughts would fit Syed's idea of freewill, and some don't. In that case, "God" will have a very patchy fore-knowledge of what is going on in a person's mind.

It's not that "God" has no fore-knowledge, it's that "he" knows in advance of things that are not in there by supposed "free will", (unwanted elephants and associated thoughts), and unaware in advance of things in there by supposed "free will", (orange locos).

Surely, one's waking moments are a never ending stream of acts of "free will"- you look out of the window, you cross your legs, speak out loud, move one finger; (not as a reflex), you throw a ball, you ride a bike, you walk, you lie down, you roll over on the bed, you get up, you eat, and so on . . .

Almost every one of these acts leaves an impression on the world. Say you throw a ball. The ball moves, many air molecules move, blood pumps through your blood vessels. The defence that any of the results of an act of "free will", by any person, cannot be known in advance by "God" means that "God" has huge gaps in "his" fore-knowledge, while at the same time - according to Syed "God" having knowledge of everything about every corner of the universe, now, in the past, and into the future, (as long as we have a universe).

The wafting of a patch of air molecules, by the wafting of a ball or hand, for instance might seem like a minor occurrence. But we would do well to take account of the butterfly effect, (the butterfly effect is the concept that small causes can have large effects; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect).

Thus, for every person on the planet, doing acts of "free will" all day long, and having effects on the world, all of this is not foreknown by "God". Multiply all that by all of the decades, centuries and millennia. That's a lot of lack of knowledge about the future on "God's" part.
 
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 7

Ambiguity of time and durations

Albert Einstein's (Special) Theory of relativity has details which include the relativity of simultaneity and time dilation. Things which are deemed to happen simultaneously from one observation point, may not be simultaneous from another, and time may unfold at different rates in different frames of reference.

Time Dilation

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.WKvgUvJaaFY

In 1905 Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity. This work considered time not as a single constantly flowing entity, but as part of a much more complex system, linked with that of space itself. This is called space-time. Because space and time are part of the same entity it's impossible to move in space without moving in time. Time, for anything moving, changes.

One of the most startling consequences of special relativity is that any . . . clock slows down, relative to a stationary observer. There are of course many different types of clock, such as digital watches, clockwork clocks, atomic clocks and even our own biological clocks but they are all equally affected by the same principle, namely: moving clocks run slow . . .
Click to expand...

___________________________________________

As a consequence of this, consider the following scenario. Soon after birth, identical twins are put through an experiment.
One stays back on earth, and the other takes a very long trip through space in a space craft, which travels at exceedingly
high speed, (not in orbit), and comes back to earth as shown below. The twin in the space craft travels through space for
45 years, say. When the traveller gets back to earth, he has aged by 45 years, but as he looks out of his space craft, he
sees a very old man, not at first realising it is his identical twin, who is now 97 years old. Not only is the earth-tied twin
52 years older than his brother, but the traveller notices that everything on the earth has aged by 97 years, 52 more than
himself, and everything on and in his space craft.

34nrtld.gif

Anything that accelerates to travel faster, has its rate of passage of time slowed down. On board the space craft, the rate
of passage of time slows down for everything which is part of it. Clocks slow down, heart rates slow down, growth slows
down. All these effects slow down in synchrony, and any person on board, cannot tell that time is running more slowly than
it did at relative rest. If the clocks are running at half speed, (because time itself is running at half speed), so too is the heart
running at half speed - all of this relative to the rate of passage of time back on earth. So with both clocks and heart rate
reduced by half, the number of beats per minute is the same as it would be back on earth, although
'out there on the space craft', it's all happening at half the rate compared to back on earth. But when the space craft gets back
to earth, it is shockingly evident what has happened.

Once the space travelling twin gets out and stands on earth again, his rate of passage of time will have sped back up, to equal
that of his twin, and so will that for all things on the space craft. On the space craft, that twin ages much more slowly than
the twin who remained on earth. But back on earth, both twins experience the same rate of passage of time, it's just that one
twin is now 52 years older than the other. It's as if they had been born 52 years apart. Yet they started as identical, with identical ages.

Here is an animated 'gif of the identical twins scenario . . .

153li1d.gif

The consequence of relativity is that timings in the universe are not fixed, but dependent on speeds. The rate of passage of time is also
affected by gravity, (things in locations with different gravitational field strengths experience different rates of passage of time).
So things in the universe may quite literally be experiencing the passage of time differently. Thus there are multiple time histories going
on in the universe. This effect is not imagined, or hypothesised, but is real. GPS satellites orbit the earth at quite high speeds, and to be
of use in finding times and positions on the earth below, mathematical corrections must be made to compensate for the different rates
of passage of time on the satellite, and on the surface of the earth.

When the space travelling twin in the scenario above gets back to earth, from his point of view, he is looking at the future - he might
as well be seeing his possible future self, but in the form of his aged twin, and an aged earth. The traveller is 45 years old, having
travelled for 45 years in a capsule, and is now on earth 97 years later.

It could also be that the younger twin might: {i} see his older, (of the future), twin die, and {ii} during the rest of his lifetime, witness
the births of his older, (yet identical ! ! !), twin's great, great, great grandchild, (x number of greats, not possible to be witnessed by
the earth-tied twin, who cannot live long enough).
 
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 8

Relativity and reality

Time dilation in Nature

https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/tag/large-hadron-collider/

We observe the effects of time dilation every day in Nature. Cosmic rays, high energy particles from space, strike molecules in our atmosphere and create particles from the high energy interactions (this is the same as happens in the Large Hadron Collider).
Click to expand...

Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion . . .

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently somewhere up in the air many kilometers away.
Click to expand...

The rate of passage of time in a GPS satellite is affected by both speed, and strength of gravitational field, (it is the case in the identical twins scenario as well, but the extreme high speed is dominant in that case).

So how does "God" fit into this? Since "God" has oversight of entire histories in the universe, (knowing the location of every atom or molecule), everywhere at all times, (barring individual actions of "free will", then "God" has to follow the events on earth, and on the space craft in unison. This entails timelessness, as "God" has fore-sight at all times ! ! ! If the space craft left earth in the year 2000, say, it returns in 2097. So "God" has to keep track of future time in this scenario, from launch to landing, following both a 97 year and a 45 year time interval together, (considering "God" foreseeing this from a time in the "age" if the universe, from before the launch of the space craft). Of course the ageing of both twins is not unusual from their perspectives, as they live through it, in their respective frames of reference, (it goes on at what is, for the individuals, a normal biological rate). Yet "God" has to keep track of both rates at once, (in parallel).

And back on earth, at the end, the traveller twin is seeing things that happen in the future, on his life history, (52 years in the future), and so must "God". So if the older identical (!) twin scratches an itch - an act of supposed "free will", the younger twin will see this action of his brother's, and so too must "God". Hence "God" is witnessing an action of supposed "free will", in the future, (relative to the life history of the now relatively younger traveller twin.

In that case "God" is privileged to fore-knowledge of a future action of supposed "free will" by the older earth-tied twin. The twins may be in the same location, at the end, but they are different ages, and have lived for different amounts of time.

Even though the identical twins scenario is not within the ability of humans to actually carry out, if we could do so in practice, it would occur as discussed. Like cosmic rays, the LHC and the GPS systems, Syed's "God" must be able to keep track of all of the "non free will" phenomena, including the theoretically possible identical twins 'experiment', (which is an exaggerated example, to show that future knowledge of supposed "free will" human action is possible, even by humans).
 
Examining the "God" of Syed, part 9

Conclusions

Theological ponderings

Syed has a concept of a limited god, compared to other conceptions, for example in Christianity, and Islam in general. Those other concepts of "God" have a greater god than Syed's, and those other concepts include the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence; (Christianity) and timelessness. Poor old Anselm might be turning in his grave at Syed's diminished picture of "God".

Contradiction

Where there are two or more conceptions of a god, and those conceptions entail contradictions between them, then one of them must be incorrect. Of course it may also be that they are both incorrect. When a conception of a god contains internal contradictions, then that conception is flawed, and the god being conceived, cannot exist as stated. Syed's concept of what "God" is or can do has some contradictions.

Consequences

If Syed's concept of "God" is assumed, we would have to accept that not only is his god diminished in what "God" is or can do, but is highly diminished, because the waking lives of humans are pretty much a succession of what Syed would call acts of "free will". Syed's god has a veil of ignorance hanging between "him" and the future, (future with respect to the age of the universe).

Logic or illogic

If "God" can have foresight over all of time, including the future, when it comes to instances of events of supposed "non-free will", then "God" must be timeless, and not bound by time, ("he"doesn't need to wait for events to occur, before gaining knowledge of them). Making an exception for individual acts of supposed human "free will" means that "God is also time-bound, and must wait for some events to occur.

These two properties are incompatible, and makes the god-concept proposed by Syed illogical, and if so impossible. Only ad hoc theses can rescue the concept.

Oversight and deduction

Again, if we assume Syed's concept of "God", we can see that his god must be able to foresee signs of life during a person's time on earth, but none before their birth, nor after their death. A logical god would surely be able to deduce that absence of signs of life before a certain time in history, indicates before birth, given that signs of life would be foreseen for the period during the person's life. By corollary, the god would know when birth would be due to occur.

A logical god would also be able to deduce that absence of signs of life after a certain time in history, indicates after death, given that signs of life would be foreseen for the period during the person's life. By corollary, the god would know when death would be due to occur.

A possible defence

The defence that "God" might not be able to foresee supposed acts of human "free will", as well as being unable to foresee the consequences of any supposed act of human "free will', would yield a concept of "God" in which that god would know very little at all, since human actions affect many phenomena, such as the weather, where trees grow, and the like.

N.B. This defence is my own ad hoc invention.

Ambiguity of time and durations

It is a fact that the rate of passage of time in the universe is not absolute, but rather varies due to relative velocities, and various gravitational field strengths. On this fact we know that entities can co-exist, yet have histories which are of different lengths.

Relativity and reality

Time dilation and retraction are real phenomena, of which, and in some applications account needs to be taken. Time travel into the future is possible, and actually happens, (eg. when travelling in a jet aircraft*). People thus can, see the future acts of supposed "free will", so why not "God"?

Note: * = In-practice the time differences are very small.

The end !!!
 
bilby said:
Syed said:
the only people who believe there is more than one god are atheists polytheists
Click to expand...

FTFY.

Atheist - Believes in no gods
Monotheist - Believes in one god
Polythieist - Believes in more than one god

Idiot - Uses words to mean the opposite of their accepted definitions
Click to expand...

even hindus says there is only one god
 
Gila Guerilla said:
Anselmo d'Aosta, (St. Anselm), presented a non-denominational argument for the existence of "God". It did not define any properties or characteristics of "God". This is its value, and yet its downfall as well. It does not yield the god of Islam, nor the gods of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism or Pastafarianism !!! It leaves the notion of what the god is, up to human conception. So if I can conceive of a god that is greater than any of the gods I have mentioned, then the argument should conclude that it is my god which exists in reality.

The key to Anselm's concept of "God" is greatness, (as in great => greater => greatest = "God"). "God" is the greatest that can be conceived, and which also exists. See his argument below . . .

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
http://www.philosophyofreligion.inf...cal-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/
(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:

(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.
(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.
Therefore:

(5) God exists.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Anselm.png
 
Syed said:
DBT said:
Which, Syed, means that you have made your choice (call it consciously or unconsciously as you please) from a vast selection of opposing alternatives. Alternatives that are logically incompatible, therefore cannot all be true, but they can all be false.
Click to expand...

the only people who believe there is more than one god are atheists
Click to expand...

Atheists don't believe in the existence of any God or gods. That being the meaning of the word.
 
Syed said:
Keith&Co. said:
Aside from your professional assessment of their competence and/or their subjectivity to the lunar cycle, how many gods does the orthodox Mormon believe in?,
Click to expand...

all of them are gods?
Click to expand...
All of them can become gods, that's the selling point of the LDS system. Gain enough power in the afterlife, which includes the efforts of your descendants praying through you (thus the big families), and you will eventually become a god and have the power to make your own world... Which is how THIS world was made, by someone who got that much power back on HIS homeworld.

So, again, no, you're wrong when you say all theists only believe in one god.
 
Syed said:
Keith&Co. said:
Aside from your professional assessment of their competence and/or their subjectivity to the lunar cycle, how many gods does the orthodox Mormon believe in?,
Click to expand...

all of them are gods?
Click to expand...

Part of Mormon theology is that "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” The god that rules over this world is just one of many gods each with their own worlds to rule.

Wouldn't hurt to learn something before one goes spouting shit about stuff one doesn't know about.
 
Atheos said:
Syed said:
all of them are gods?
Click to expand...

Part of Mormon theology is that "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” The god that rules over this world is just one of many gods each with their own worlds to rule.

.
Click to expand...
i think mormonism is a cult not a religion but as long they believe in god and do good to other human they will inter paradise
 
Syed said:
Atheos said:
Part of Mormon theology is that "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.” The god that rules over this world is just one of many gods each with their own worlds to rule.

.
Click to expand...
i think mormonism is a cult not a religion but as long they believe in god and do good to other human they will inter paradise
Click to expand...

What's the difference? Why would you call Mormonism a cult and Islam a religion? Aside from the obvious answer of "Because Islam is true", what's the distinguishing feature that gives each the different label?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom