INSTITUTE OF HIGHER REASONING
  Facebook discussion on God
 
Copy of Zeshan's facebook discussion (concerning his tract: 

http://optagon.page.tl/Concise-Proofs-of-God-and-Consciousness.htm

) with the Atheist Republic's Facebook group:

Zeshan Shahbaz posted to Atheist Republic
April 15 at 7:19pm

http://optagon.page.tl/Concise-Proofs-of-God-and-Consciousness.htm



Zeshan Shahbaz //By your logic, the 'prime mover' should also need a mover right? Your argument falls flat right there.//

It doesn’t seem you read my tract. There is no ‘special pleading’ as it has been logically showed that the objectless plane of existence is immovable, limitless, eternal, etc – so by its very nature it cannot be moved to ‘be’ – while all things are moved to ‘be’ proceeding from the very objectless plane of existence. This conclusion isn’t complicated.
April 15 at 7:31pm

Gene Kopf Consciousness is information processing. Information processing is entropic. Thus, consciousness cannot be eternal.

The prime mover argument fails for the following reasons:

1) Time and space began with the Big Bang. Causation requires time, so discussig causation before time and space is nonsensical.

2) Not everything has a cause. Quantum mechanics and nondeterministic methods show this and even use this fact.

3) Sayingthat the cause has no cause shows something without a cause, which invalidates the argument. This is the hazard of the fallacy of special pleading.
April 15 at 9:03pm via mobile

Gene Kopf Oh, immovable violates relativity, and limitless is infinite, yet nothing has ever been shown to be infinite.

What you're trying is an ontological argument, but ontological arguments always fail because they use rationalization, which is a form of logic and thus a form of mathematics. All mathematical models depend on the initial axioms. In order for your axioms to be valid, you must testably and predictively demonstrate that the axioms for your model (your assumptions) are correct, which you have not done.

Let me show you a counterexample ontological argument.

1) God is the source of everything.
2) Nothing is the source of god.
3) Therefore, God is the universal set.
4) The universal set has been shown to be impossible.
5) Therefore, God doesn't exist

The flaw in both your arguments and the above arguuments is that the assumptions (axioms) haven't been shown to be valid.
April 15 at 9:08pm via mobile

Zeshan Shahbaz Gene Kopf,

    Thanks for responding.

    //1) God is the source of everything.

    2) Nothing is the source of god.
    3) Therefore, God is the universal set.
    4) The universal set has been shown to be impossible.
    5) Therefore, God doesn't exist

    The flaw in both your arguments and the above arguuments is that the assumptions (axioms) haven't been shown to be valid.//

    With the above example you are correct, the above axioms haven’t been shown to be true – however with mine the premises are true. It is by way of induction that we know something is moving anything (that is moving) continuously. And it is by way of deduction we know that the prime mover is the objectless plane. And again it is not special pleading as it has been logically showed that the objectless plane of existence is immovable, limitless, eternal, etc – so by its very nature it cannot be moved to ‘be’ – while all things are moved to ‘be’ proceeding from the very objectless plane of existence. For a little more details you may also refer to my video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U0D-gl8c0o

    Btw I am definitely not appealing to authority regarding the arguments that I’ve outlined but I just like to mention that interestingly enough Newton came to this same conclusion: "Space is an affection of a being just as a being. No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an emanative effect of the first existing being, for if any being whatsoever is posited, space is posited."
    "Space is the Sensorium of God." [i.e. Space is the Mind of God] -Sir Isaac Newton (Opticks)
April 16 at 4:31pm

Gene Kopf <<It is by way of induction . . .>>
You cannot make a certain determination by inductive logic, sir. What is your methodology to determine that your conclusions are valid. This is what separates the scientific method from pure reasoning. In short, you must have some empiricism.

<<As it has been logically showed that the objectless plane of existence is immovable, limitless, eternal, et cetera>>
You haven't demonstrated that your axioms are valid. Again, you haven't addressed my criticisms, in addition to a few new ones.
1) Nothing has ever been shown to be infinite (that is, limitless) in reality. As a matter of fact, since infinity shows lack of bijectivity, whenever one encounters infinities in a mathematical model of reality, it means that the model has reached its limits.
2) Eternal violates entropy - your being cannot think.
3) Movement requires time, which began at the universe and again is entropic.
4) You have not demonstrated that the "objectless plane of existence" exists in order to make to valid hypothesis.
5) You're attempting to apply causation, yet causation both requires spacetime, and not everything requires causation. For instance, we know that at a quantum level, causation is not required.
6) You have not shown that a causative system is sentient. Indeed, all evdience we have is that consciousness requires a information processing system, which requires time and entropy, as well as requiring a functional matrix. In other words, destroy the brain, and consciousness ends. This fits perfectly with all known neurological research.
7) 6 leads to the problem of your plane being objectless - there is nothing to arrange for informational states.
You have demonstrated the classic failure of assuming that something outside of spacetime is infinite. Sphere is outside of a plane, but that doesn't mean that the sphere is infinite. However, some of the qualities of the 3D sphere are *undefined* in the 2D space. Please don't make the egregious error of conflating infinite with undefined.

In order to have a valid system, you must first show that the axioms you are using for your logical deducation are applicable to the beginning of everything.

Quoting Newton is an appeal to false authority, as he was not qualified to determine deities. He also wasn't aware of the interplay between matter, energy, space, time, quantum mechanics and relativity. His system was devised exclusively as a model which handled objects of low energy and macroscopic size, as your rationalizations also follow. Indeed, your argumetn for an immovable object shows that you ginore the principle of relativity (even Galilean relativity!), because if you pick an immovable object, all that I have to do is move relative to it to make it move.

If you argue that relativity is invalid, you have a very large uphill battle which I guarantee will fail.

The difference between valid scientific theories and your hypothesis is that theories have means to verify the conclusions, while you do not. You have nothing more than armchair conjectures with ad hoc assumptions which cannot be tested.
April 16 at 7:12pm via mobile

Zeshan Shahbaz //In short, you must have some empiricism.//

I guess this where our disagreement begins. Reason is basis of knowledge, not the other way around. And what is science? Science is based on observation and then rational inference from which facts are derived.

//Nothing has ever been shown to be infinite (that is, limitless) in reality.//

By way of logic we know that for anything to exist there has to be a ground/plane/realm for it. Actually for anything or everything to exist (even Einstein’s space-time continuum) there has to be plane for it. Now thinking of it abstractly, it is limitless – only a limitless realm is able to contain any conceivable thing(s). It is logically shown, and of course it cannot be physically shown. If it could be, then it is limited (limited by the plane it is contained by) and hence not the First on or in which everything is contingent.

//Eternal violates entropy - your being cannot think.// //Movement requires time, which began at the universe and again is entropic.//

No, we’re, and every ‘thing’ else is its ‘thought’. Again, it’s not complicated, and it’s not meant to be. You have the object-less reality, and every thing else is its productive thought. The Object-less Reality thinks hence time – time is a measurement that is dependent on this realm/plane, as for anything to be measured there has to be a plane for it.

//4) You have not demonstrated that the "objectless plane of existence" exists in order to make to valid hypothesis.//

I have demonstrated that. Why can’t you logically deduce that?

//You're attempting to apply causation, yet causation both requires spacetime, and not everything requires causation. For instance, we know that at a quantum level, causation is not required.//

This is simply a failure of not applying logical inference. Energy flitting in and out of existence – what is preceding the energy flitting in and out of existence?

//destroy the brain, and consciousness ends. This fits perfectly with all known neurological research.//

I completely agree with you here. Did you read my short part on this in my tract? I illustrated that there is a law operating (I also constructed a diagram to help show how this works at the macro level).

As you know, Reason is based on our understanding of cause and effect relationships. Concerning existence, if you take this Reasoning (where I hold is the basis of knowledge) to its logical conclusion you end up with the very plane/ground of all that exists i.e. ultimate ground of every single thing including all points of reference such as all real and imagined dimensions. And again, even if one is of the view that we’re bound by Einstein’s space-time continuum this continuum, logically, depends on an object-less/matter-less plane to exist on or in (“Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” [Albert Einstein]).
April 16 at 8:52pm

Gene Kopf <<I guess this is where our disagreement begins. Reason is the basis of knowledge, not the other way around.>>

Which knowledge? Synthetic knowledge? No - you have to demonstrate that your initial axioms match with reality.

The shining success of recent centuries is empiricsm - the testing of conjecture against reality, then modifying our thoughts based upon the feedback from reality. The success speaks for itself.

Synthetic truth (and that is what you are claiming, unless you are going down the road of Platonism) isnt about what anything thinks - it is about reality.

<<...there has to be a ground plane/realm for it Actually, for anything to exist (even Einstine's space-time continuum), there has to be a plane for it.>>
That sounds like extrinsic geometry. Differential geometry doesn't require this. But still, let's continue to your next statement . . .

<<only a limitless realm is able to contain any conievable things>>
Bullshit. That's a non-sequitor.

<<it is logically shown, and cannot be physically shown>>
So you're saying that you have taken an arbitrary assumption and hold it as truth. That's just a fanycy word for "faith" and admission of failure of onus probandi. You've now entered the realm of conjecturing angels on pinheads, which is where your medieval rationalization arose.

<<No we're, and everything else, is it's thought.>>
An unsubstantiated assertion never demonstrated in reality and requiring the suspension of demonstrated laws of information theory. Here you go touting your opinion as fact.

If eternity existed, a state of maximum entropy would be eventually reached, which would mean that all mechanisms which could measure the passage of time would fail due to total homegeniety.

Do you realize why any thought is entropic? Do you realize why entropy puts limits on time? Do you realize that there has never been a demonstrated separation between entropy and time, partially because of the clock mechanism paradox?

Your language itself implies a circular logic going on - you discuss the action of time to support time.

<<I have demonstrated that. Why can't you logically deduce that?>>
You certainly have not. Indeed, you just admitted that you have no testable, falsifiable or reproducible means to test your assumptions.

<<It is simply a failure of not applying logical inference ... what is preceding the enregy flitting in and out of existence>>
It's a silly statement as nonsensical as the length of the fourth side of a triangle. Time are tied together and require each other. Without one, the other cannot exist. So your question is meaningless.

The correct procedure in following logical inference is to verify that your inference matches up to reality. Oh, wait, you can't do that, by your own admission.

<<I completely agree with you...>>
Except that you don't, because you argue that there is an eternal consciousness, for which you cannot demonstrate, which is exempt from this. That's special pleading.
<<As you know, reason is based upon our understanding of cause and effect relationships >> and we know that not everything has cause and effect relationships--only probabilistic relationships. This really isn't a problem, as non-deterministic algorithms are quite viable even on a mathematical level.
<<if you take reasoning (which I hold to be the basis of knowledge)>>
Thus, your first premise is flawed, thank you. Even by making that statement, you are endorsing a particular axiom as well as the axioms of whichever set of logic you use (there is more than on type of logic). Your justification? Oh yes, your belief. Sorry son, but that's not going to hold much sway with me.
<<all real and imagined dimensions>>
Ah, the absurd assumption that every conjecture is true. In other words, you wish to eschew onus probandi. With that in mind, let's stop abusing the word "reason," shall we?

Your little quote from Einstein only discusses the interplay of the stress-energy tensor and the curvature of spacetime. Whether it plays upon a deeper metric, you haven't demonstrated that the deeper metric is infinite or that every possible combination must "exist."

Thank you for playing. You've admitted that you cannot demonstrate that your conjectures are true, that you wish us to take your assumptions as default "truths" (that's both hubstristic and spookily solipsistic) and to accept the demonstrated laws of reality, except when you don't like it (which is the very essence of special pleading).
April 16 at 10:50pm via mobile

Gene Kopf Oh, and if you believe in every possible combination, then you believe in both the axioms which permit "God" and forbid "God." Oops
April 16 at 10:56pm via mobile

Zeshan Shahbaz //Which knowledge? Synthetic knowledge?//

Splitting of theory of knowledge is erroneous. For sure in the past there were people incorrectly concluding on functions of natural physical phenomena without actual experimentation – that’s a separate issue.

//<<only a limitless realm is able to contain any conievable things>>
Bullshit. That's a non-sequitor.//

It is not. I’ll elaborate – say the universe is contained by a space that is not limitless, if it isn’t limitless then it must be limited by another. If that other space is also not limitless then it is limited by another ad infinitum. If this is the case then the universe would not have emerged in the first place (from “nothing” as some physicists say [more on this below in my further comments]). Logically, there has to be a stop point thus this universe (or Einstein’s space-time continuum) existing on a limitless plane (or at least stopping at a ‘limitless plane’ in the chain) is the logical/practical conclusion.

//<<No we're, and everything else, is it's thought.>>
An unsubstantiated assertion never demonstrated in reality and requiring the suspension of demonstrated laws of information theory. Here you go touting your opinion as fact.

If eternity existed, a state of maximum entropy would be eventually reached, which would mean that all mechanisms which could measure the passage of time would fail due to total homegeniety.

Do you realize why any thought is entropic? …//

These are laws concerning the physical universe – the thought/production is simply made to follow these certain laws. Read on.

//<<It is simply a failure of not applying logical inference ... what is preceding the enregy flitting in and out of existence>>
It's a silly statement as nonsensical as the length of the fourth side of a triangle. Time are tied together and require each other. Without one, the other cannot exist. So your question is meaningless.//

It is not, even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it. Conveniently, some physicists literally label this as “nothing” (from which the universe has emerged) – while “nothing” is simply an absence of things on or in empty space/void – practically speaking there is no such thing as absolute zero or absolute nothingness. Thus the void/empty space is not “nothing” but rather is “no thing” from which all (measurable) things originate from.
April 17 at 7:55pm

Gene Kopf <<splitting of theory of knowledge is is erroneous>>
Not at all. Analytic truths allow for conjectures which do not exist in reality, or even self-contradictory results, all depending on initial assumptions.

You're touting your opinion as fact without justification again.
<<For sure in the past there were people incorreclty concluding of naturaly physical phenomena without experimentation, but that's a separate issue.>>
Pot--meet kettle. That's exactly what you've been trying.
<<let's say that the universe is contained by a space that is not ocntinuous.>>
First error--you are applying extrincsic geometry. That's your first error--differential geometry does not require an external space.
Next problem - even if you used the implciit forms of functions, all arbitrary, abstract dimensions added are set to zero.

You're making a very common mistake by freshmen students of manifolds and differnetial geometry. Fortunately, we left that thinking behind a few centuries ago.

Again, infinity has never been shown to exist in the universe whatsoever. It is striclty a theoretical construct. If you disagree, I await your *valid evidenece for your positive assertion.*

<<[entropy and thought] these are laws concerning the physical universe>>
And you have valid evidence of anything outside of the physical universe and that your axioms are correct (including the axioms used for the system of logic which you are using?). By definition, you don't.

<<Even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it>>
Here you go conflating philosophical nothingness with physical nothingness.

Your whole line of discussion skips time/only mentions time, yet again going down your Newtonian thought again.

You're going down the road of special pleading by saying certain rules apply while other rules don't, all based upon your demands. Essentially, if anythign is too inconvenient, you simply argue that the rules don't apply, but if you want, you can use other rules to demand that your view holds. Well, guess what? The rules of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, upon which the quantum rules of arisal from nothignness exist, are demonstrated from PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS. Yet, you argue that physical observations don't apply when I use them to apply to information theory, whose question you never, ever answered.

Really, the rules for information entropy simply arise from the mathematical rules of multiplication by zero and division by zero. But you didn't try to answer that--you simply did an armchair handwaiving which said in way too many words, "this doesn't apply to me."

Call me when you can apply the rules of onus probandi without special pleading and touting your opinion as fact. Your Nobel Prize will await.
April 17 at 8:21pm via mobile

Zeshan Shahbaz //<<splitting of theory of knowledge is is erroneous>>
Not at all. Analytic truths allow for conjectures which do not exist in reality, or even self-contradictory results, all depending on initial assumptions.//

But that isn’t knowledge. Knowledge is factual information. What you’ve described above does not fit this definition of knowledge.

//<<For sure in the past there were people incorreclty concluding of naturaly physical phenomena without experimentation, but that's a separate issue.>>
Pot--meet kettle. That's exactly what you've been trying.//

No. Still, these people weren’t negating the fact that things function to ‘be’ what they are, this is the rational functioning of the universe (which you also admit I assume) – the mistake that some of them made was concluding on the details of the functioning without actually experimenting.

//<<let's say that the universe is contained by a space that is not ocntinuous.>>
First error--you are applying extrincsic geometry. That's your first error--differential geometry does not require an external space.
Next problem - even if you used the implciit forms of functions, all arbitrary, abstract dimensions added are set to zero.

You're making a very common mistake by freshmen students of manifolds and differnetial geometry. Fortunately, we left that thinking behind a few centuries ago.

Again, infinity has never been shown to exist in the universe whatsoever. It is striclty a theoretical construct. If you disagree, I await your *valid evidenece for your positive assertion.*//

Of course infinity or eternity doesn’t exist in the physical universe because it is made up of beginnings and ends (i.e. moving/changing at the molecular level). By the way mathematics does not describe reality – in terms of the universe it is a tool to calculate.

//<<[entropy and thought] these are laws concerning the physical universe>>
And you have valid evidence of anything outside of the physical universe and that your axioms are correct (including the axioms used for the system of logic which you are using?). By definition, you don't.

<<Even physicists acknowledge that empty space/void precedes it>>
Here you go conflating philosophical nothingness with physical nothingness.//

Okay, kindly explain to me what physical nothingness is?

Btw, I’ll reiterate it is not ‘special pleading’ because logically nothing can precede objectless space and thus is immovable. Regarding rules, of course everything abides by a rule, even the objectless Reality from or on which the ‘physical’ existence emerges, and that is logic. I don’t subscribe to that this agent can do anything illogical (i.e. producing something that ‘can be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time).

Again, to put this in a nutshell, Reason (understanding that something moves or is always moving the moving thing) comes from observing the moving universe – this line of reasoning points to the ‘space’ of existence, or the very plane which contains every object.
April 18 at 7:28pm
 
  Today, there have been 4 visitors (5 hits) on this page!  
 
=> Do you also want a homepage for free? Then click here! <=