Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WrongAspects t1_j5e9b6k wrote

Reply to comment by owlthatissuperb in Physicist Max Planck on Idealism and the Role of Faith in Science by owlthatissuperb

Appealing to an infinite being doesn’t get you out of that trap.

You now have to explain this being how something infinitely complex came into being

2

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5l0j71 wrote

That's not quite right, from Planck's perspective.

Planck is essentially adopting a new axiom. He's taking this axiom on faith. Like all axioms, it doesn't depend on further justification.

Otherwise, yes, without an axiomatic foundation, we end up in an infinite regress. The same is true for math and any other system of logic.

2

WrongAspects t1_j5naipm wrote

What’s wrong with an infinite regress? If he is comfortable with an infinite being why would he try and avoid an infinite regress?

God is not only infinitely old but he is also infinitely large and infinitely knowing and infinitely smart etc. a God is an infinity of infinities.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5otui8 wrote

Sorry I got the impression you were an Atheist--are you actually making those claims about God? Or are you claiming other people make those claims?

2

WrongAspects t1_j5pwg8m wrote

Those are the attributes given to God by those who believe in God. It’s the god of the Christians as defined by the Bible.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5r0g1i wrote

I think you’re creating a strawman here. Is there actually a Bible passage that calls God “infinitely old” or an “infinity of infinities”?

Regardless, Christian theology is very diverse. There’s a wide range of ideas on the nature of God.

I have my own issues with mainstream Christian theology, but I’d try and study up on it before dismissing it all out of hand. Any objection you can think of, the theologians have studied and responded to ad nauseam.

2

WrongAspects t1_j5s7k9s wrote

Yes God is defined as eternal, omniscient etc. surely you know this

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j5tniys wrote

You're moving the goalposts--you said "infinitely old" (which is meaningfully different from "eternal") and "infinity of infinities". I've never heard either of these phrases before.

There are also some great debates about omniscience, and how that coheres with the concept of free will.

2

WrongAspects t1_j5w49n9 wrote

What do you think eternal means if not infinitely old? God is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal. Those are all infinities.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j61eyn8 wrote

Eternity is typically seen as “outside” of time. Aquinas was probably the first to articulate this fully:

> Endless time is not eternity: it is just more of time. Eternity differs in essence, not merely accidentally in quantity. Endless time is an elongation of time. More of the same thing is essentially the same thing. … There is a crucial difference between the "now" of time and the "now" of eternity…. The "now" of time moves; the "now" of eternity does not move in any way

See [here](https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/Institute of SA Studies/4.5.3.24_32Staley.pdf) and here for some interesting discussion and counterpoints.

I’ll also note that omnipresence is only infinite if the universe is infinite, which doesn’t seem to be the case. Whether omniscience is infinite kinda depends on how you define it. There are some interesting problems that come up if you try to give a technical definition.

1

WrongAspects t1_j62aoe8 wrote

I think the nitpick of eternity vs infinite time is just weird word games.

Omnipresence applies to all possible universes God created or will create not just this one.

And at this point I am not that untreated Interested in your other twisting of commonly understood words to mean something they are not.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j63oh02 wrote

This is a really common thing in philosophy though--we need rigorous technical definitions in order to make sure we're discussing the same thing.

There is a lot of discussion in the philosophy of time about the nature of eternity and infinity. You might find this article interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

1

WrongAspects t1_j63vcd8 wrote

But this is not ash attempt at rigorous definition. It’s an attempt at special pleading for God.

For example what does it mean for something to exist outside of time? There is no definition of exist which doesn’t depend on time. If I have a billion dollars for zero seconds or if my billion dollars is outside of time can you claim it exists?

This is people who believe in God trying to redefine words so that their absurd belief seems a little less absurd.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65pddu wrote

This is something a LOT of philosophers think about, not just theists. E.g. Plato would say that mathematical truths are eternal--they exist independent of time. Physicist Roger Penrose, an Agnostic, would likely agree.

Penrose has some really out-there conceptions of time if you're interested in philosophy of time, especially with an angle towards physics. He's been doing some great interviews on IAI.

1

WrongAspects t1_j65sut5 wrote

You didn’t address my points. The word exists doesn’t make sense outside of time.

What you are doing is conflating different people saying different things about time and then concluding that God not only exists but is outside of time and this doesn’t mean he is infinitely old.

You cite Penrose. Penrose says time is fundamental and that there is no such thing as outside of time. He thinks that universes come into existence in time and then die off and get recreated again. Of course most physicists disagree with him, they think time began with the universe.

Finally Penrose doesn’t believe a God exists and created the universe. Most physicists also believe this so maybe it’s not best to try and cite science when trying to claim a God exists.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j65wjo2 wrote

Just to be clear--I'm not arguing that God exists, or even that eternal things exist. I'm only arguing that these concepts are sensible, and have been widely studied, by people far smarter than a couple of redditors :P

1

WrongAspects t1_j66p6kn wrote

I just pointed out that they are not sensible. It literally makes no sense for something to exist for no time or outside of time.

I also told you what some of those people you are talking about say. You cited Penrose I told you his views on time. He says nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time.

1

owlthatissuperb OP t1_j66ya8x wrote

Curious if you can provide any quotes/etc that back up your claims about Penrose saying "nothing exists outside of time and there is no such thing as outside of time."

Penrose is frequently described as a Platonist [1] [2] [3] [4]. The opening paragraph on Platonism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [5] says:

> Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.

I find this diagram really useful for thinking about Penrose's picture of reality.

[1] https://www.cantorsparadise.com/is-roger-penrose-a-platonist-or-a-pythagorean-f98ee8e70d9c

[2] https://astudentforever.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/a-defense-of-mathematical-platonism/#:~:text=Roger%20Penrose%20is%20a%20British,three%20worlds%20and%20three%20mysteries%E2%80%9D.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

[4] https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/roger-penrose/

[5] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/

1

WrongAspects t1_j67nd9l wrote

His views of time and the cyclic universe are well documented and he himself has described them numerous times in interviews found on the web.

I have never heard him describe himself as a platonist and even he was it doesn’t mean he accepts as a religion which demands strict obedience to some written dogma. He obviously believes in abstract mathematics and obviously believes mathematics can accurately reflect and describe reality. Some people may call that Platonism. Having said that I get the feeling platonists want to claim he is because it will afford their theory some prestige to be accepted by a famous scientist.

Penrose is first and foremost a scientist. He has a bedrock belief in empiricism and the importance of strict observation conducted using the scientific method.

1