Oh gods can we get any more off-topic *wink* [was Re: [Python-ideas] Inconsistencies]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Monday 12 September 2016 12:26, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
> <lawrencedo99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:11:39 PM UTC+12, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> I have some _extremely_ strong views about absolutes (they come from the
>>> Creator of the Universe) ...
>>
>> By “Universe” do you mean “everything that exists”? So if the Creator
>> exists, then the Creator, too, must be part of the Universe.
>>
>> So whoever created the Universe also created the Creator...
> 
> No, God isn't part of the universe, any more than an author is part of
> his novel.

Tell that to Dante Alighieri.

Some more recent examples include Stephen King and Philip K Dick.

But in any case, a novel is not "everything that exists", unlike the universe. 
The maker of a sandwich is not part of the sandwich, but the universe has the 
boot-strap problem that the maker of the universe has to be part of the 
universe as well.

In any case, even if we *define* the "the universe" in a more limited fashion 
("just this solar system", "just this galaxy", "just the visible part of the 
universe", "the entire multi-verse except for the bit the maker lives in") and 
so exclude the maker, that doesn't imply anything else about the maker. We 
don't even know whether it is necessarily sentient, let alone someone/something 
benevolent that we should be taking moral absolutes from.

Perhaps our universe is a mere side-effect or by-product of some purely 
unconscious action: our universe is the pearl to some interdimensional oyster. 
Maybe we're a simulation in a computer, run by the inter-dimensional equivalent 
of Sheldon from "Big Bang Theory". The idea that the maker of the universe is 
necessarily benevolent AND competent isn't obviously true: if it were, life 
would probably be much easier and more pleasant. On the other hand, the 
evidence doesn't support the idea that the maker of the universe is *actively* 
malevolent either -- unless It, or They, simply haven't noticed us yet. Perhaps 
the gods do slumber in R'lyeh.

But for the sake of the argument, let's agree that the universe needs a maker, 
but the maker doesn't. What follows logically from those (presumably) facts?

We don't know if the maker is necessarily sentient; even if the maker is 
sentient, we don't know if it is aware of us; even if the maker is aware of us, 
we don't know if it is benevolent or malevolent or merely indifferent; even if 
benevolent, we don't know if it is benevolent towards individuals, personally, 
rather than towards creation overall; even if personal, we don't know what it 
is capable of doing (I can create a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I can stop 
it from growing old and stale and eventually rotting); even if capable, we 
don't know if it is motivated to do anything for us; even if motivated, we 
don't know if the maker is comprehensible to the human mind; even if 
comprehensible, we don't know if our ideas of what the maker must be like are 
correct.

There is an awfully long leap from the reality of "the universe exists" to any 
of the of Atum/Ptah/El/Coatlicue/Ranginui/Vishnu/Yahweh/Pangu/Waheguru etc., 
regardless of which one you pick.

(Unlike *our* divine revelation, which is clearly the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, *their* divine revolution is illusion, error and 
lies. All of the gods are myth and superstition, except for the One True God 
that conveniently has revealed himself to us rather than our enemies, who are 
pagans and heretics the lot of them.)




-- 
Steven
git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic 
endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.