Is the Boltzmann brain paradox a genuine one?

For some time, I have been wondering whether the Boltzmann brain paradox is a genuine one. Here’s how Wikipedia describes the paradox (emphases are mine):


In physics thought experiments, a Boltzmann brain is a self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. For example, in a homogeneous Newtonian soup, theoretically by sheer chance all the atoms could bounce off and stick to one another in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain (though this would, on average, take vastly longer than the current lifetime of the universe).


The idea is indirectly named after the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906), who in 1896 published a theory that the Universe is observed to be in a highly improbable non-equilibrium state because only when such states randomly occur can brains exist to be aware of the Universe. One criticism of Boltzmann’s “Boltzmann universe” hypothesis is that the most common thermal fluctuations are as close to equilibrium overall as possible; thus, by any reasonable criterion, human brains in a Boltzmann universe with myriad neighboring stars would be vastly outnumbered by “Boltzmann brains” existing alone in an empty universe.


Boltzmann brains gained new relevance around 2002, when some cosmologists started to become concerned that, in many existing theories about the Universe, human brains in the current Universe appear to be vastly outnumbered by Boltzmann brains in the future Universe who, by chance, have exactly the same perceptions that we do; this leads to the absurd conclusion that statistically we ourselves are likely to be Boltzmann brains. Such a reductio ad absurdum argument is sometimes used to argue against certain theories of the Universe.


The two assumptions I’d like to question in this post are: (i) the assumption that a Boltzmann brain could self-assemble in the first place, given enough time; and (ii) the assumption that the spontaneous self-assembly of such a brain is more likely than the spontaneous formation of human observers.

Concerning (i), I would like to point out that the brain is a multi-layered organ containing 86 billion neurons, each of which is supported by glial cells and astrocytes. Within each neuron is a nucleus, surrounded by a cell body which receives signals via dendrites and sends signals along an axon, which in turn is insulated with a myelin sheath. The idea that individual atoms could arrange themselves into a brain containing tens of billions of these multi-layered structures is simply absurd, because such a “brain” would fall apart long before it formed. Without stable intermediate stages, a brain cannot spontaneously self-assemble out of atoms, even when given an infinite amount of time.

As for (ii): it seems to me that the main argument in its favor is that thermodynamically speaking, it’s easier for an infinite box of gas in equilibrium to assemble into X than it is for the gas to assemble into X + Y. Hence the spontaneous formation of a brain alone is far more likely than the self-assembly of a brain attached to a human body, which in turn is more likely to form spontaneously than an entire planet full of organisms (including humans), which is more likely to form spontaneously than a universe full of stars and planets (including our Earth). But this kind of reasoning ignores the possibility of “springboards,” or transitional stages which generate multiple paths, some of which lead to the desired target.

Thus the likelihood of a brain forming from a box of gas is far greater if the gas is first allowed to assemble into a primordial cell, as such a cell is capable of evolving into various kinds of organisms (including humans with brains). But evolution can only proceed in a physical environment; hence we need a planet for the cell and its descendants to live on. But a planet needs a source of energy to power the chemical reactions leading to life, which in turn requires energy to power its own internal processes; hence we need a star as well. And the formation of stars is rendered more likely by the postulation of an initial Big Bang, starting from a hot, dense state. In short: while the spontaneous formation of a universe, holus bolus, is many orders of magnitude less likely than the spontaneous formation of a brain, the formation of a human being possessing a brain within the framework of a Big Bang universe which is capable of generating stars and planets, some of which are capable of generating life, which subsequently evolves into the dazzling array of creatures we see on Earth, is far more likely than the spontaneous self-assembly of a Boltzmann brain – an event whose probability I have already argued is zero.

I’d like to finish with a closing thought. Is there something wrong with the way we define entropy? Currently, physicists define it in terms of the number of possible micro-states of a system which are consistent with its macro-description (e.g. “a human brain”). This, in essence, is what Boltzmann’s entropy formula expresses. However, such a definition ignores a system’s history, and makes no attempt to calculate the number of pathways by which the atoms in the system can reach their macro-level target. Boltzmann’s definition of entropy also leads many well-meaning but misinformed laypeople to mount fallacious arguments against biological evolution. Isn’t it about time we came up with a better definition, which doesn’t generate silly paradoxes? What do readers think?

259 thoughts on “Is the Boltzmann brain paradox a genuine one?

  1. BruceS: Well, you can actually argue the reverse: that you can never know yourself except through both the interactions with others and the world in general.

    I do agree with that. But will point out that you can know

    peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman:
    BruceS,

    The AI definitely involved a computer in that paper.
    What else do you have?

    peace

    OK two more points before I eat breakfast, workout, and shovel snow:

    I separate the emergent phenomenon of intelligence from the underlying substrate of brains or computers. I am not so sure about conscious experience (AKA qualia) — I suspect the answer is it cannot be so separated.

    We both agree that we can know. But I think we disagree on how we can know and whether and how knowledge involves fallibility.

  3. fifthmonarchyman: My position is not just consistent with Ried it’s literally exactly the same as his in this regard.

    And it’s a position that is simply impossible to hold sans God.

    I will grant that Reid did not spend a lot of time asking atheists to ponder where the principles of common sense come from but he knew full well he owed his confidence to God’s graciousness.

    Of course It was a different time. He was involved in an argument with folks who denied that we could trust our senses. But he would never ever pretend that we could trust our senses if God did not exist.

    From the SEP on Reid:

    “While this opens the way to a form of non-inferential, rational belief in God, no such claim appears among Reid’s First Principles of contingent or necessary truths. Indeed, belief in God possesses few of the features associated with Reidian First Principles. Denying God’s existence is not absurd, belief in God does not have “consent of ages and nations”, and it is not held independently of education and acculturation (see EIP 6.4, 463–467).”

    You insist that one must believe in God in order to trust one’s senses and reason. Reid does not hold this view. Ergo, your position is not Reid’s. Reid takes the trustworthiness of senses and reason to be first principle or common-sense principles more deeply rooted in our constitution than skepticism could ever effect. But he does not take our belief in God to be a common-sense principle, and he (unlike you) does not think it absurd to deny that God exists.

  4. Mung: Interesting. That’s not how I read what fifth is saying at all.

    I don’t know how else to understand his contention that one cannot determine if a sense-experience is veridical or illusory if one does not believe in God, and hence anyone who does believe that they can make such a determination really does believe in God even if they deny that they do.

    Put otherwise, FMM holds that one cannot refute skepticism about the external world without believing in God, whereas Reid holds that skepticism about the external world doesn’t even get out of the gate since it lacks sufficient basis for undermining common sense principles. As a presuppositionalist, FMM maintains that the belief in God is itself a common sense principle, the denial of which leads to absurdity, but Reid does not take the belief in God to be a common sense principle, and Reid (unlike FMM) does not think that denying that God exists leads to absurdity. FMM wants to read Reid as a presuppositionalist about the existence of God, and that is not Reid’s considered view.

  5. Kantian Naturalist: From the SEP on Reid:

    “While this opens the way to a form of non-inferential, rational belief in God, no such claim appears among Reid’s First Principles of contingent or necessary truths. Indeed, belief in God possesses few of the features associated with Reidian First Principles. Denying God’s existence is not absurd, belief in God does not have “consent of ages and nations”, and it is not held independently of education and acculturation (see EIP 6.4, 463–467).”

    You insist that one must believe in God in order to trust one’s senses and reason. Reid does not hold this view. Ergo, your position is not Reid’s. Reid takes the trustworthiness of senses and reason to be first principle or common-sense principles more deeply rooted in our constitution than skepticism could ever effect. But he does not take our belief in God to be a common-sense principle, and he (unlike you) does not think it absurd to deny that God exists.

    Yes. Exactly. Thanks for posting that.

    Reid was not a presuppositionalist, in spite of FMM’s obvious desire to have him on his team.

  6. BruceS: Wittgenstein

    Meant to say Frank Ramsey, who translated Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and visited him in Austria had a brother Michael who ended up as Archbishop of Canterbury. A friend of mine recently recounted a story that his father, an Anglican priest and missionary, was approached by the Archbishop for possible promotion to bishop but turned the offer down as he would be required to join the Freemasons. Does that get me a bacon number of 4 with Wittgenstein?

  7. Alan Fox: Meant to say Frank Ramsey, who translated Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and visited him in Austria had a brother Michael who ended up as Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Interesting — I had long thought it was C. K. Ogden but Wikipedia tells me it was Ramsey who translated it at Ogden’s direction. Apparently Ramsey had previously translated some Mach — and as a teenager!

  8. BruceS: I separate the emergent phenomenon of intelligence from the underlying substrate of brains or computers. I am not so sure about conscious experience (AKA qualia) — I suspect the answer is it cannot be so separated.

    I having a little trouble parsing this.

    Do you mean that it’s not possible to produce what we would call intelligence with a computer or not?

    BruceS: We both agree that we can know.

    Now I’m really confused

    Didn’t you just say that it was impossible to know if the person revealing stuff to you was God or a simulation operator ??

    peace

  9. Kantian Naturalist: You insist that one must believe in God in order to trust one’s senses and reason.

    That is not at all what I say.

    I say that AFAIK God is necessary to justify ones belief in the veracity of ones senses and reason. It’s not that you can’t trust your senses and reason it’s that you are unable to give a reason why you should trust them.

    Kantian Naturalist: Reid takes the trustworthiness of senses and reason to be first principle or common-sense principles more deeply rooted in our constitution than skepticism could ever effect.

    As do I

    Kantian Naturalist: But he does not take our belief in God to be a common-sense principle

    I don’t hold that God is a common-sense principle.

    I hold that God is the person that grounds our trust is common-sense principles.

    Kantian Naturalist: and he (unlike you) does not think it absurd to deny that God exists.

    I don’t think that it is absurd to deny God exists.

    I proclaim that everyone knows God’s exists and that willful denial of that knowledge leads to absurdity.

    For example every single thing that you assert that I believe in this comment is incorrect.

    That is the sort of thing that happens when you start with glaringly faulty presuppositions

    peace

  10. Kantian Naturalist: I don’t know how else to understand his contention that one cannot determine if a sense-experience is veridical or illusory if one does not believe in God

    No, my contention is that AFAIK one can not cannot determine if a sense-experience is veridical or illusory if God does not exist. Belief or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Kantian Naturalist: FMM holds that one cannot refute skepticism about the external world without believing in God, whereas Reid holds that skepticism about the external world doesn’t even get out of the gate since it lacks sufficient basis for undermining common sense principles.

    I agree with Reid completely on this one and with his understanding of the reason why common sense principles are unassailable.

    That does not change the fact that you can’t refute skepticism if God does not exist.

    Of course skepticism about the external world doesn’t even get out of the gate. No one is arguing otherwise.

    The question is why does it not even get out of the gate and the only sufficient answer is God.

    Kantian Naturalist: FMM maintains that the belief in God is itself a common sense principle

    Them is fighting words…………

    I most certainly do not think that God is a common sense principle. That would be idolatry.

    God is the person that graciously gives grounding to common sense principles.

    Peace

  11. KN:

    As a presuppositionalist, FMM maintains that the belief in God is itself a common sense principle, the denial of which leads to absurdity,

    fifth:

    Them is fighting words…………

    I most certainly do not think that God is a common sense principle. That would be idolatry.

    Lower your hackles, fifth, and see if you can spot the difference between what KN actually said…

    As a presuppositionalist, FMM maintains that the belief in God is itself a common sense principle…

    …versus what you took him to be saying:

    As a presuppositionalist, FMM maintains that God is a common sense principle…

  12. walto: Reid was not a presuppositionalist, in spite of FMM’s obvious desire to have him on his team.

    Of course Reid was not a presuppostionalist any more than Plato was an Augustinian.

    People are products of their own time. Presuppostionalism has only been elucidated for last 50 years or so and Reid died about 250 years ago.

    The question is does Reid’s thought help or hinder presuppositional contemplation and is
    Presuppositionalism consistent with Reid?

    The answer to both those questions is heck yes whoop whoop. As long as you let Reid be Reid and don’t treat his writtings as scripture.

    Just as Plato’s thought is consistent with that of Augustine as long as you allow for development and progressive revelation.

    peace

  13. keiths: Lower your hackles, fifth, and see if you can spot the difference between what KN actually said…

    Advice much better to have been given to KN who has rather badly mangled what fifth actually believes.

  14. keiths,

    Keith I’m glad you are back.

    I hope you understand that I still won’t be interacting with you until you provide a listing of the basic tenets of your new faith in Rumracket or apologize for your deception as to what you believe.

    peace

  15. fifth:

    I hope you understand that I still won’t be interacting with you until you provide a listing of the basic tenets of your new faith in Rumracket or apologize for your deception as to what you believe.

    For any newcomers who are wondering what that’s all about: Some time ago, I turned fifth’s presuppositionalism against him by using his presuppositionalist techniques to “prove” that Christianity was false and that the one true religion was Rumraketism, a fake religion in which our fellow commenter Rumraket (peace be upon him) is worshiped instead of that imposter Jesus.

    Fifth was at a loss to rebut me, and has since resorted to claiming that I was being deceptive, as if the parody weren’t obvious to everyone, including him.

  16. keiths: Fifth was at a loss to rebut me, and has since resorted to claiming that I was being deceptive, as if the parody weren’t obvious to everyone, including him.

    OK Just this once……….

    It’s not that I am a loss to rebut you. It’s that my challenge is a slam-dunk rebuttal. It’s obvious that Rumraketism is not a legitimate challenge to Christianity as witnessed by the fact that no one anywhere believes it.

    If Keiths had a legitimate challenge to Christianity he would not have had to make up something as ridiculous Rumraketism.

    The problem is that the rules of this site forbid me from pointing out that Keiths does not actually believe what he claims to believe.

    So as long as Keiths wants to continue to the charade the best way that I can respond is by not responding.

    It works pretty well as it serves as a constant reminder of the lengths he will go and the vacuousness of his challenge.

    Now if someone other than keiths would like to claim that a paticular non-christian god can serve as a grounding for knowledge I’m all ears. That would truly be an interesting conversation.

    But just make sure that you actually believe what you claim to believe.
    ———————
    I have no idea whether this comment will end up in guano but if it does I would appreciate it if an explanation is given…So that newcomers will know where to look

    peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman:

    That does not change the fact that you can’t refute skepticism if God does not exist.

    That seems pretty obviously false to me. To undermine skepticism about the external world all one needs is to show that our ordinary beliefs about veridical and non-veridical perception are already at work in our reasoning about the world, including any reasoning that the skeptic would bring to bear.

    God is the person that graciously gives grounding to common sense principles.

    If “grounding” here means justification, then common-sense principles do not need grounding — if they did then they wouldn’t be first principles with self-evident status.

  18. Kantian Naturalist: To undermine skepticism about the external world all one needs is to show that our ordinary beliefs about veridical and non-veridical perception are already at work in our reasoning about the world, including any reasoning that the skeptic would bring to bear.

    Have you followed the BB discussion?
    It is simply more likely that you are a BB than your perceptions are correct. This is the inescapable conclusion of thermodynamics

    If our reasoning is reliable (and God does not exist) it is close to a certainty that you are a BB.

    Kantian Naturalist: common-sense principles do not need grounding — if they did then they wouldn’t be first principles with self-evident status.

    Did you miss what Reid said? He did not trust his senses because their validity was some how self evident. He trusted them because he trusted God.

    quote:

    And now I yield to the direction of my senses, not from instinct only, but from confidence and trust in a faithful and beneficent Monitor, grounded upon the experience of his paternal care and goodness.

    end quote:

    peace

  19. Somewhat off topic (!) but wouldn’t it be nice if there was a running sequence-no. attached to each post. If dear old UncommonDescent can do it, why cant we ?

  20. fifthmonarchyman: I having a little trouble parsing this.

    Do you mean that it’s not possible to produce what we would call intelligence with a computer or not?

    I mean we have no reason to believe it is not possible, since as best we can tell the possibility of intelligence is not something that depends on the physical mechanism that implements it.

    I am not going to be definite about whether it is or is not possible. Avoiding that need to be definite about the possibility of issues still being scientifically researched is the philosophical point of many of my posts to you.

    Didn’t you just say that it was impossible to know if the person revealing stuff to you was God or a simulation operator ??

    Yes, I am saying that is impossible, unless one accepts circular arguments, or one accepts ways of knowing that I do not, such as some divine sense that people have or whatever convinced Descartes that God exists based on Descartes reasoning.

    I am still on unclear on how you escape the hypothetical in your upthread post, which I summarize as “if God exists, I know God exists, because God is trustworthy, communicate, and God told me God exists.”

    ETA: I know that KN and others say you escape the circle because you are a presuppositionalist. Is that how you view yourself? If so, what does it mean for you?

  21. BruceS: I am still on unclear on how you escape the hypothetical in your upthread post, which I summarize as “if God exists, I know God exists, because God is trustworthy, communicate, and God told me God exists.”

    Don’t forget the extension: “I know you know God exists, even if you pretend you don’t”.

  22. Allan Miller: Explain.

    Sans God BBs are much more thermodynamicly likely than the world we live in because they contain much less entropy and hold the same explanatory value.

    That is beyond obvious.

    peace

  23. BruceS: I mean we have no reason to believe it is not possible

    Ok then, My point stands it’s possible that you are merely a very simple computer with as little as two internal states in a vast empty but infinite universe.

    And if it’s possible it will happen over and over again in such a universe.

    BruceS: Yes, I am saying that is impossible

    Yet at the same time you say we can know persons as they truly are. Doesn’t that strike you as a contradiction?

    BruceS: I am still on unclear on how you escape the hypothetical in your upthread post, which I summarize as “if God exists, I know God exists, because God is trustworthy, communicate, and God told me God exists.”

    Your summery is defective.

    There is no question that God exists. Everyone knows that God exists because God has made himself known to us.

    God is not in the dock here

    On the other hand I can trust my senses and reasoning because God exists.

    peace

  24. fifthmonarchyman: Ok then, My point stands it’s possible that you are merely a very simple computer with as little as two internal states in a vast empty but infinite universe.

    And if it’s possible it will happen over and over again in such a universe.

    Yet at the same time you say we can know persons as they truly are. Doesn’t that strike you as a contradiction?

    Your summery is defective.

    There is no question that God exists. Everyone knows that God exists because God has made himself known to us.

    God is not in the dock here

    On the other hand I can trust my senses and reasoning because God exists.

    peace

    All I can say on the above is that by my lights your previous post is correct in saying that you are confused

    ETA: clarified wording (I hope!)

  25. BruceS: I know that KN and others say you escape the circle because you are a presuppositionalist. Is that how you view yourself? If so, what does it mean for you?

    A presuppostionalist is just some one who realizes that it is impossible to reason with out beginning with presuppositions. Axioms if you will. We all hold them either consciously or unconsciously. It’s worthwhile when discussing a particular argument or theory to examine the presuppositions that undergird it.

    That is why you will often find me asking how you know something or questioning the premise of your argument.

    I personally believe that the only presupposition that does not ultimately lead to absuridity is the Christian God of the Bible.

    I hope that helps

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman: Everyone knows that God exists because God has made himself known to us.

    You cannot claim what everyone knows as you cannot know what everyone else knows. I can simply tell you that my opinion is that there are no gods. Your opinion differs. To claim “everyone” knows is false nonsense. It is simply undecidable unless you want to add testable attributes to your god. If not we have to agree to disagree.

  27. BruceS: All I can say on the above is that by my lights your previous post is correct in saying that you are confused

    Just to head off any possible hard feelings I will once again post the reason that God’s existence is not at issue.

    quote:

    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
    (Rom 1:19-20)
    end quote:

    It’s truly nothing personal

    peace

  28. Alan Fox: To claim “everyone” knows is false nonsense.

    How can you possibly know that?

    You are claiming to know what I can and can’t know when you just said that it was impossible to know that sort of thing.

    Can’t you see the bare contradiction??

    peace

  29. Alan now:

    It is simply undecidable unless you want to add testable attributes to your god.

    me just before that:

    I personally believe that the only presupposition that does not ultimately lead to absuridity is the Christian God of the Bible.

    LOL

    peace

  30. fifthmonarchyman: How can you possibly know that?

    You are claiming to know what I can and can’t know when you just said that it was impossible to know that sort of thing.

    Can’t you see the bare contradiction??

    No, I see exact equivalence. You don’t know. I don’t know. Your opinion. My opinion.

  31. fifthmonarchyman: I personally believe that the only presupposition that does not ultimately lead to absuridity is the Christian God of the Bible.

    LOL

    That’s supposed to be a testable attribute of your god? It fails.

  32. @ Fifth:

    I jumped in solely because you made this false and unsupportable claim:

    Everyone knows that God exists because God has made himself known to us.

    I don’t mind you promoting a religious worldview. I don’t mind you saying what you yourself believe or know. Just stop telling other people what they know in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

  33. Alan Fox: That’s supposed to be a testable attribute of your god? It fails.

    It seems like fmm is unaware that the “Christian Bible” has only existed for a small part of recorded human history. So presumably it was absurdity all around until that book got “written”.

    Odd how history itself does not note pre and post absurdity.

  34. fifthmonarchyman: A presuppostionalist is just some one who realizes that it is impossible to reason with out beginning with presuppositions. Axioms if you will.

    This presupposes that all reasoning is logic.

    But reasoning is not all logic. Reasoning comes from biology (from our biological makeup).

  35. Neil Rickert: This presupposes that all reasoning is logic.

    If we grant FMM his claim, and we note that the bible did not exist for the majority of history then we can conclude that nobody reasoned prior to the bible coming into existence.

    Somebody let Plato know!

  36. Alan Fox: I don’t mind you promoting a religious worldview. I don’t mind you saying what you yourself believe or know. Just stop telling other people what they know in the face of clear and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

    But it’s FMM’s “presupposition” that we all know that God exists. You’re asking him to do something that he’s incapable of doing.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: I personally believe that the only presupposition that does not ultimately lead to absuridity is the Christian God of the Bible.

    Ok, you can go ahead and “presuppose” that. But your “presupposition” is meaningless to me, since there’s no argument here. You’re just trying to give yourself a “get out of reasoning” free card by declaring that you don’t need to give an argument for why this presupposition and not some other.

    What can be asserted without evidence (or argument) can be dismissed without evidence (or argument), and since you don’t feel any rational obligation to give us an argument here, I don’t feel any rational obligation to show you why your “presupposition” is absurd.

  38. fifthmonarchyman: A presuppostionalist is just some one who realizes that it is impossible to reason with out beginning with presuppositions. Axioms if you will. We all hold them either consciously or unconsciously. It’s worthwhile when discussing a particular argument or theory to examine the presuppositions that undergird it.

    Well, lots of sensible people believe THAT. Your brand of presuppositionalism, however isn’t at all sensible, largely because it is so needy. It wants to make sure that it’s RIGHT. So you add your rummy revelation claims and your Bible blather. It’s not enough for you to know this or that thing, which you can, so long as your presuppositions are correct; you can’t be happy in the world unless you know that you know that you know that you…..

    Well, you don’t and can’t know that. Cry yourself a river. You’re just a lowly human being.

  39. Not that I mean to take the thread off topic, but does anyone know what happened to vjtorley? I would have supposed that he would participate in his thread.

    Maybe that is even a presupposition for doing an OP.

    Or maybe he has concluded he is in fact a BB and hence participating would be incoherent.

  40. fifthmonarchyman: Just to head off any possible hard feelings I will once again post the reason that God’s existence is not at issue.

    quote:

    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
    (Rom 1:19-20)
    end quote:

    It’s truly nothing personal

    peace

    So you are saying God exists because everyone knows God exists? Or at least should know God exists because they should read and believe the bible, and (I suppose) the reason they should believe the bible is infallible is because God exists and has revealed that through the bible?

    Don’t worry, I don’t take it personally. So fire away.

    I guess I don’t really think I need to make an excuse for being curious. So I don’t feel I am missing something if I am “without excuse” for discussing this issue.

  41. fifthmonarchyman: How can you possibly know that?

    peace

    Knowing is Justified True Belief. I don’t even believe that I know God exists. Hence not everyone knows God exists since I in particular do not even believe it.

    Unless you think I believe it, but just do not know I believe it.

    Which I guess you probably do.

    I should have known better.

  42. fifthmonarchyman: I personally believe that the only presupposition that does not ultimately lead to absuridity is the Christian God of the Bible.

    I get your logic but it is just your opinion that the only version of God that does not lead to absurdity is the biblical Christian version or is it based on something else?

Leave a Reply