the paradox of the unanswerable question

[screwtape]

If one combines omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox, can god then pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer?

S.

[Dryhad]

Of course he could. There can be questions with no answer.

[JGL53]

If one combines omnipotence with omniscience into one paradox, can god then pose a question to which he wouldn't know the answer?

S.

If a god is defined as omnipotent and omniscient, it would have to be omnipresent.

If god is omnipresent, then we have pantheism - god is all.

If god is all, then we are all god - god is all and all is god.

Thus, all problems are solved.

[seebs]

Depends. If the kind of omnipotence under discussion admits contradictions, then yes, and furthermore, God could answer it.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Depends. If the kind of omnipotence under discussion admits contradictions, then yes, and furthermore, God could answer it.

Are you saying there is a way around Goedel theorem seebs?

[seebs]

Are you saying there is a way around Goedel theorem seebs?

Not specifically, but... If you are talking about an entity with the kind of "omnipotence" that allows contradiction, then proving that something is "impossible" has no effect. A hyper-omnipotent deity can simultaneously assert P and ~P without contradiction. Yes, I know it's impossible. That's why I think that understanding of omnipotence is useless; it removes any way for us to draw conclusions.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Yes, I know it's impossible. That's why I think that understanding of omnipotence is useless; it removes any way for us to draw conclusions.

Cool so you do know that there are questions god can ask that he cannot answer. Just to be clear.

[JGL53]

...That's why I think that understanding of omnipotence is useless; it removes any way for us to draw conclusions.

Is human understanding of the meaning of the word "omnipresent" also useless? Just wondering.

[seebs]

Cool so you do know that there are questions god can ask that he cannot answer. Just to be clear.

Actually, I'm not sure I do. Goedel's theorem tells us that there are true things which cannot be proven. I am not sure that means that they cannot be known.

I also have no idea whether God is omnipotent in a logically consistent way or not. I assume so, mostly because if I don't, I have no useful way to think about any of the related questions.

I think there are questions that simply do not have answers; for instance, "what was the name of the dog I owned in 1982". I did not own a dog in 1982, and the question has no answer, because it is contingent on a false premise.

[seebs]

Is human understanding of the meaning of the word "omnipresent" also useless? Just wondering.

I'm not sure. FWIW, I think there are at least a few conceptions of "omnipotence" which can at least be used in speculation, although I have no knowledge of whether any of them describe any entity.

I know that at least some notions of omnipresence are ill-defined enough that I can't find any reason to use them.

In particular, I would point out that omnipresence does not seem to me to imply pantheism. I believe gravity to be omnipresent, but I don't think I'd agree that the universe is gravity.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Actually, I'm not sure I do. Goedel's theorem tells us that there are true things which cannot be proven. I am not sure that means that they cannot be known.

You are therefore asserting that god just knows.

Let’s assume that god knows these true things but cannot prove them.

God: How do I know these are true?

[screwtape]

Actually, I'm not sure I do. Goedel's theorem tells us that there are true things which cannot be proven. I am not sure that means that they cannot be known.

You are therefore asserting that god just knows.

Let’s assume that god knows these true things but cannot prove them.

God: How do I know these are true?

Exactly

[seebs]

You are therefore asserting that god just knows.

No. I'm merely saying that it's possible that there are ways of knowledge other than proof, and it may be that omniscience uses them.

BTW, just a point: Take the Goedel statement for formal system X: "I cannot be proven in formal system X."

It's true, right? You know it's true, right?

Let’s assume that god knows these true things but cannot prove them.

God: How do I know these are true?

I have no idea how this would happen. I just don't see the argument from ignorance as being strong enough to make the positive assertion that there are things that an omniscient entity can't know.

[screwtape]

No. I'm merely saying that it's possible that there are ways of knowledge other than proof, and it may be that omniscience uses them.

BTW, just a point: Take the Goedel statement for formal system X: "I cannot be proven in formal system X."

It's true, right? You know it's true, right?



I have no idea how this would happen. I just don't see the argument from ignorance as being strong enough to make the positive assertion that there are things that an omniscient entity can't know.

So, if I understand you correctly, you argue what Haeckel advances in his book.

[seebs]

So, if I understand you correctly, you argue what Haeckel advances in his book.

I have no idea. Never read it.

I'm just looking at the arguments here in this thread.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I have no idea how this would happen. I just don't see the argument from ignorance as being strong enough to make the positive assertion that there are things that an omniscient entity can't know.

This is the problem theist will just keep redefining omniscience to be compatible with whatever logical proofs are presented. The word is therefore meaningless. Your above statement therefore has no content.

All you are doing seebs is modifying your definition of god as science, math and logic advance. This might be a nice philosophical exercise but that’s all it is. No different that arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a needle by using your knowledge of electrons.

If god just knows something and he cannot prove it then he is taking his knowledge on faith. He cannot prove that what he says is true.

[screwtape]

I have no idea. Never read it.

I'm just looking at the arguments here in this thread.

It is akin to Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What a wonderful cop-out.

If understanding of a term is useless, how can you use it at all?

If you're going to insist that a concept is competely ineffable, have the courtesy to call it something like 'quonglefnorp', which doesn't imply any particular meaning, rather than omnipotent, which implies a very specific meaning, being the intersection of two completely standard concepts.

More to the point, what meaning do you have in your own head when you use the term? There has to be *some* concept you're trying to label and thus convey... that's the whole point of communication. The replication of an idea between two individuals, mediated by some kind of signalling process.

Are you trying to claim that you have an idea that you don't even understand? What the hell does that mean?

I know, let's fnurgle some weebs.
Um, what the hell is a weeb, and how does one fnurgle it?
I have no idea. You wanna?

I swear, i will never fucking understand how theists think.

[screwtape]

What a wonderful cop-out.

If understanding of a term is useless, how can you use it at all?

If you're going to insist that a concept is competely ineffable, have the courtesy to call it something like 'quonglefnorp', which doesn't imply any particular meaning, rather than omnipotent, which implies a very specific meaning, being the intersection of two completely standard concepts.

More to the point, what meaning do you have in your own head when you use the term? There has to be *some* concept you're trying to label and thus convey... that's the whole point of communication. The replication of an idea between two individuals, mediated by some kind of signalling process.

Are you trying to claim that you have an idea that you don't even understand? What the hell does that mean?

I know, let's fnurgle some weebs.
Um, what the hell is a weeb, and how does one fnurgle it?
I have no idea. You wanna?

I swear, i will never fucking understand how theists think.

Before you go after Seebs, let's first see if that is what he is arguing...I derived from his argument that he was advancing that theory. I may be wrong. Let us find out and then we can discuss it. Seebs?

[seebs]

I have no idea how this would happen. I just don't see the argument from ignorance as being strong enough to make the positive assertion that there are things that an omniscient entity can't know.

This is the problem theist will just keep redefining omniscience to be compatible with whatever logical proofs are presented. The word is therefore meaningless. Your above statement therefore has no content.

"This is the problem, atheists will just keep redefining omniscience to be compatible with whatever logical disproofs are presented."

The fact is, before you can offer a proof using a word, you need to define it precisely. Words like this are used very imprecisely, which means that, while they are not totally meaningless, they are certainly not meaningful enough to form rigorous proofs about.

All you are doing seebs is modifying your definition of god as science, math and logic advance.

This is perhaps partially true -- in the same sense that all scientists do is modify their definition of the world as science advances. I am trying to learn about the world, and this requires me to refine or revise theories as I encounter new evidence and arguments.

However, it is otherwise false. What I'm mostly doing is not always accepting the definitions other people use. Worse, sometimes I'm just pointing out a corollary to a suggested definition that turns out to wreck an otherwise pretty argument.

If god just knows something and he cannot prove it then he is taking his knowledge on faith. He cannot prove that what he says is true.

So what?

Anything we might plausibly call "omniscience" is very different from what we normally mean by "knowledge", which is a set of things we've become pretty convinced of.

[seebs]

It is akin to Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible.

Well, that's the trillion-argument question.

If omnipotence implies the ability to do the logically impossible, we're done; we have no capacity to formulate meaningful arguments on the topic. We can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. The entire concept of proof is gone.

In practice, then, the only interesting course is to assume for the sake of argument that omnipotence is limited to the logically consistent.

If it isn't, there is fuckall we can do about it from the standpoint of argumentation. Reaching a "contradiction" tells us nothing.

Omniscience runs into some similar issues. What does it mean to say that God "knows everything"? Is any noun phrase that appears to denote information a "thing"? Does God know the true answers to hypothetical questions? Do they even have true answers?

To simplify quite a bit, we have two key questions:
1. Can God do things which are logically contradictory?
2. Does God know the answer to questions which have no answer?

If the answer to both is no, then God can ask a (meaningless) question God can't answer.
If the answer to the first is no, but to the second is yes, then God cannot ask a question God can't answer.
If the answer to the first is yes, then guzal nhoaeu glautn. Fleeb!

[Quetzalcoatl]

"This is the problem, atheists will just keep redefining omniscience to be compatible with whatever logical disproofs are presented."

Nice try but no cigar.


The fact is, before you can offer a proof using a word, you need to define it precisely. Words like this are used very imprecisely, which means that, while they are not totally meaningless, they are certainly not meaningful enough to form rigorous proofs about.

Theists refuse to define the word precisely. When proofs are presented to show that certain definitions are incoherent the theists says that nice but it’s now what I meant. When ask then what exactly do you mean you get answers that reduce to I don’t know what the word means but I know it means something.


This is perhaps partially true -- in the same sense that all scientists do is modify their definition of the world as science advances. I am trying to learn about the world, and this requires me to refine or revise theories as I encounter new evidence and arguments.

Factually incorrect seebs. There is world that scientist can present to which they compare their data to. You have no omniscient god. What you are doing has nothing to do with reality. It is a philosophical game in your head. Even if you get a coherent definition of a god it is irrelevant. It is no different that getting a coherent definition of Jack’s bean stork. What predictions can one derive from your definition of omniscience? I can formulate self consistent algebraic structures and form beautiful theories about them but reality doesn’t give a shit.


So what?

Anything we might plausibly call "omniscience" is very different from what we normally mean by "knowledge", which is a set of things we've become pretty convinced of.

How can you know this when you do not know what omniscience is? Why does a theist have so much difficulty in defining their terms? If you cannot say what the attributes of an entity is then you do not know anything about the entity.

I believe in gwwins
What are the properties of gwwins?
Lets see, gshhg and shhshs

What does it mean to say that God "knows everything"?

It is a meaningless statement much like the word god.

[seebs]

Nice try but no cigar.

No? Within the last week, I saw you offer a definition of omnipotence for the PoE, then adapt it when it turned out not to work.

Theists refuse to define the word precisely.

No, we don't.

What I refuse to do is claim certain knowledge of God's attributes precise enough to tell you which definitions, if any, are correct.

When proofs are presented to show that certain definitions are incoherent the theists says that nice but it’s now what I meant. When ask then what exactly do you mean you get answers that reduce to I don’t know what the word means but I know it means something.

Well, I wouldn't say "know". I am pretty sure that God knows an awful lot. The phrase "all-knowing" has been used, but I don't really know what that means, nor do I see an easy way to find out.

So what?

The universe is full of things whose attributes I only partially understand.

If I can't explain how black holes work, am I prohibited from saying they're "damn heavy, whatever they are"?

Factually incorrect seebs. There is world that scientist can present to which they compare their data to.

Why, yes. And in the process, they revise their theories.

You have no omniscient god. What you are doing has nothing to do with reality.

This strikes me as pure assertion.

If it would make you happier, we could compare with mathematics; in serious mathematics, there's not much to do with "the real world", but you can form theories about things, define them, learn things about those definitions...

It is a philosophical game in your head. Even if you get a coherent definition of a god it is irrelevant. It is no different that getting a coherent definition of Jack’s bean stork. What predictions can one derive from your definition of omniscience? I can formulate self consistent algebraic structures and form beautiful theories about them but reality doesn’t give a shit.

And yet, mathematics remains a fascinating and useful field of study.

Personally, I don't particularly give a fuck; I just enjoy speculating. I don't have any idea what God knows or doesn't, or how.

But if someone presents an argument saying "God can't be omniscient, because of this argument", then I want to know what they, as the person advancing an argument, think "omniscient" means. And I will poke at the argument to see whether it's any good.

If the argument is sound, I can rule out the notion that a God having that particular kind of omniscience exists. Whee! Doesn't change anything much.

How can you know this when you do not know what omniscience is?

By observing that every definition I've ever seen proposed is qualitatively dissimilar to our experience of learning things.

Why does a theist have so much difficulty in defining their terms?

As stated before, the problem here is not defining terms, but figuring out which definitions describe something correctly.

If you cannot say what the attributes of an entity is then you do not know anything about the entity.

I cannot say what the attributes of the universe are. I do not know how long it has existed (because I don't know whether there was anything before the big bang), I don't know how long it will exist, I don't know anything about parts of it from which light will not reach us in my lifetime. I cannot say how massive it is, or why some calculations of gravity appear not to line up correctly.

Do I know nothing about it?

Is it perhaps possible to know a little about something, or have the beginnings of an experience of it, without complete and polished understanding?

It is a meaningless statement much like the word god.

If this is so, then the argument is firmly rebutted, because it has a meaningless premise.

[Quetzalcoatl]

No? Within the last week, I saw you offer a definition of omnipotence for the PoE, then adapt it when it turned out not to work.

You and I know that was to prove a point to you so why are you misrepresenting me?

Theists refuse to define the word precisely.

No, we don't.

What I refuse to do is claim certain knowledge of God's attributes precise enough to tell you which definitions, if any, are correct.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You sure have a round about way restating my points.

When ask then what exactly do you mean you get answers that reduce to I don’t know what the word means but I know it means something.

The universe is full of things whose attributes I only partially understand.

If I can't explain how black holes work, am I prohibited from saying they're "damn heavy, whatever they are"?

This has no bearing on my point. If you don’t know what black hole means then you can’t say they are heavy. That is my point.

You have no omniscient god. What you are doing has nothing to do with reality.

This strikes me as pure assertion.

Presentation of said omniscient god would refute this. I am ready when you are.


If it would make you happier, we could compare with mathematics; in serious mathematics, there's not much to do with "the real world", but you can form theories about things, define them, learn things about those definitions...

Exactly seebs.


Personally, I don't particularly give a fuck; I just enjoy speculating. I don't have any idea what God knows or doesn't, or how.

Unfortunately not all theists are as honest as you.

Why does a theist have so much difficulty in defining their terms?

As stated before, the problem here is not defining terms, but figuring out which definitions describe something correctly.

I fail to see how this helps. All you are saying is that theist have no definition. IOW they are having problems defining their terms.


I cannot say what the attributes of the universe are.

Skipped high school Physics did you?

Is it perhaps possible to know a little about something, or have the beginnings of an experience of it, without complete and polished understanding?

By observing that every definition I've ever seen proposed is qualitatively dissimilar to our experience of learning things.

That’s the problem right there seebs.

If this is so, then the argument is firmly rebutted, because it has a meaningless premise

Your path to atheism is complete.

[seebs]

You and I know that was to prove a point to you so why are you misrepresenting me?

Theists refuse to define the word precisely.

I'm not misrepresenting you, so far as I can tell. You made an argument; it had a hole in it. You changed your definition to "fix" the hole.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You sure have a round about way restating my points.

I don't particularly agree with you. Your claim is that theists "refuse" to define terms precisely. This does not seem to be at issue. What's really at issue is refusing to define God precisely. The terms are not the problem. The problem is that theists are talking about something which, most of them will freely admit, is incompletely understood.

When ask then what exactly do you mean you get answers that reduce to I don’t know what the word means but I know it means something.

This has no bearing on my point. If you don’t know what black hole means then you can’t say they are heavy. That is my point.

But if I don't really know what mass is, I can say black holes are heavy.

You have no omniscient god. What you are doing has nothing to do with reality.

Presentation of said omniscient god would refute this. I am ready when you are.

It's not my job to refute it. You're making an affirmative claim. You want it accepted? Prove it. Otherwise, I will not accept it.

This leaves us at status quo; you don't believe, I do. But I'm not particularly trying to convince you to believe in God, so I don't owe you any "proof".

No shifting the burden of proof. If you wish to assert that there is no omniscient God, go ahead and make your case.

Unfortunately not all theists are as honest as you.

It's pretty general among people. I've been doing internet theology debates for years, and so far, there's a bit of dishonesty everywhere.

Why does a theist have so much difficulty in defining their terms?

I fail to see how this helps. All you are saying is that theist have no definition. IOW they are having problems defining their terms.

The problem isn't a lack of definition for the term "omniscient". The problem is not knowing everything about God -- but I don't think this problem will go away soon.

Skipped high school Physics did you?

No. But let's hear it. Exactly what are the attributes of the universe? Remember, the standard you claim I should be able to meet for God is sufficient precision that there can be no dodging or equivocation in a logical argument based on these attributes.

Let's see.

1. What exactly is the universe?
2. How much matter is in the universe?
3. Is the universe eternal?
4. Does the universe have a time at which it started?
5. Where was everything a billion years before the Big Bang?
6. Is there anything that is not within the observable boundaries of the expansion that started from our big bang? For instance, are there other similar things elsewhere?
7. When a quantum event happens, does the world split into two or more worlds, as in the Many-Worlds Hypothesis?
8. Are quantum events caused by anything within the universe?
9. What are quarks made of?
10. We know the speed of light can change with medium, and that the speed of light in some media is higher than the speed of light in a vacuum. What is the fastest light can go?
11. Can information ever move faster than light?
12. What exactly is the mechanism by which electrical fields induce current?

That’s the problem right there seebs.

I don't see a problem. The world is full of things that are unlike what I have seen so far. I don't spend a lot of time trying to prove things about them until I have more information.

Your path to atheism is complete.

No, just my path to rejecting yet another argument for atheism. It turns out that the best support for strong atheism we can get here is to throw the argument out entirely.

[JGL53]

I'm not sure. FWIW, I think there are at least a few conceptions of "omnipotence" which can at least be used in speculation, although I have no knowledge of whether any of them describe any entity.

I know that at least some notions of omnipresence are ill-defined enough that I can't find any reason to use them.

In particular, I would point out that omnipresence does not seem to me to imply pantheism. I believe gravity to be omnipresent, but I don't think I'd agree that the universe is gravity.

I utterly disagree. Omnipresence has one very understandable definition. If god exists and is omnipresent, all is god. This would include gravity. And if pantheism is a fact, then arguments about Godel's Theorum or god performing contradictory acts are all besides the point - it's all just god arguing with himself. :cool:

[seebs]

I utterly disagree. Omnipresence has one very understandable definition. If god exists and is omnipresent, all is god. This would include gravity. And if pantheism is a fact, then arguments about Godel's Theorum or god performing contradictory acts are all besides the point - it's all just god arguing with himself. :cool:

I don't see how you get from omnipresence to everything being God. Gravity is everywhere, but not everything is gravity.

[JGL53]

I don't see how you get from omnipresence to everything being God. Gravity is everywhere, but not everything is gravity.

If the word "omnipresent" means "all present" then everything is god. This would include gravity. This would include everything else that is not gravity. Gravity and all else would be appearance, manifestation, or aspect of god - IOW, god.

I don't know how to break this down in a simpler form for someone to understand. Why can you not grok the simple logic of "omnipresence = everything is god = pantheism"?

We can go round and round on this forever, but "omnipresent" means "present everywhere". Think about it. You can't be present everywhere unless you ARE everywhere. And if you ARE everywhere, then you are all that exists, i.e., you are a pantheistic god, e.g., Brahma in Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) philosophy.

The imaginary christian god is defined as all present and yet a separate creator from his creation. This is a logical absurdity. Being committed to this logical absurdity is apparently the genesis of your confusion, i.e., if someone tells you 2+2=5, and you commit to accept that, then logic goes out the window.

[seebs]

If the word "omnipresent" means "all present" then everything is god.

It is normally taken to mean "present in all places".

This would include gravity. This would include everything else that is not gravity. Gravity and all else would be appearance, manifestation, or aspect of god - IOW, god.

That wasn't the point of my example. My point is that gravity meets the normal definition of omnipresent -- gravity exists everywhere -- but that doesn't mean that everything is gravity.

This suggests that the connection from "X is omnipresent" to "everything is X" doesn't work.

I don't know how to break this down in a simpler form for someone to understand. Why can you not grok the simple logic of "omnipresence = everything is god = pantheism"?

Well, I guess it's that first = that I'm not getting.

We can go round and round on this forever, but "omnipresent" means "present everywhere". Think about it. You can't be present everywhere unless you ARE everywhere. And if you ARE everywhere, then you are all that exists, i.e., you are a pantheistic god, e.g., Brahma in Advaita Vedanta (Hindu) philosophy.

I disagree. Gravity is everywhere, but gravity is not all that exists. Some things can be colocated with other things.

The imaginary christian god is defined as all present and yet a separate creator from his creation. This is a logical absurdity. Being committed to this logical absurdity is apparently the genesis of your confusion, i.e., if someone tells you 2+2=5, and you commit to accept that, then logic goes out the window.

This is a non-sequitur, really.

You have an argument that something cannot be omnipresent without being everything. Let us ignore the supernaturalist questions, and look only at things we both agree exist for a moment. Gravity is a thing we both believe in. Gravity is omnipresent. However, not everything is gravity, even though everything is subject to gravity.

I believe this counterexample is enough to demonstrate that the connection from "omnipresent" to "is everything" is flawed.

[Godless Wonder]

Hey God, is the answer to this question negative?

[CowboyHeretic]

What a vain thread. Science can't even define consciousness whereas G-d created it. Quantum physiscs has proven that an object can be in two places at once. Protons exist as particles and waves. Does it not follow that anything then could be juxtaposed? :huh:

[JGL53]

...That wasn't the point of my example. My point is that gravity meets the normal definition of omnipresent -- gravity exists everywhere -- but that doesn't mean that everything is gravity...This suggests that the connection from "X is omnipresent" to "everything is X" doesn't work...I disagree. Gravity is everywhere, but gravity is not all that exists. Some things can be colocated with other things....

Well, gravity was an improper choice as an analogy and I should have called you on it immediately. But, like most people most of the time, I'm used to talking about gravity like I talk about the sun rising in the east. Of course, the sun appears to rise, but it's actually the earth turning. Gravity is what we observe when material objects actually fall together in curved space. There is no "attractive force" as we believe we observed - similar to the earth/sun situation, wherein observation is not reality.

That being said, logically speaking, some ultimate "oneness" must be in fact omnipresent - curved space, matter, energy, life, consciousness are all apparently manifestations of it. So the omnipresent oneness is either conscious (acts with intention) or not. If the former is true, then a pantheistic god exists. If not, then we have no omnipresent god. A demigod is still possible, of course.


... Science can't even define consciousness whereas G-d created it...

The latter part of your statement is an unfounded assertion - the first part is debatable, e.g., define "define".

... Quantum physiscs has proven that an object can be in two places at once...

I doubt that to the point of utter disbelief. Quote a source.

... Protons exist as particles and waves...

I believe the proper term is "wavicle".

... Does it not follow that anything then could be juxtaposed? ...

Well, I can juxtapose a banana and Mt. Fuji. So, yeah, "anything" can be juxtaposed. Your point?

[CowboyHeretic]

"Well, I can juxtapose a banana and Mt. Fuji. So, yeah, "anything" can be juxtaposed. Your point?"

Just because a human can play a clever wordgame has no bearing on the existence of G-d.

"...define "define"."

Clintonesque.

[Dryhad]

What a vain thread.
You owe me a new irony meter.

Science can't even define consciousness whereas G-d created it.
You must teach me how to do that. To make two statements seem related when they are not. It's an amazing talent.

Quantum physiscs has proven that an object can be in two places at once.
Seems adequately wierd for quantum physics. I wouldn't put it past it.

Protons exist as particles and waves.
Yup

Does it not follow that anything then could be juxtaposed? :huh:
No, it does not. I'd elaborate, but as you didn't I am both unaware of the context and devoid of motivation.

[JGL53]

...Just because a human can play a clever wordgame has no bearing on the existence of G-d. ...

Well you started this wordgame, and I seem to be better at it. Sue me.

..."...define "define"."

Clintonesque. ...

Yes, I admit I have fucked fat and/or ugly women. What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?

Consciousness, as far as I have heard, is obviously a word that we use to describe various processes that occur in the brain. Is that not sufficient? If not, then what's the next step - assume it is a separate invisible "substance" that just likes to hang out in the brain because it's, uh, warmer there or something? Or should we assume it is just unknowable magic, e.g., assume your imaginary god just wills it into being?

Like I said, define "define" in the context of your question. Or are you unable to do this?