Where did God come from?

[pseudo]

I just watched Matrix 2. The movie scrambled my brain. In it, Neo, the main character, meets the architect who created the matrix - the virtual world. Later, the plot suggests there may be a matrix inside a matrix. For me, this concept (Plato's cave, essentially) translates easily to a real life questions:

Where did God come from?

Who made God?

How do we know he's not running other worlds? If he could create one universe, he could certainly create another. And why not. He's God. He can do whatever what He wants.

How do we know that when we die we won't just see a "game over" sign and God will chuckle and that's it? Divine entertainment?

How do we know there aren't other God's, like the Greeks said - perhaps running other worlds that we don't know about?

I am hardly a thealogion or philosopher, but these thoughts have scrambled my belief system down to the core.

Thoughts? Answers?

[WinAce]

The standard answer - God is at least as complex as any phenomena he's postulated to explain, but he just happened to arbitrarily exist without a designer. No, he can't be evil, insane from existing for an eternity with no sensory input or simply bored to death and running a game with the equivalent of us playing with bacteria in a petri dish (trust us on this). No, there can't be other gods, because Christianity is true and that means they can't exist by definition. Just ignore the earlier parts of the Bible that speak of "assemblies of gods" with Yahweh as their leader.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103868#post103868)
WinAce whinges with more village atheism, but then he does like that asinine "Things creationists hate" list":

The standard answer - God is at least as complex as any phenomena he's postulated to explain, but he just happened to arbitrarily exist without a designer.

No He is not -- theologians point out that God is "simple", i.e. not composed of parts. Complexity means many parts in a specific arrangement. But don't expect an ignorant animal behaviorist like Dawkins to understand this, let alone his adolescent parrot WinAce.

No, he can't be evil, insane from existing for an eternity

Eternity is a timeless state rather than infinite time.

with no sensory input or simply bored to death and running a game with the equivalent of us playing with bacteria in a petri dish (trust us on this).

No He can't be evil since this is contrary to His nature. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to provide an objective standard by which He can be judged.

No, there can't be other gods, because Christianity is true and that means they can't exist by definition.

Just ignore the earlier parts of the Bible that speak of "assemblies of gods" with Yahweh as their leader. :dufus: Try distinguishing between "God" (capital G) and "gods" (lower case). Hebrew didn't have capitals but the usage reflected this English differentiation.

[Dilton]

God bless America

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103853#post103853)
pseudo:

Where did God come from?

Who made God?
....

Thoughts? Answers?

Of course. The main point to think about is that a proper Kalaam Cosmological argument is: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.Since God doesn't have a beginning and the universe does, God doesn't need a cause. See If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp)

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Mormons don't believe that Elohim or God, the Father, has always been God. At some distant point in the past He gained that exalted position of power.

Mormons believe that there could be other Gods ruling other places. Whether these other places are other solar systems or other parts of our galaxy or other galaxies or other universes is not something they are encouraged to discuss.

These ideas partly stem from their belief that one future day they can become Gods themselves over their own world(s).

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103868#post103868)
WinAce:

The standard answer - God is at least as complex as any phenomena he's postulated to explain, but he just happened to arbitrarily exist without a designer. No, he can't be evil, insane from existing for an eternity with no sensory input or simply bored to death and running a game with the equivalent of us playing with bacteria in a petri dish (trust us on this). No, there can't be other gods, because Christianity is true and that means they can't exist by definition. Just ignore the earlier parts of the Bible that speak of "assemblies of gods" with Yahweh as their leader.


To address what you said. The Bible always portrays YHWH as head over these beings (possibly Angels). Patrick Miller (leading scholar in Israelite Religion) makes note that the "gods" in the "assembly" never have names and in one Psalm YHWH even condemns them to death. What you have is a basic ANE way of describing the spiritual realm. This is a complex issue that has a lot of ink spilt over it. A good book to read is Miller's [i] The Religion of Ancient Israel[/i\]


Blake

[mickiel]

I would dissagree with any teaching that suggest God is simple, i would agree that he is capable of being simplistic as he sees the need. It is impossible for a being like God to be labeled as simple. I would agree with the poster who sees God as complex, he is that at the very least. I think if one is trying to suggest that God is not aloof, i would agree with that also. God is very unique, Job 23:13, and he has an ego, in fact the highest ego. I caution those thinkers who may jump on this to understand that Gods ego is not like human ego. Human ego is selfish and arrogant, as well as perverted, Gods ego is none of those. Notice Job chapter 38-chapt. 42. God asserts information about his power, and God is very confident about himself. The things that God list in these chapters are not simple, God is not simple minded, it took thinking that is beyound our ability to understand to design those things he designed.

This also gives us insight into the existance of this egnimatic being. God is definetly a creator, a designer, a planner, so Gods mind must be majestic, Hebrews 8:1. His thoughts are nothing like ours, Isaiah 55:8-11, so we cannot even begin to understand something that has no orgin. We are physical, we are comfortable seeing a beginning and an ending to things. God is defintely Holy, but also majestic IN his Holiness, Ex. 15:11, that means God is MORE THAN PERFECT. The answer to Gods orgin lays within all of our minds. Just meditate on how you think God came into being. Notice each time you come up with virtually nothing, that is the answer- nothing is revealed. Our human ego must accept we do no know everything.

I think one of the most compelling revelations about God is in 2 Chronicles 6:18, heaven, and the highest heaven , meaning outer space, cannot contain God. This can very possibly mean that God is gigantic in measurement, IF he can be measured. It could mean that, as one poster suggested, God could very well have many other worlds he has created, we just cannot interact with them. In fact i believe this is so BECAUSE of scriptures i have looked into, this being one of them. It could mean that no matter how we limit God in our minds, we are just ignorant for doing so. I think where life is concerned, having a God that created everything is far more reasonable than evolution. I like having a God, and i am sure that eternity being timeless, God will no doubt grant each of us an audience with him personally, and allow us to question him ourselves, now that would surely be something.

[WinAce]

Today @ 01:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103878#post103878)
Socrates:

No He is not -- theologians point out that God is "simple", i.e. not composed of parts. Complexity means many parts in a specific arrangement.

You've just shot yourself in the foot there. Your god's properties include numerous interacting components in a specific arrangement. Omnipotence, omniscience and and other aspects, each of which would need to be supported by other irreducibly complex mechanisms.

Omniscience, for example, would require an information storage, retrieval and processing system with more capacity than every single bit of knowable information in the universe. Omnipotence wouldn't work if you only had mechanisms that could produce matter - to fit your beliefs, you'd also need mechanisms that can change matter, spontaneously combust universes into existence out of nothing and other abilities. Take away any of those interacting components, and you no longer have the IC system of omnipotence.

But thanks for the ad hominem, Sock-puppet-rat-ease. :teeth:

Eternity is a timeless state rather than infinite time.

Yeah, and a timeless being that can perform actions in time is a living self-contradiction. You haven't really thought this thru much, have you? ;)

No He can't be evil since this is contrary to His nature. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to provide an objective standard by which He can be judged.

Does your foot hurt from all that gunpowder? By your own admission, anything god could do, from creating robots that rape infants to torturing everyone for eternity, would be good because it wouldn't be "contrary to his nature". But since "evil" doesn't rest solely on tautalogical fundie definitions of morality, you might have a problem there.

:dufus: Try distinguishing between "God" (capital G) and "gods" (lower case). Hebrew didn't have capitals but the usage reflected this English differentiation.

I know. The ancient Greeks also had a plethora of gods with one leading man. :rofl:

[Archimedes]

Thanks a lot for spoiling the movie for me.

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 06:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103882#post103882)
Socrates:



Of course. The main point to think about is that a proper Kalaam Cosmological argument is: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.Since God doesn't have a beginning and the universe does, God doesn't need a cause. See If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp)
The universe does not have a beginning. "Before the universe" is a meaningless statement akin to "100km north of the north pole." The reference is invalid.

From that article:
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy — the ‘heat death’ of the universe.
The total amount of mass-energy is constant - that much is accurate. This law is derived from the repeated observations that mass-energy cannot be created nor destroyed (which creation would violate, BTW). It does not follow that the total amount of mass-energy is therefore "limited." Constant does not equal finite because infinity is also a constant. Furthermore, entropy is asymptotic and as such forever approaches "heat death" but is not required to reach it. Still further, it is not a fact that the universe is a closed system, and it is only to closed systems which the laws of thermodynamics apply.

For some reason, though, I have a feeling that this won't be the last time anyone tries to dupe the inexperienced with bad math and pseudo-science.

Also, from your sig:Protagoras: Truth is relative, it is only a matter of opinion.
Me: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Me: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Me: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
Protagoras' correct answer would be: "No, you are incorrect. According to my philosophy truth is relative. I just told you that!"

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garthoverman.

The universe does not have a beginning. "Before the universe" is a meaningless statement akin to "100km north of the north pole." The reference is invalid.

i don't see how the fact that "before the universe" is a meaningless statement negates the universe's beginning. as far as i'm concerned, "beginning" just implies some starting point, as opposed to being able to trace something backward infinitely. unless you deny the mainstream scientific position that our universe is roughly 13(?) billion years old, i don't see how you can deny the universe's beginning. if you traverse back through time, you will presumably come to the moment immediately after the big bang singularity, which would, to my mind, signify the beginning point of the universe.

The total amount of mass-energy is constant - that much is accurate. This law is derived from the repeated observations that mass-energy cannot be created nor destroyed (which creation would violate, BTW). It does not follow that the total amount of mass-energy is therefore "limited." Constant does not equal finite because infinity is also a constant.

1) i'm not totally sure about this, but i thought it had been shown that the conservation of mass/energy breaks down at the quantum level. even if this is true, however, i think it is an unwarranted extrapolation to presume that such a violation of mass/energy conservation can be applied to the big bang, by positing that all of the mass/energy present in the universe came from nothing.

2) i don't think one can apply constancy to infinity. for example, consider the set of all natural numbers, as opposed to the set of all real numbers. the number of members in each set is infinite, but they contain different "levels" of infinity, so to speak.

3) are you implying that the total mass/energy in the universe is infinite? is there scientific support for this view? from my lay perspective, seeing that the universe is finite and thus contains finite volume, for infinite mass/energy to exist in the universe, the average density of the universe would need to be infinity. but this is not the case. (but perhaps you deny the mainstream scientific position that the universe is finite and expanding, as opposed to being infinite.)

Still further, it is not a fact that the universe is a closed system, and it is only to closed systems which the laws of thermodynamics apply.

i do not necessarily disagree with you here, but what is your reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the universe may be an open system?

regards.

[Jaltus]

Omniscience, for example, would require an information storage, retrieval and processing system with more capacity than every single bit of knowable information in the universe. Omnipotence wouldn't work if you only had mechanisms that could produce matter - to fit your beliefs, you'd also need mechanisms that can change matter, spontaneously combust universes into existence out of nothing and other abilities. Take away any of those interacting components, and you no longer have the IC system of omnipotence.


This is absosmurfly false. Omniscience works flawlessly with omnipresence. If God is everywhere at everywhen, then He knows everything as long as He has unlimited capacity (omnipotence, in a way). Thus, your conondrum negates itself when applied to the full "bundle of attributes."

Omnipotence also assumes the belief in creatio ex nihilo, which negates the need (irrespective of actual usage) for any sort of medium during creation.

As for the beginning of the universe, it depends how you define "beginning" and "time." Hawking admits there was something before the universe began, the problem is if there was time before the universe began (obviously assuming materialism on this score).

Also, the universe averages very low density, something like 1 hydrogen atom per thousand meters cubed, but I cannot recall the exact percentages off the top of my head and I lent out my book on subatomics to one of my wife's students.

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105042#post105042)
WinAce:

Omniscience, for example, would require an information storage, retrieval and processing system with more capacity than every single bit of knowable information in the universe.

How is it required that this system be a component of God? Why could God not be the information storage/retrieval/processing system?


Omnipotence wouldn't work if you only had mechanisms that could produce matter - to fit your beliefs, you'd also need mechanisms that can change matter, spontaneously combust universes into existence out of nothing and other abilities. Take away any of those interacting components, and you no longer have the IC system of omnipotence.

In larger terms, what is it that tells you that God is composed of "parts"? (Can you point to the "part" of a person that generates the feeling of a responsibility to vote?) How is it that these abilities can not be attributed to the identity of God?

Yeah, and a timeless being that can perform actions in time is a living self-contradiction.

In the same way, we three-spatial-dimensional beings are living self-contradictions when we "limit" ourselves to two-spatial-dimensional expressions on a piece of paper.

By your own admission, anything god could do, from creating robots that rape infants to torturing everyone for eternity, would be good because it wouldn't be "contrary to his nature".

No, not anything God could do, but anything God would do. The fact that I have the physical capacity to hold a loaded pistol to the head of my child and pull the trigger does not mean it is in my character to do so. The fact that I could be coerced into such an action (out of fear of worse consequences, for example) also does not mean it is in my character.

Creating robots that rape infants is not in God's character. The point is not whether He could do this but whether He would do this.

But since "evil" doesn't rest solely on tautalogical fundie definitions of morality...

Yes, Christians take it as a given that God's actions do not depart from His revealed character, which is why we can use His character as an objective morality.

I don't see it as tautological, but exemplary. If God would not do a thing, I should not, either. Those are the things I call "evil." (There are also things that God does do that I should not. God, being God, can call Himself God. If I call myself God, I am lying, something that God does not do.)

There are certain actions of God that are labeled by some on this board as "atrocities," as though God Himself (presupposing God's existence, naturally) were subject to rules not made by Himself. On what moral ground do we stand to call God's actions into question (presupposing the existence of God)? When I was five, my mom committed some egregious-in-a-five-year-old's-eyes act (I don't remember what, any more). Wouldn't give me a toy or refused me permission to do something or other. I was furious! I made great big angry eyebrows with my little hands and said, "I'm MAD at you!" I had no comprehension of why it was necessary for her to do what she did. I have my own kids now, and my 15-year-old still argues about why he should have to do some outrageous-in-a-15-year-old's-eyes thing. Just because my 15-year-old doesn't see what good reason there could be for him to do something I ask doesn't mean such good reason does not exist, because my perspective is much wider than his. Do we claim to have as wide a perspective as God's, that we can objectively judge His actions without resorting to "I wouldn't have done it that way, so it's wrong"?

A question, not a challenge: where do we find in the Bible that people are divided into those that enter heaven and those that are "tortured for eternity"?

[garthoverman]

Morpheus:
i don't see how the fact that "before the universe" is a meaningless statement negates the universe's beginning. as far as i'm concerned, "beginning" just implies some starting point, as opposed to being able to trace something backward infinitely.
The most important thing to understand is that the universe isn't a thing, it is a set of things, in fact it is the set of everything that exists. It is therefore impossible for a point to exist where the universe does not since the universe contains everything that exists by definition. To put it another way: it is impossible for something to exist outside of the set of everything that exists.

Now, since a beginning is a relation between two consecutive points in time: one where something does not exist, and the next where something does, the very relation presupposes the the existence of time which cannot exist without presupposing the existence of the universe.

IOW, to define a "beginning of the universe" requires an observable state of absolute non-existence, and such as state is not observed.

1) i'm not totally sure about this, but i thought it had been shown that the conservation of mass/energy breaks down at the quantum level.
No it does not. At the quantum level when we attempt to create a perfect vaccum, we still observe vaccum fluctuations - the spontaneous appearance and near-instantaneous annhiliation of particles and their anti-particles. The observation of these interactions is precisely why it seems that there is no such thing as absolute non-existence in reality, or "nothing," as it were. Even as we try to remove all mass-energy from a space, particles and anti-particles will still spontaneously surface above the Planck level and disappear. NONE of those interactions violate the energy conservation laws since the net energy of a particle-anti-particle pair is zero.

even if this is true, however, i think it is an unwarranted extrapolation to presume that such a violation of mass/energy conservation can be applied to the big bang, by positing that all of the mass/energy present in the universe came from nothing.That is not my position. I'm not saying that the Big Bang violates the conservation laws - I'm saying that creation violates those laws since creation posits the actual occurace of "something coming from nothing." As I've just explained, it seems that there is no such thing as "nothing"! Naturally I expect you to ask "Then where did the universe come from?" And my answer to you is that it appears the universe didn't "come from" anywhere. It simply is. The Big Bang is merely an explosion of mass-energy into a space-time manifold, it isn't the spontaneous appearance of "something from nothing." The "something" was already there but lacked the existence of a space-time manifold in which we can frame our observations of it, a manifold which arguably isn't a property of the objective universe at all but is instead an inherent property of our observations.

2) i don't think one can apply constancy to infinity. for example, consider the set of all natural numbers, as opposed to the set of all real numbers. the number of members in each set is infinite, but they contain different "levels" of infinity, so to speak.Infinity isn't a number like any other number, but it is a constant. Within any numerical system there is only one value for infinity. To put it another way, the set of all real numbers is an infinite set, and the constant value of infinity is equal to the largest element in the set of real numbers.

3) are you implying that the total mass/energy in the universe is infinite? is there scientific support for this view?
I'm simply saying that everywhere we make an observation there is "something" there in the form of mass-energy to be observed. Since there is no such thing as "nothing," as we progress as far back as we can in time as there is time to observe, there the universe always exists. Even where the relations of space and time break down and lose meaning (within the Schwarzchild radius surrounding the Big Bang singularity) the universe exists there. To speak of going "before" that has no meaning beyond that point. That type of relation is no longer valid.

from my lay perspective, seeing that the universe is finite and thus contains finite volume
But the universe is not finite. Time may be finite, but the existence of the universe is not. Time is merely a relation among things that exist in the universe. IOW, the existence of time presupposes the existence of the universe.

for infinite mass/energy to exist in the universe, the average density of the universe would need to be infinity. but this is not the case. (but perhaps you deny the mainstream scientific position that the universe is finite and expanding, as opposed to being infinite.)

Obviously since the universe is not finite, this last part doesn't follow.

Yours,
Garth

[WinAce]

Today @ 12:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105256#post105256)
Jaltus:

If God is everywhere at everywhen, then He knows everything as long as He has unlimited capacity (omnipotence, in a way).

Non-sequitur and an unsupported assertion. Being at a temporal location in space doesn't assure any knowledge of the state of affairs there. You'd do better to demonstrate how it does rather than merely claiming so.

Moreover, even if this questionable premise is granted, you still have knowledge that doesn't exist in the physical universe to account for (such as knowledge of how the geologic activity of the Earth would turn out if, say, there was more Uranium in the core). But nice try.

Omniscience is composed of numerous independent components, from knowledge of the future to knowledge of the physical makeup of earth's crust. Take away any of them, and the basic function (knowledge of EVERYTHING) is no longer. Hence, it fully qualifies as an irreducibly complex system.

Omnipotence also assumes the belief in creatio ex nihilo, which negates the need (irrespective of actual usage) for any sort of medium during creation.

Assuming what you need to demonstrate is always fun. However, you'll have to recognize that poofing physical matter into existence or interacting with a physical medium without a physical mechanism is almost a contradiction in terms. When was the last time you spoke without using sound waves, again?

Today @ 01:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105265#post105265)
prgmrdave:

How is it required that this system be a component of God? Why could God not be the information storage/retrieval/processing system?

It's pretty basic, actually. "Information" is pretty much by definition encoded in digital format. That requires a system of storing and processing binary or similar information. In our brain, that's encoded in the complex ways synapses interact with each other. On a computer, it's with alternating empty and full bits. One bit doesn't make information, more so if there isn't even a mechanism for indicating it's 1 or 0.

Since God would be indivisible, he can't be divided into parts that digital information is stored on. That also fully qualifies as an IC system, in that removing any part of God would render him not-God.

In larger terms, what is it that tells you that God is composed of "parts"? (Can you point to the "part" of a person that generates the feeling of a responsibility to vote?) How is it that these abilities can not be attributed to the identity of God?

Identity doesn't exist in the absence of a physical medium to be encoded on. And while I'm aware of no studies that identify the part of the brain responsible for patriotism, damaging certain known parts can indeed take away the generation of "personality traits" like love, aggressive impulses, certain types of thought, cherished memories, etc. When your physical brain is anesthetized, there's no "identity" to speak of running.

No, not anything God could do, but anything God would do.

Without appealing to a standard outside of and binding upon God, how do you know what he would do? By definition, anything God does would be "in his character", so you only have a nice tautalogy there.

If God's nature included lying to Christians by "revealing" a false view of himself and then burning them regardless with the worst of the unbelievers, you would have no way of saying that action was wrong. In fact, the "might makes right" you seem to advocate would make it the epitomy of morality. ;)

A question, not a challenge: where do we find in the Bible that people are divided into those that enter heaven and those that are "tortured for eternity"?

You don't find it "in the Bible", much as you won't find Calvinism or eternal security there, because that would imply it was some objective quality of the Bible itself as opposed to based in interpretations of it.

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 11:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105289#post105289)
WinAce:

Without appealing to a standard outside of and binding upon God, how do you know what he would do?

Suppose there were a standard outside of and binding upon God. How would we evaluate the objectivity of that standard? How would we evaluate the objectivity of that evaluation?


By definition, anything God does would be "in his character", so you only have a nice tautalogy there.

Eh? I think you are trying to set up a lose-lose situation: If God always acts in His character, it's a tautology; if He even once acts other than in His character, His standard becomes "whatever God feels like doing, in His character or not." The second is might-makes-right morality; the first is not.

Having a standard of morality is to know what is right to do and what is wrong, by definition. Yes, God always follows His own rules. This is not a problem so long as the rules never ever change. If the rules He chooses to act by ever change, even once, that is when it has degenerated to might-makes-right.

If God's nature included lying to Christians by "revealing" a false view of himself and then burning them regardless with the worst of the unbelievers, you would have no way of saying that action was wrong.

Then I guess the question to ask is whether such lying actually is in God's nature. I mean, if it's not, it's useless to spend time speculating about what we would do if we found out that lying is in God's nature, right?

In fact, the "might makes right" you seem to advocate would make it the epitomy of morality. ;)

1) I think you mean you suspect that I believe that since God is all-powerful, He gets to make all the rules. Presupposing that all-powerful God exists, I'm not exactly in a position to argue with what He decides to do, am I? In other words, if the situation truly is might-makes-right, then until we are mighty like unto God, there's diddly we can do about it, and so it really isn't worth considering.

2) Each time my wife and I had a child, we had a choice whether to take a position of responsibility with respect to that child or not. (We could have given them up for adoption, for example.) Each time, we chose responsibility, and gained authority. Do they, growing up, have the right to impose their own moral standards upon us, as you would upon God? Or is my authority with respect to my children simply a might-makes-right kind of thing? (It is, to hear my 15-year-old tell it :teeth:)

You don't find it "in the Bible", much as you won't find Calvinism or eternal security there, because that would imply it was some objective quality of the Bible itself as opposed to based in interpretations of it.

What is it "in the Bible" that you interpret as "eternal torture"?

[Defenestrator]

garthoverman:

Morpheus:

The most important thing to understand is that the universe isn't a thing, it is a set of things, in fact it is the set of everything that exists. It is therefore impossible for a point to exist where the universe does not since the universe contains everything that exists by definition. To put it another way: it is impossible for something to exist outside of the set of everything that exists.

Well, that works out nicely for the pantheist, doesn't it? :smile:


Now, since a beginning is a relation between two consecutive points in time: one where something does not exist, and the next where something does, the very relation presupposes the the existence of time which cannot exist without presupposing the existence of the universe.

IOW, to define a "beginning of the universe" requires an observable state of absolute non-existence, and such as state is not observed.

I don't think it can be observed, by definition.


No it does not. At the quantum level when we attempt to create a perfect vaccum, we still observe vaccum fluctuations - the spontaneous appearance and near-instantaneous annhiliation of particles and their anti-particles. The observation of these interactions is precisely why it seems that there is no such thing as absolute non-existence in reality, or "nothing," as it were. Even as we try to remove all mass-energy from a space, particles and anti-particles will still spontaneously surface above the Planck level and disappear. NONE of those interactions violate the energy conservation laws since the net energy of a particle-anti-particle pair is zero.

That's all because the vacuum is still in this "cosmic background," or whatever you want to call it. You can get rid of the mass/energy but the "background" is still there.


That is not my position. I'm not saying that the Big Bang violates the conservation laws - I'm saying that creation violates those laws since creation posits the actual occurace of "something coming from nothing."

Actually, creation is the "putting into place" of these laws - the "I didn't exist "before" but "now" I do" of these laws (where words like "before" and "now" and even "putting" don't mean exactly what they usually mean but should give you a hint as to what I do mean :smile:).

As I've just explained, it seems that there is no such thing as "nothing"! Naturally I expect you to ask "Then where did the universe come from?" And my answer to you is that it appears the universe didn't "come from" anywhere. It simply is.

You forgot to say "It appears to me ..." But this is where religious assumptions come in. The universe seems to be self existing. Or the universe seems to be the creation of God who is self-existing. I'm sorry to say that cosmological models of the universe will be built based on these assumptions - we won't come to those conclusions based on the "neutral" findings of the cosmological models.

The Big Bang is merely an explosion of mass-energy into a space-time manifold, it isn't the spontaneous appearance of "something from nothing." The "something" was already there but lacked the existence of a space-time manifold in which we can frame our observations of it, a manifold which arguably isn't a property of the objective universe at all but is instead an inherent property of our observations.

Metaphysically arguable, that is, and only to those who will listen.


Infinity isn't a number like any other number, but it is a constant. Within any numerical system there is only one value for infinity. To put it another way, the set of all real numbers is an infinite set, and the constant value of infinity is equal to the largest element in the set of real numbers.

I don't know if that is quite correct, but it probably depends on what you mean by "numerical system." What I mean is that yes, the set of all real numbers is an infinite set and the constant value of infinity is equal to the cardinality of that set, but I would call the natural numbers part of that "numerical system" - i.e., they are just a subset of our set. And the cardinality of this set is a different infinity than our larger set. But maybe you are calling that a different "numerical system."


I'm simply saying that everywhere we make an observation there is "something" there in the form of mass-energy to be observed. Since there is no such thing as "nothing," as we progress as far back as we can in time as there is time to observe, there the universe always exists. Even where the relations of space and time break down and lose meaning (within the Schwarzchild radius surrounding the Big Bang singularity) the universe exists there. To speak of going "before" that has no meaning beyond that point. That type of relation is no longer valid.

I think when you hear the term "before the beginning of the universe" or other such things you shouldn't think of them as necessarily "time-related" words. In essence, the word "before" in the phrases "before the beginning of the universe" and "before I go to sleep" aren't really the same word at all. I know, I know, it isn't really a precise use of words, but I don't know if it is possible to be precise about this subject (although I'm sure others can do better than I am doing).

[Jaltus]

Today @ 01:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105289#post105289)
WinAce:
Non-sequitur and an unsupported assertion. Being at a temporal location in space doesn't assure any knowledge of the state of affairs there. You'd do better to demonstrate how it does rather than merely claiming so.

I assumed you knew what the different attributes implied, but obviously not.

I assumed that if a thinking being is present at a location, then a thinking being would know what is going on at that location. I thought we were assuming the attributes of God and then seeing what came of that assumption, or am I missing the exercise? You seem to like to argue against a position which no theist I know of holds.

Moreover, even if this questionable premise is granted, you still have knowledge that doesn't exist in the physical universe to account for (such as knowledge of how the geologic activity of the Earth would turn out if, say, there was more Uranium in the core). But nice try.

If you want to debate knowledge of counterfactuals, you have entered a completely different realm of argumentation. We can go there if you wish, but we would need to start another thread on that alone.

Omniscience is composed of numerous independent components, from knowledge of the future to knowledge of the physical makeup of earth's crust. Take away any of them, and the basic function (knowledge of EVERYTHING) is no longer. Hence, it fully qualifies as an irreducibly complex system.

Assumption on your behalf. Other than physicality limiting our knowledge, why should knowledge need parts? Again, if God is everywhere and everywhen (being nonphysical Himself), then why should knowledge be peicemeal? You are assuming a physical, temporal God in your model, which is not what I am proposing nor is it the God most theists hold to. You seem to be arguing against a position nobody holds.

Assuming what you need to demonstrate is always fun. However, you'll have to recognize that poofing physical matter into existence or interacting with a physical medium without a physical mechanism is almost a contradiction in terms. When was the last time you spoke without using sound waves, again?

When was the last time you died of old age? Besides, energy can convert into material without being material. If God is an unlimited source of energy (omnipotence, meaning all-potential), then this truly is not a problem.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 08:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=105312#post105312)
Defenestrator:

Well, that works out nicely for the pantheist, doesn't it? :smile:
Eeeeeek! I've been exposed! :help:

:teeth:

I don't think it can be observed, by definition.
See now if I was gonna just say that no one would've believed me.


That's all because the vacuum is still in this "cosmic background," or whatever you want to call it. You can get rid of the mass/energy but the "background" is still there.
So..... then the cosmic background is God? :huh: :teeth:

Actually, creation is the "putting into place" of these laws - the "I didn't exist "before" but "now" I do" of these laws (where words like "before" and "now" and even "putting" don't mean exactly what they usually mean but should give you a hint as to what I do mean :smile:).
I understand. I shouldn't have gone so far as to imply that the matter is completely decided. My only point is that we don't observe "something coming from nothing" which is what creation necessitates. It is entirely possible that God created the universe such that it is impossible to observe the event of His creation, but that theory is equally as possible (and unfalisifiable) as the notion that the universe was created Last Thursday by HRG's cat.



You forgot to say "It appears to me ..." But this is where religious assumptions come in. The universe seems to be self existing. Or the universe seems to be the creation of God who is self-existing. I'm sorry to say that cosmological models of the universe will be built based on these assumptions - we won't come to those conclusions based on the "neutral" findings of the cosmological models.
Yeah, it appears that way to me and to lots of other highly qualified cosmologists (shameless argument from authority). You're right that presupposing different axioms will necessitate differing interpretations of the evidence. The point I wanted to make is that under the presuppositions of science it appears that the universe is self-existing. Once you get into Van Tillian presuppositionalism, almost anything is possible.


Metaphysically arguable, that is, and only to those who will listen.
I wish I could say I disagreed.


I don't know if that is quite correct, but it probably depends on what you mean by "numerical system." What I mean is that yes, the set of all real numbers is an infinite set and the constant value of infinity is equal to the cardinality of that set, but I would call the natural numbers part of that "numerical system" - i.e., they are just a subset of our set. And the cardinality of this set is a different infinity than our larger set. But maybe you are calling that a different "numerical system." '
Infinity also exists in the context of topological space which we can use to model the universe. The very fact that space-time is continuous makes it infinite since it will withstand infintesimal subdivision.



I think when you hear the term "before the beginning of the universe" or other such things you shouldn't think of them as necessarily "time-related" words. In essence, the word "before" in the phrases "before the beginning of the universe" and "before I go to sleep" aren't really the same word at all. I know, I know, it isn't really a precise use of words, but I don't know if it is possible to be precise about this subject (although I'm sure others can do better than I am doing).
In my experience there are two different notions of "universe" that cause a lot of disagreement. One is "this patch of space-time that we presently observe having came out of the big bang" and the other is "everything that exists." The latter is the more appropriate definition, IMHO, and the former really should be qualified as the physical universe, since it is the subset of the real universe. I can conceive of certain notions of "before" the physical universe. In fact, the latest ekpyrotic models are exploring what might have happened "before" the Big Bang. BUT I cannot conceive of something existing "before" the real universe since anything that isn't contained within the real universe isn't real.

BTW - this board probably could have used your input in the "Objective Ideas" thread. I came THIS -><- close to digging up your Objective/Subjective thread from the CARM APO board and pasting it in that thread - with due credit given, of course. :cheers:

Edited to add: The "Objective Ideas" thread was on the Religion 101 board, not this one. Its not too late for you to get in there and clear up all that confusion!

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garthoverman.

The most important thing to understand is that the universe isn't a thing, it is a set of things, in fact it is the set of everything that exists. It is therefore impossible for a point to exist where the universe does not since the universe contains everything that exists by definition. To put it another way: it is impossible for something to exist outside of the set of everything that exists.

this is an interesting definition of the universe, of which i'm not very familiar. usually the universe is defined as everything that exists within space and time, or as the sum of all existing matter and energy, or something like that. with your definition of universe, an existing god would be part of the universe, since he is an existent.

i can't see any good scientific reason for utilizing your definition of universe. science deals with natural phenomena, and really doesn't explicitly say anything about the supernatural. if the universe is defined as everything that exists in physical space and time, then all of its facets are scientifically observable. if, however, the universe is defined as the set of everything that exists, it is possible that there are supernatural facets of the universe (e.g. god) of which science would have nothing to say. while there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it just seems odd to me.

Now, since a beginning is a relation between two consecutive points in time: one where something does not exist, and the next where something does, the very relation presupposes the the existence of time which cannot exist without presupposing the existence of the universe.

IOW, to define a "beginning of the universe" requires an observable state of absolute non-existence, and such as state is not observed.

i don't see why "an observable state of absolute non-existence" is required in order to pinpoint the beginning of the universe. all the word "beginning" signifies is a starting point. if we can trace time backward to the point immediately after the big bang singularity, then we will have located the beginning (temporally speaking) of the universe (by which i mean the beginning of space-time). this is what people mean when they talk of "the beginning of the universe."

morpheus:
1) i'm not totally sure about this, but i thought it had been shown that the conservation of mass/energy breaks down at the quantum level.

garthoverman:
No it does not. At the quantum level when we attempt to create a perfect vaccum, we still observe vaccum fluctuations - the spontaneous appearance and near-instantaneous annhiliation of particles and their anti-particles. The observation of these interactions is precisely why it seems that there is no such thing as absolute non-existence in reality, or "nothing," as it were. Even as we try to remove all mass-energy from a space, particles and anti-particles will still spontaneously surface above the Planck level and disappear. NONE of those interactions violate the energy conservation laws since the net energy of a particle-anti-particle pair is zero.

i stand corrected. i remember hearing about this some time ago, but had forgotten.

morpheus:
even if this is true, however, i think it is an unwarranted extrapolation to presume that such a violation of mass/energy conservation can be applied to the big bang, by positing that all of the mass/energy present in the universe came from nothing.

garthoverman:
That is not my position.

i wasn't implying that it was, but, since it is the position of many, the point seemed relevant.

I'm saying that creation violates those laws since creation posits the actual occurace of "something coming from nothing." As I've just explained, it seems that there is no such thing as "nothing"!

well, the fact that "nothing" has never been observed does not rule out the possibility that "nothingness" can exist.

also, the conservation law, which is the basis for the argument that something cannot come from nothing (as in a creation event) is, of course a scientific law. a creation event, however, would be supernatural, and so i don't see how the conservation law could be applied to rule it out (seeing that science deals with the natural realm).

Naturally I expect you to ask "Then where did the universe come from?" And my answer to you is that it appears the universe didn't "come from" anywhere. It simply is. The Big Bang is merely an explosion of mass-energy into a space-time manifold, it isn't the spontaneous appearance of "something from nothing." The "something" was already there but lacked the existence of a space-time manifold in which we can frame our observations of it, a manifold which arguably isn't a property of the objective universe at all but is instead an inherent property of our observations.

i'm trying to fully understand what you're positing here. from what i understand, the mainstream scientific view is that the big bang represents the creation of the space-time universe out of nothing.

i think what you're saying is that the mass/energy existed "before" (obviously not temporally, but you get my point) the big bang, and that the big bang represents the point at which a space-time manifold came into existence, into which the mass/energy exploded.

but there seem to be some problems with this view. if the space-time manifold came into existence, then it is an existent. but from what did it come? if nothing, then there is still the "something from nothing" problem. if something, then what?

also, "before" the mass/energy (the "something" that you claim was already there) entered the space-time manifold, how could it exist? how can there be matter with no space for it to occupy? i was of the impression that, definitionally, matter was something that takes up space. dictionary.com, though certainly not the definitive source for scientific definitions, defines matter as "something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole."

i'm interested in clarification of what you're saying in your last point, where you talk about the space-time manifold not being a property of the objective universe. all definitions of universe that i've run across seem to indicate that space and time surely are two of its properties.

and even if, as you say, the big bang marks the point at which mass/energy exploded into a space-time manifold, the view that "the universe began to exist" still holds water, imo. everyone i've encountered who makes this claim is speaking of the universe as everything that exists in space and time. the universe defined thusly had a beginning: at the big bang, matter/energy began to exist within the space-time manifold. i don't think you can just define the universe as you have and get around the argument in that way.

morpheus:
2) i don't think one can apply constancy to infinity. for example, consider the set of all natural numbers, as opposed to the set of all real numbers. the number of members in each set is infinite, but they contain different "levels" of infinity, so to speak.

garthoverman:
Infinity isn't a number like any other number, but it is a constant. Within any numerical system there is only one value for infinity. To put it another way, the set of all real numbers is an infinite set, and the constant value of infinity is equal to the largest element in the set of real numbers.

i still disagree. my point was that if you consider the set of all natural numbers (i.e., 1,2,3,4...) and the set of all real numbers (all positive and negative values, including all possible decimals), it is clear that both of these sets have an infinite number of members. but i don't think it could be said that the number of members in each set is a constant. if you take all of the members of the real number set and take away those that are also in the natural number set (i.e., taking an infinite number of members away from a set that contains an infinite number of members), you still are obviously left with an infinite number of members in the real number set. but if infinity was a constant, then taking it away from itself would presumably leave nothing. therefore, i don't see how the concept of constancy can be applied in any meaningful way to the concept of infinity.

morpheus:
3) are you implying that the total mass/energy in the universe is infinite? is there scientific support for this view?

garthoverman:
I'm simply saying that everywhere we make an observation there is "something" there in the form of mass-energy to be observed. Since there is no such thing as "nothing," as we progress as far back as we can in time as there is time to observe, there the universe always exists. Even where the relations of space and time break down and lose meaning (within the Schwarzchild radius surrounding the Big Bang singularity) the universe exists there. To speak of going "before" that has no meaning beyond that point. That type of relation is no longer valid.

a couple posts ago you said this, to which i replied with the above question regarding the mass/energy in the universe:

"The total amount of mass-energy is constant - that much is accurate. This law is derived from the repeated observations that mass-energy cannot be created nor destroyed (which creation would violate, BTW). It does not follow that the total amount of mass-energy is therefore "limited." Constant does not equal finite because infinity is also a constant."

it seems that in this quote you're implying that there is infinite mass/energy. you attempt to validate your point that the total amount of mass/energy may not be finite by saying that constancy can apply to infinity. am i wrong, then, in assuming that you were arguing that the total amount of mass/energy is infinite?

regardless, i don't see how your above response answers the question. the fact that at all possible points we can observe the universe and mass/energy exist does not directly lead to the conclusion that the amount of mass/energy is infinite.

morpheus:
from my lay perspective, seeing that the universe is finite and thus contains finite volume

garthoverman:
But the universe is not finite. Time may be finite, but the existence of the universe is not. Time is merely a relation among things that exist in the universe. IOW, the existence of time presupposes the existence of the universe.

i was speaking with regard to spatial relations on this point. the mainstream scientific position is that the universe takes up a finite amount of space and is expanding, not that it takes up infinite space. my point was that, if the universe does indeed take up finite space, then the existence of infinite mass/energy within the universe is impossible. since density = mass/volume, for there to be infinite mass/energy in a finite space there would have to be an infinite density of mass/energy in that space. but this is obviously not the case.

in what sense are you saying that the universe's existence is infinite? if it is temporally, then i don't see how that is possible if time itself is finite; furthermore, the overwhelming scientific position is that the universe is temporally finite. if you meant it in a spatial sense, then, again, that is not the widely held scientific viewpoint of the times (not that that makes you wrong, of course).

to say that "the existence of time presupposes the existence of the universe" is to use an odd conceptualization of what the universe is, to my mind. if the common definition of universe is applied, which says that the universe is all that exists within space and time, it would lead to the statement that the existence of the universe presupposes the existence of time, because the universe cannot exist without time (since the existence of space-time is a necessary condition of the universe).

morpheus:
for infinite mass/energy to exist in the universe, the average density of the universe would need to be infinity. but this is not the case. (but perhaps you deny the mainstream scientific position that the universe is finite and expanding, as opposed to being infinite.)

garthoverman:
Obviously since the universe is not finite, this last part doesn't follow.

see above.

regards.

[garthoverman]

this is an interesting definition of the universe, of which i'm not very familiar. usually the universe is defined as everything that exists within space and time, or as the sum of all existing matter and energy, or something like that. with your definition of universe, an existing god would be part of the universe, since he is an existent.
Certainly. Despite the apparent desire of typical theists (not necessarily you) to excuse their God from being subject to rational scrutiny, the most useful definition of the universe (i.e. the set of everything that really exists) must therefore include this God - should He even exist - and this inclusion must be taken into account in constructing a theory of reality.

i can't see any good scientific reason for utilizing your definition of universe. science deals with natural phenomena, and really doesn't explicitly say anything about the supernatural. if the universe is defined as everything that exists in physical space and time, then all of its facets are scientifically observable. if, however, the universe is defined as the set of everything that exists, it is possible that there are supernatural facets of the universe (e.g. god) of which science would have nothing to say. while there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it just seems odd to me.
You've made some very subtle equivocations that seem to be the source of your confusion. The physical universe is not necessarily the same as the natural universe, neither of which are necessarily identical to the real universe. In other words, "natural," "physical," and "real" do not all mean the same thing when qualifying the universe. The real universe may contain the physical and non-physical universes just as it may contain the natural and supernatural universes - it all depends on whether or not any of those universes are real. It is so far undecided whether or not the non-physical or supernatural universes are real, but these definitions allow for their reality should this be the case. You are correct inasmuch as scientific observation is limited to only the natural and physical universe, however this does not limit the reach of our rational scrutiny to those universes.

i don't see why "an observable state of absolute non-existence" is required in order to pinpoint the beginning of the universe. all the word "beginning" signifies is a starting point.
A beginning (a "starting point") is a change of state from non-existence to existence. We cannot know that such a point is in fact a "starting point" to existence unless we can know that there was no existence before it.

Think about it like this: a runner is 10km away from you and running toward you but unbeknownst to you because there is a hill between him and you. Since the hill is there, you cannot see him on the other side of the hill running toward you. Eventually he crests the hill, and you can begin to observe him. Does this mean that the runner's "starting point" was at the crest of the hill? No, it was merely the starting point of your observations of the runner. Such a situation is analagous to a "beginning of existence." Everywhere that we can observe existence, existence is there. This does not let us conclude that where our observations begin to be meaningful, that this is where the universe must begin to exist.

if we can trace time backward to the point immediately after the big bang singularity, then we will have located the beginning (temporally speaking) of the universe (by which i mean the beginning of space-time). this is what people mean when they talk of "the beginning of the universe."
And as I hope I made clear above, the physical universe (i.e. that which is contained withn space-time) is not necessarily the same as the real universe. The latter must include the former, but the two are not necessarily identical. As I intend to get into down in the rest of this post, the beginning of space-time out of the Big Bang is analagous to the beginning of your observations of the runner cresting the hill. It is crucial that you do not confuse the beginning of your observations of the observed with the beginning of the existence of the observed.

<snip points about vacuum fluctuation>

well, the fact that "nothing" has never been observed does not rule out the possibility that "nothingness" can exist.
This is sort of a pet peeve of mine. "Nothingness" is a state of non-existence. It is a contradiction to assert that "a state of non-existence can exist" or "non-existence exists." Its akin to saying a circle can be square. Obviously one of your definitions does not match the other.

also, the conservation law, which is the basis for the argument that something cannot come from nothing (as in a creation event) is, of course a scientific law. a creation event, however, would be supernatural, and so i don't see how the conservation law could be applied to rule it out (seeing that science deals with the natural realm).
This issue complicates things severely, I'll admit, but really only for those that insist the "supernatural" is real. Personally, I take it as self-evident that postulating the existence of something which is not required to conform to our expectations of rationality is irrational. In the search for reliable knowledge, considering the existence of supernatural entities contributes nothing since supernatural entities and/or their effects cannot be reliably known. Furthermore, since such hypotheses are inherently unfalsifiable they will be heretofore disregarded.

i'm trying to fully understand what you're positing here. from what i understand, the mainstream scientific view is that the big bang represents the creation of the space-time universe out of nothing.
Nope. The Big Bang is the appearace of the physical universe over the event horizon (remember the runner over the hill?) surrounding the BB's singularity. The singluarity is not "nothing."

i think what you're saying is that the mass/energy existed "before" (obviously not temporally, but you get my point) the big bang, and that the big bang represents the point at which a space-time manifold came into existence, into which the mass/energy exploded.
So far, so good.

but there seem to be some problems with this view. if the space-time manifold came into existence, then it is an existent. but from what did it come? if nothing, then there is still the "something from nothing" problem. if something, then what?Right now, we're not certain. The ekpyrotic model poses a few hypotheses including a description of the Big Bang as the result of the collision of two or more three-dimensional universes along another hidden dimension that explodes into our four-dimensional physical universe. I'll emphasise, though, that "We don't know" does not equal "God did it."

also, "before" the mass/energy (the "something" that you claim was already there) entered the space-time manifold, how could it exist? how can there be matter with no space for it to occupy? i was of the impression that, definitionally, matter was something that takes up space. dictionary.com, though certainly not the definitive source for scientific definitions, defines matter as "something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole."
The real universe is also not equal to the material universe (i.e the universe of matter). If matter doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that "nothing" exists since energy is not necessarily material. Therefore it can be the case that the Big Bang resulted in the appearance of matter, BUT this appearance is not a case of "something from nothing."

i'm interested in clarification of what you're saying in your last point, where you talk about the space-time manifold not being a property of the objective universe. all definitions of universe that i've run across seem to indicate that space and time surely are two of its properties.
It used to be that space-time was considered material, IOW it was thought that space-time was composed of some substance called the "ether." However, since the advent of General Relativity, nothing material remains of empty space. While, as we discussed before, space is constantly permeated by vaccum fields, these exist within space-time and are not equivalent to it. Now space-time has been reduced to a mathematical abstraction called a "tensor field" which confers relations like direction, orientation, etc... IOW, space is something that is abstracted from its contents, and abstraction is a mental process. This means that space is a construct of our minds and is not an object (which is what constitutes the objective universe - "objects").

and even if, as you say, the big bang marks the point at which mass/energy exploded into a space-time manifold, the view that "the universe began to exist" still holds water, imo. everyone i've encountered who makes this claim is speaking of the universe as everything that exists in space and time. the universe defined thusly had a beginning: at the big bang, matter/energy began to exist within the space-time manifold. i don't think you can just define the universe as you have and get around the argument in that way.Seems to me like you want to redefine the beginning of the physical universe as the beginning of the real universe so that might actually have a demonstrable instance of such a beginning so that you might postulate your God as the beginner. The fact is that real does not always equal physical. Since philosophy is about theories of reality - not theories of physicality - the real universe is what we must consider.

i still disagree. my point was that if you consider the set of all natural numbers (i.e., 1,2,3,4...) and the set of all real numbers (all positive and negative values, including all possible decimals), it is clear that both of these sets have an infinite number of members. but i don't think it could be said that the number of members in each set is a constant. if you take all of the members of the real number set and take away those that are also in the natural number set (i.e., taking an infinite number of members away from a set that contains an infinite number of members), you still are obviously left with an infinite number of members in the real number set. but if infinity was a constant, then taking it away from itself would presumably leave nothing. therefore, i don't see how the concept of constancy can be applied in any meaningful way to the concept of infinity.
Arithmetic only operates on finite quantities. Furthermore you're talking about two different notions of infinity when you talk about the set of real numbers and set of the natural numbers, but for any infinite set, infinity's constant value is equal to the cardinality of that set. Constant does not equal finite.

it seems that in this quote you're implying that there is infinite mass/energy. you attempt to validate your point that the total amount of mass/energy may not be finite by saying that constancy can apply to infinity. am i wrong, then, in assuming that you were arguing that the total amount of mass/energy is infinite?

regardless, i don't see how your above response answers the question. the fact that at all possible points we can observe the universe and mass/energy exist does not directly lead to the conclusion that the amount of mass/energy is infinite.
Yeah, Defenestrator called me on the insertion of my own conjectures. The issue was originally raised because the Answers in Genesis article by J. Sarfati concluded that the universe is finite because the 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that the total energy of the universe is constant. This is not the case because constant does not equal finite. This also doesn't let us conclude that it is infinite either. The point should be that there are no steadfast conclusions yet, or that the concusions that Sarfati tried to draw are invalid.

i was speaking with regard to spatial relations on this point. the mainstream scientific position is that the universe takes up a finite amount of space and is expanding, not that it takes up infinite space. my point was that, if the universe does indeed take up finite space, then the existence of infinite mass/energy within the universe is impossible. since density = mass/volume, for there to be infinite mass/energy in a finite space there would have to be an infinite density of mass/energy in that space. but this is obviously not the case.
This is far from decided either. If space is continuous (which it seems that it is) then there is infinite space bewteen any two points that are non-congruent. To illustrate by a geometric analogy, there are infinitely many points on a line because points have no thickness. It seems that points in space have no "thickness" either.

I trust the clarifcations I've offered above to have sufficiently addressed the issues contained in your final parapraphs. I'm tired of typing <whew!> .... :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garthoverman. thanks for your insight on these issues; you obviously know what you're talking about.

Certainly. Despite the apparent desire of typical theists (not necessarily you) to excuse their God from being subject to rational scrutiny, the most useful definition of the universe (i.e. the set of everything that really exists) must therefore include this God - should He even exist - and this inclusion must be taken into account in constructing a theory of reality.

i agree that a god needs to be subject to rational scrutiny. if he is not, then i don't see how anyone can have an accurate conceptualization of what god is and does.

You've made some very subtle equivocations that seem to be the source of your confusion. The physical universe is not necessarily the same as the natural universe, neither of which are necessarily identical to the real universe. In other words, "natural," "physical," and "real" do not all mean the same thing when qualifying the universe.

yes, i understand why the word universe, without any qualifier (such as "physical," or "real"), can mean different things. that's the point i was making in the last post - your use of the word universe was different from others'. i wasn't implying that your definition of the word was wrong or unsuitable for purposes of discussion, but just that it was, from my experiences, uncommon.

i don't see how i'm equivocating, by which i assume you are speaking with regard to the word "universe." in my last post i understood that i was talking about two different conceptualizations of the universe (i.e., the real universe that you were positing, and alternatively the physical universe that was also discussed), and attempted to distinguish to which one i was referring.

oh yes, what exactly would be the difference between the physical universe and the natural universe? i would tend to use these terms synonymously, but you imply that this would be inaccurate.

The real universe may contain the physical and non-physical universes just as it may contain the natural and supernatural universes - it all depends on whether or not any of those universes are real. It is so far undecided whether or not the non-physical or supernatural universes are real, but these definitions allow for their reality should this be the case. You are correct inasmuch as scientific observation is limited to only the natural and physical universe, however this does not limit the reach of our rational scrutiny to those universes.

i agree with everything you say here, and did not mean to imply otherwise in my previous post.

A beginning (a "starting point") is a change of state from non-existence to existence. We cannot know that such a point is in fact a "starting point" to existence unless we can know that there was no existence before it.

Think about it like this: a runner is 10km away from you and running toward you but unbeknownst to you because there is a hill between him and you. Since the hill is there, you cannot see him on the other side of the hill running toward you. Eventually he crests the hill, and you can begin to observe him. Does this mean that the runner's "starting point" was at the crest of the hill? No, it was merely the starting point of your observations of the runner. Such a situation is analagous to a "beginning of existence." Everywhere that we can observe existence, existence is there. This does not let us conclude that where our observations begin to be meaningful, that this is where the universe must begin to exist.

my main point here is with respect to the premise stated in the cosmological argument - "the universe began to exist." it is surely the case that those who posit this argument are speaking of the universe conceptualized as all that exists in the space-time manifold, which i think you would refer to as the physical (or perhaps natural, as i don't quite understand the difference between these two) universe. obviously, the premise is not speaking in terms of the real universe, because almost everyone putting forth this argument thinks there exists a god who never began to exist, thus negating the possibility that they are positing a beginning to what you are calling the real universe. that being said, i think your criticism of that premise by referring to the fact that the "beginning of the real universe" is a meaningless phrase is misguided, because the cosmological argument is not speaking of the real universe in its premises. and even though you may think that the universe is best defined in accord with your conceptualization of the real universe (and don't get me wrong, i think you definitely have a point there), that does not negate that the universe referred to in the cosmological argument (what you would presumably call the physical or natural universe) does exist, and can be utilized for the purposes of the argument. this is the original point i was attempting to make when i first responded to your criticism of the cosmological argument.

let me put it another way. the kalaam cosmological argument could be rendered thusly, and its intended thrust would be the same:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. the space-time universe began to exist.
3. therefore, the space-time universe had a cause.

by denying premise two by appealing to the real universe, i don't think you really address to what the argument is referring.

And as I hope I made clear above, the physical universe (i.e. that which is contained withn space-time) is not necessarily the same as the real universe. The latter must include the former, but the two are not necessarily identical. As I intend to get into down in the rest of this post, the beginning of space-time out of the Big Bang is analagous to the beginning of your observations of the runner cresting the hill. It is crucial that you do not confuse the beginning of your observations of the observed with the beginning of the existence of the observed.

ok, here you do call "that which is contained within space-time" the physical universe. so let me just re-emphasize what i say above - i don't think you can argue against the cosmological argument with reference to the real universe, because the argument itself is dealing with a conceptualization of the physical universe, not the real one.

but i really don't have a problem with what you say in this part.

morpheus:
well, the fact that "nothing" has never been observed does not rule out the possibility that "nothingness" can exist.

garthoverman:
This is sort of a pet peeve of mine. "Nothingness" is a state of non-existence. It is a contradiction to assert that "a state of non-existence can exist" or "non-existence exists." Its akin to saying a circle can be square. Obviously one of your definitions does not match the other.

i agree, though language makes it difficult to convey the point i was trying to make. you said previously that a state of nothingness has never been observed - all attempts to do this have failed, due to the presence of particles and anti-particles (correct me if i'm misrepresenting you here). all i'm trying to say in response is that the fact that a state of nothingness has not been obtained via scientific experiments/observations does not rule out the possibility that a state of nothingness can "be." i don't mean to imply that it is possible for "non-existence to exist," but hopefully you can understand what i'm trying to get across.

unless you are now arguing against the posssibility of a state of nothingness on logical grounds, by claiming that there can be no such thing. if that is the case, then i don't necessarily disagree.

This issue complicates things severely, I'll admit, but really only for those that insist the "supernatural" is real. Personally, I take it as self-evident that postulating the existence of something which is not required to conform to our expectations of rationality is irrational.

i, personally, don't posit a supernatural being (god) that can act irrationally. i don't think most typical theists do either. as you implicitly indicated earlier with your distinction between the physical universe and the real universe, there is a difference between what exists within space and time (i.e., the physical universe) and what can be subject to our rational scrutiny (i.e., the real universe). the fact that a god does not exist in the realm of the physical universe does not mean that he does not act rationally. i think god's existence is and can be subject to rational inquiry, even though he is not bound by the physical universe and is supernatural. "supernatural" does not imply something that does not conform to rationality.

In the search for reliable knowledge, considering the existence of supernatural entities contributes nothing since supernatural entities and/or their effects cannot be reliably known. Furthermore, since such hypotheses are inherently unfalsifiable they will be heretofore disregarded.

i disagree. if there does exist some supernatural entity that created the physical universe, and if he gave us the ability to reliably know something about him, how he interacts with us, etc., then such considerations are not necessarily worthless.

and i don't think the existence of a god is inherently unfalsifiable. obviously, different people have different conceptualizations of "god," but if a certain conceptualization is internally inconsistent i think it would be safe to call this conceptualization falsified. of course, the statement "something supernatural exists" is not falsifiable, since it doesn't specify what this supernatural existent refers to, but if certain attributes and characteristics are then given to this supernatural entity, it may be falsifiable, imo.

morpheus:
i'm trying to fully understand what you're positing here. from what i understand, the mainstream scientific view is that the big bang represents the creation of the space-time universe out of nothing.

garthoverman:
Nope. The Big Bang is the appearace of the physical universe over the event horizon (remember the runner over the hill?) surrounding the BB's singularity. The singluarity is not "nothing."

fine. my mistake.

morpheus:
but there seem to be some problems with this view. if the space-time manifold came into existence, then it is an existent. but from what did it come? if nothing, then there is still the "something from nothing" problem. if something, then what?

garthoverman:
Right now, we're not certain. The ekpyrotic model poses a few hypotheses including a description of the Big Bang as the result of the collision of two or more three-dimensional universes along another hidden dimension that explodes into our four-dimensional physical universe. I'll emphasise, though, that "We don't know" does not equal "God did it."

but does not a collision require the existence of time? so, in accordance with the ekpyrotic model, would time exist before the big bang singularity? i was under the impression that the mainstream scientific position was that time came into existence at the big bang.

i do agree with your last statement, btw.

The real universe is also not equal to the material universe (i.e the universe of matter). If matter doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that "nothing" exists since energy is not necessarily material. Therefore it can be the case that the Big Bang resulted in the appearance of matter, BUT this appearance is not a case of "something from nothing."

though physics is not my strong area, i was under the impression that einstein’s theory of relativity established that matter and energy are equivalent, represented by e = mc^2. so in accordance with that, if only energy existed as opposed to matter, wouldn’t this just be saying that matter existed in a different form (i.e. energy)? and doesn’t energy itself take up space? if so, i still don’t see how this “something,” whether it was matter or energy, could have existed “before” the big bang if there was no space (assuming that it entered the space-time manifold at the big bang, as you have said) for it to occupy.

It used to be that space-time was considered material, IOW it was thought that space-time was composed of some substance called the "ether." However, since the advent of General Relativity, nothing material remains of empty space. While, as we discussed before, space is constantly permeated by vaccum fields, these exist within space-time and are not equivalent to it. Now space-time has been reduced to a mathematical abstraction called a "tensor field" which confers relations like direction, orientation, etc... IOW, space is something that is abstracted from its contents, and abstraction is a mental process. This means that space is a construct of our minds and is not an object (which is what constitutes the objective universe - "objects").

ok, thanks for the clarification. however, as i just indicated, i’m interested in hearing how matter or energy could have existed “before” it entered the space-time manifold at the big bang, if there was no space for it to occupy.

Seems to me like you want to redefine the beginning of the physical universe as the beginning of the real universe so that might actually have a demonstrable instance of such a beginning so that you might postulate your God as the beginner. The fact is that real does not always equal physical. Since philosophy is about theories of reality - not theories of physicality - the real universe is what we must consider.

no, i’m not trying to redefine anything - i clearly understand the difference between the physical universe and the real universe. the cosmological argument deals with the beginning of the physical universe. as i stated above, it obviously does not deal with the real universe, because theological proponents of the argument hold that there exists a god within the real universe who had no beginning. since, however, the cosmological argument explicitly states that “the universe began to exist,” it is obviously then referring to the physical universe, not the real one.

there is no reason why the argument should be discarded simply because it utilizes a conception of the physical universe, as opposed to the real universe. philosophy deals with arguments, the positing of which refer to certain concepts. there is no reason why a conception of the physical universe cannot be utilized in a philosophical argument.

Arithmetic only operates on finite quantities. Furthermore you're talking about two different notions of infinity when you talk about the set of real numbers and set of the natural numbers, but for any infinite set, infinity's constant value is equal to the cardinality of that set. Constant does not equal finite.

i’m still not seeing how this isn’t a vacuous use of the concept of constancy. if, in an infinite set, infinity’s constant value = the cardinality of that set, then we have infinity’s constant value equaling infinity, since the cardinality of such a set is infinity. essentially, we have infinity = infinity. but how does this tell us anything regarding the constancy of infinity? even if “infinity” referred to something not constant, it would still always be the case that infinity = infinity. so how does this explanation establish that infinity is a constant?

Yeah, Defenestrator called me on the insertion of my own conjectures. The issue was originally raised because the Answers in Genesis article by J. Sarfati concluded that the universe is finite because the 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that the total energy of the universe is constant. This is not the case because constant does not equal finite. This also doesn't let us conclude that it is infinite either. The point should be that there are no steadfast conclusions yet, or that the concusions that Sarfati tried to draw are invalid.

ok, i understand now. you weren’t necessarily advocating infinite mass/energy in the universe, just the possibility.

in accordance with what i said previously regarding density, i still don’t see how infinite mass/energy could even be a possibility, but since you aren’t necessarily advocating that position you may feel free to not respond on this issue or the point i just made regarding infinity. the discussion is getting somewhat unwieldy, and those are corollary points.

This is far from decided either. If space is continuous (which it seems that it is) then there is infinite space bewteen any two points that are non-congruent. To illustrate by a geometric analogy, there are infinitely many points on a line because points have no thickness. It seems that points in space have no "thickness" either.

i don’t see how this follows. though a line is infinitely divisible along its length, it does not follow that its length is infinite. a line that is 2 inches long is infinitely divisible, but its length is 2 inches, not infinity. similarly, the fact that infinite divisions are possible between two points in space, assuming space’s continuity, does not lead to the conclusion that space has infinite volume.

ok, that’s about it. sorry about the length. regards.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=109874#post109874)
Morpheus:

to garthoverman. thanks for your insight on these issues; you obviously know what you're talking about.
Thank you for the compliment! I am enjoying this discussion greatly - despite its accelerating scale and scope!

<snip God and rational scrutiny>

yes, i understand why the word universe, without any qualifier (such as &quot;physical,&quot; or &quot;real&quot;), can mean different things. that's the point i was making in the last post - your use of the word universe was different from others'. i wasn't implying that your definition of the word was wrong or unsuitable for purposes of discussion, but just that it was, from my experiences, uncommon.
I can't argue with you there. I only wish the distinctions I recognize were recognized by a greater number of people because - as far as I can tell - they are valid and useful distinctions.

i don't see how i'm equivocating...<snip>
I think "equivocating" was a inaccurate description and poor word choice on my part - it was only the first word that came to mind. I just meant that your original statements seemed to presume that "natural" = "physical" = "real" and I think we've cleared that up.

oh yes, what exactly would be the difference between the physical universe and the natural universe? i would tend to use these terms synonymously, but you imply that this would be inaccurate.
This is probably the most important question in need of resolution in our discussions. Let me state plainly that there I am aware of no steadfast conclusions, however I have my own speculations and rationale behind why I hold to those.

The physical realm (I think I'll use "realm" to label subsets of the real universe from now on so as to avoid confusion) is that which can be framed within four-dimensional space-time. It may well be the case that space-time is itself an abstraction and not an objective property of the real universe as I explained below. If that is the case then the physical realm is defined by human perception and does not exist apart from it. That does NOT mean that the real things we encounter are also abstractions. It only means that our interpretations of our connections with reality create a spatio-temporal manifold in our minds. The physical realm is like a human-ized model of objective reality.

The natural realm, on the other hand, must first of all include the physcial realm since the physcial realm exists in our minds and our minds are natural, but also allows that different sets of abstractions and interpretations of reality can exist. An example might be an animal that has zero perception of time and for that reason interprets its experience with reality within a three-dimensional context, or perhaps some animal that by virtue of its perception interprets its encounters with reality in some 5 or 6 -dimensional context. The natural realm (as I define/understand it) allows for the possibility that reality is multidimensional beyond simply those that are physically perceived. This idea is supported especially by experiments in contemporary string theory that deal with upwards of 10 dimensions, IIRC. Also, the natural realm is free to include the reality of subjective elements like meaning, significance, feelings, emotions, etc.... which do not necessarily have a physical counterpart yet obviously exist.

Basically I equate the natural realm with the real universe, in effect discarding any supernatural hypothesis. Surely red flags are jumping up at the typical theists upon reading that statement since it appears that I'm defining the supposed realm of their God's existence as unreal! But let me explain to you why I think it is irrational to posit God as a supernatural being: our definitions of what's "natural" are based upon our encounters with the real universe. IOW, "natural" = "whatever the real universe does." If God exists and is real, then He is within the real universe. In that case, then God becomes the new standard for what is natural! The real universe is not constrained to act in accordance with natural law - on the contrary! Natural law is constrained to act in accordance with the real universe, yet it is not guaranteed to comprehensively describe the real universe. If it were revealed that an entity behaved in a manner that was inconsistent with our present descriptions of natural law, then all this would mean is that our descriptions of the real universe (and therefore natural law) were incomplete.

So, to put it shortly, I think that ultimately the natural and real universes are identical, however where our current descriptions of the natural fall short of a comprehensive description of the real/natural, the gap between them is labeled "supernatural." If you envisioned a set of concentric circles, the inner most would be the physical universe, surrounding and including that would be the natural universe, surrounding and including that would be the real universe. The area between the boundary of the real universe and the boundary of the natural realm inside it is called "supernatural." I am of the opinion that the boundary of the natural realm is ever-expanding and approaching coincidence with the real universe due to our increasing experience with the real world and our ever-growing descriptions of it. I don't know if there will ever be a point when it is realized that the natural universe is identical to the real universe, however, and for that reason I expect that the "supernatural" will always reside in that gap.

<snip>

let me put it another way. the kalaam cosmological argument could be rendered thusly, and its intended thrust would be the same:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. the space-time universe began to exist.
3. therefore, the space-time universe had a cause.

by denying premise two by appealing to the real universe, i don't think you really address to what the argument is referring.
There are a few ways I could go about desconstructing this argument. The first would be to state that if space-time is an abstraction as I've said before, then the beginning of space-time would simply be the beginning of our awareness of it. Then the issue is to discover the cause of our awareness. The second is to remind you that the beginning of the observation of something (assuming space-time is objective) is not to be confused with the beginning of its existence as I illustrated with the example of a runner cresting a hill.

<snip>

all i'm trying to say in response is that the fact that a state of nothingness has not been obtained via scientific experiments/observations does not rule out the possibility that a state of nothingness can &quot;be.&quot; i don't mean to imply that it is possible for &quot;non-existence to exist,&quot; but hopefully you can understand what i'm trying to get across.

unless you are now arguing against the posssibility of a state of nothingness on logical grounds, by claiming that there can be no such thing. if that is the case, then i don't necessarily disagree.
Your latter paragraph sufficiently summarizes my issue with the "existence of non-existence." It really only holds when were talking in absolute terms, though, and when speaking about the nature of the real universe our terms must be absolute.


i, personally, don't posit a supernatural being (god) that can act irrationally. i don't think most typical theists do either. as you implicitly indicated earlier with your distinction between the physical universe and the real universe, there is a difference between what exists within space and time (i.e., the physical universe) and what can be subject to our rational scrutiny (i.e., the real universe). the fact that a god does not exist in the realm of the physical universe does not mean that he does not act rationally. i think god's existence is and can be subject to rational inquiry, even though he is not bound by the physical universe and is supernatural. &quot;supernatural&quot; does not imply something that does not conform to rationality.
I think I addressed this well enough above. Let me just reiterate that an ultimately comprehesive description of the natural world (i.e. theory of everything) must be rational because our qualfications for rationality (and naturality) proceed from our encounters with the real universe. Anything which does not act in accordance with this comprehensive discription therefore must be irrational. (notice here that I'm speaking about a hypothetically comprehensive description of the natural world, and I'm not implying that our current descriptions are in any way comprehensive)

IOW, if we successfully brought the natural realm into perfect coincidence with the real universe by virtue of a theory of everything, anything that is supernatural would be unreal and irrational.

i disagree. if there does exist some supernatural entity that created the physical universe, and if he gave us the ability to reliably know something about him, how he interacts with us, etc., then such considerations are not necessarily worthless.
The problem is validating the reliability of this knowledge. Heck, the very process of making reliable observations requires the presupposed absence of the effects from intermeddling gods. If this entity is postulated as the creator of the natural world, it is possible that it was created so as to falsly reflect reality and there would me no means of revealing the falsehood without requiring blind faith. For that reason such hypotheses are disregarded: the supernatural (as in that which does not conform to the natural world) is inherently unfalsifiable.

and i don't think the existence of a god is inherently unfalsifiable. obviously, different people have different conceptualizations of &quot;god,&quot; but if a certain conceptualization is internally inconsistent i think it would be safe to call this conceptualization falsified.
Yes, you are correct that internally inconsistent conceptualizations can be falsified by reductio ad absurdum.

of course, the statement &quot;something supernatural exists&quot; is not falsifiable, since it doesn't specify what this supernatural existent refers to, but if certain attributes and characteristics are then given to this supernatural entity, it may be falsifiable, imo.
But all our tests for falsity must presuppose methodological naturalism in order to return reliable results. The reason for that is that it is indistinguishable whether or not the water was really turned to wine, from whether or not Loki simply altered the photons before they hit your retinas to give the false appearance of water-to-wine, from whether or not Zoroaster created the universe 5 seconds ago with you and I posessing complete and consistent memories of an event that didn't really happen. All of these scenarios are equally plausible and yet unfalsifiable by objective means.

<snip>

but does not a collision require the existence of time? so, in accordance with the ekpyrotic model, would time exist before the big bang singularity? i was under the impression that the mainstream scientific position was that time came into existence at the big bang.
Honestly, I do not know the right answer to your questions here. I think it may the case that the easiest way to describe the Big Bang (i.e. space-time begins there) does not really reflect what the Big Bang is (the appearance of space-time over the event horizon (i.e. runner over the hill)). As a result, the simplistic description gets confused with the actual position of "mainstream science."

<snip>

though physics is not my strong area, i was under the impression that einstein’s theory of relativity established that matter and energy are equivalent, represented by e = mc^2.
I was under that mistaken impression myself for quite a while, actually. Einstein equates mass and energy, not matter and energy. Matter has mass-energy, but is not equivalent to it.

so in accordance with that, if only energy existed as opposed to matter, wouldn’t this just be saying that matter existed in a different form (i.e. energy)?
Sort of.

and doesn’t energy itself take up space?
Not necessarily, I don't think.

if so, i still don’t see how this “something,” whether it was matter or energy, could have existed “before” the big bang if there was no space (assuming that it entered the space-time manifold at the big bang, as you have said) for it to occupy.
As I spoke of above, it seems that reality exists in more dimensions that the four that we use to define space-time. Energy exists in all of them, and we know this because it is our exploration of energy that led us to them. I don't think the existence of energy requires that it be observed exclusively within our four-dimensional space-time. IOW, there may exist "space-time" "before" the BB, but it would simply be four dimensions among the many and all of our typical notions of spatio-temporal relations would be meaningless.

<snip>

i’m still not seeing how this isn’t a vacuous use of the concept of constancy. if, in an infinite set, infinity’s constant value = the cardinality of that set, then we have infinity’s constant value equaling infinity, since the cardinality of such a set is infinity. essentially, we have infinity = infinity. but how does this tell us anything regarding the constancy of infinity? even if “infinity” referred to something not constant, it would still always be the case that infinity = infinity. so how does this explanation establish that infinity is a constant?
Infinity is like an asymptote. It has a constant value, but can never be reached by discrete sequential increments. It is the maximal limit, and there can only be one maximal limit. If it can only have one value, then its value must be constant. It does not have a numerical value like the other numbers which is what I think is hanging you up. I'm really struggling to come up with a more coherent way of explaining it to you. I heartly encourage you to perhaps inquire of an advanced mathematician to attempt to explain it to you more clearly.

in accordance with what i said previously regarding density, i still don’t see how infinite mass/energy could even be a possibility, but since you aren’t necessarily advocating that position you may feel free to not respond on this issue or the point i just made regarding infinity. the discussion is getting somewhat unwieldy, and those are corollary points.
Well this all arose from the attempt of Mr. Sarfati to conclude that the universe is finite based on the 1LoT which states the total mass-energy is constant. Constant does not equal finite.

i don’t see how this follows. though a line is infinitely divisible along its length, it does not follow that its length is infinite. a line that is 2 inches long is infinitely divisible, but its length is 2 inches, not infinity. similarly, the fact that infinite divisions are possible between two points in space, assuming space’s continuity, does not lead to the conclusion that space has infinite volume.
It was a poor analogy, I'll admit, although the point still remains. Space is defined in terms of relations between points, and if we can define infinitely many unique metric relations between any two non-congruent points then the space bewteen them is in fact infinite. This is actually perfectly consistent with the notion that space-time is an abstraction since we could theoretically abstract space from every singe unique point on the continuum.

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garth. another long one i'm afraid, but we seem to be coming to some resolutions.

I can't argue with you there. I only wish the distinctions I recognize were recognized by a greater number of people because - as far as I can tell - they are valid and useful distinctions.

agreed.

I think "equivocating" was a inaccurate description and poor word choice on my part - it was only the first word that came to mind. I just meant that your original statements seemed to presume that "natural" = "physical" = "real" and I think we've cleared that up.

yeah, we seem to be on the same page here.

The physical realm (I think I'll use "realm" to label subsets of the real universe from now on so as to avoid confusion) is that which can be framed within four-dimensional space-time. It may well be the case that space-time is itself an abstraction and not an objective property of the real universe as I explained below. If that is the case then the physical realm is defined by human perception and does not exist apart from it. That does NOT mean that the real things we encounter are also abstractions. It only means that our interpretations of our connections with reality create a spatio-temporal manifold in our minds. The physical realm is like a human-ized model of objective reality.

this is interesting. from what i've heard, it seemed that space and time were necessary properties of the physical realm (i will also adopt this terminology) - space as necessary for the existence of matter, and time for the existence of any kind of sequential events. you seem to be indicating that these properties may not actually exist outside of a human perception of the physical realm. is there really scientific evidence to back this position? how can, say, a rock exist if it is not taking up some sort of space? or how can a chemical reaction occur without some passage of time? i don't see how there can be valid explanations for such phenomena in objective reality if space and time do not themselves exist in objective reality.

so, assuming for a second that space and time really are just abstractions, would you then say that the physical realm ("that which can be framed within four-dimensional space-time") did not exist until the abstractions of space and time were perceived? i understand that you're not saying that actual existents, such as rocks or the material in a chemical reaction, are abstractions themselves, but if the physical realm includes the concepts of space and time, and these concepts only exist as abstractions of some perceiver, then it would seem that the answer to this question would be yes. and would it necessarily be a "human-ized" model of objective reality? though we aren't privy to the mind/consciousness of lower animals, might it be the case that they were the first to frame objective reality in the space-time manifold, and as such were the original "creators" of the physical realm?

The natural realm, on the other hand, must first of all include the physcial realm since the physcial realm exists in our minds and our minds are natural, but also allows that different sets of abstractions and interpretations of reality can exist. An example might be an animal that has zero perception of time and for that reason interprets its experience with reality within a three-dimensional context, or perhaps some animal that by virtue of its perception interprets its encounters with reality in some 5 or 6 -dimensional context. The natural realm (as I define/understand it) allows for the possibility that reality is multidimensional beyond simply those that are physically perceived. This idea is supported especially by experiments in contemporary string theory that deal with upwards of 10 dimensions, IIRC. Also, the natural realm is free to include the reality of subjective elements like meaning, significance, feelings, emotions, etc.... which do not necessarily have a physical counterpart yet obviously exist.

i now see the distinction. i suppose i can somewhat comprehend the existence of an animal that encounters reality in more than 4-dimensions - though, being obviously limited by my 4-dimensional perception and not able to describe what and how it would perceive objective reality, i can accept the scientific evidence that determines the existence of many more than 4 dimensions. it's like the book "flatlands," where the characters exist spatially in solely two dimensions, and cannot comprehend something such as a cube. but i don't know if i can consider some animal that experience reality in only 3 dimensions, without temporality. how can an "experience" refer to anything meaningful if there is no temporal aspect?

Basically I equate the natural realm with the real universe, in effect discarding any supernatural hypothesis. Surely red flags are jumping up at the typical theists upon reading that statement since it appears that I'm defining the supposed realm of their God's existence as unreal! But let me explain to you why I think it is irrational to posit God as a supernatural being: our definitions of what's "natural" are based upon our encounters with the real universe. IOW, "natural" = "whatever the real universe does." If God exists and is real, then He is within the real universe. In that case, then God becomes the new standard for what is natural! The real universe is not constrained to act in accordance with natural law - on the contrary! Natural law is constrained to act in accordance with the real universe, yet it is not guaranteed to comprehensively describe the real universe. If it were revealed that an entity behaved in a manner that was inconsistent with our present descriptions of natural law, then all this would mean is that our descriptions of the real universe (and therefore natural law) were incomplete.

i understand what you're saying here. i think the rub is that when a theist uses the word "supernatural" to describe god, he equates natural with what you have described as the physical realm. in accordance with what we've been discussing and what you say here, i guess the proper term to describe a supposed god's existence would be "superphysical." or, if you would object and say that the physical realm, which includes the abstractions of space and time, is just a creation of perception, perhaps "supermaterial." if natural refers to "whatever occurs within the real universe," as you've implied, then obviously the term "supernatural" is meaningless. but, as i just described, i don't think this is what theists are referring to in their use of the word supernatural.

i also agree with what you have to say regarding natural law. such laws are descriptive - they don't acutally have any governing force or causative power when it comes to how things exist in objective reality.

So, to put it shortly, I think that ultimately the natural and real universes are identical, however where our current descriptions of the natural fall short of a comprehensive description of the real/natural, the gap between them is labeled "supernatural." If you envisioned a set of concentric circles, the inner most would be the physical universe, surrounding and including that would be the natural universe, surrounding and including that would be the real universe. The area between the boundary of the real universe and the boundary of the natural realm inside it is called "supernatural." I am of the opinion that the boundary of the natural realm is ever-expanding and approaching coincidence with the real universe due to our increasing experience with the real world and our ever-growing descriptions of it. I don't know if there will ever be a point when it is realized that the natural universe is identical to the real universe, however, and for that reason I expect that the "supernatural" will always reside in that gap.

yes, i definitely understand what you're saying here. and i think that when the term "supernatural" is utilized by the typical theist, it refers to super-"physical universe," as we have described it. humans (supposedly) have an accurate description of our 4-dimensional experience (i.e. the physical universe), and "supernatural" refers to god not being bound by only these 4 dimensions. i suppose it would be accurate to describe a conceptualization of god as a being that experiences objective reality in all of the dimensions that exist in the real universe.

let me put it another way. the kalaam cosmological argument could be rendered thusly, and its intended thrust would be the same:

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. the space-time universe began to exist.
3. therefore, the space-time universe had a cause.

by denying premise two by appealing to the real universe, i don't think you really address to what the argument is referring. ”


There are a few ways I could go about desconstructing this argument. The first would be to state that if space-time is an abstraction as I've said before, then the beginning of space-time would simply be the beginning of our awareness of it. Then the issue is to discover the cause of our awareness. The second is to remind you that the beginning of the observation of something (assuming space-time is objective) is not to be confused with the beginning of its existence as I illustrated with the example of a runner cresting a hill.

a response to your first objection is not possible, due to the pending corollary issue of whether there is good reason to suggest that space and time are indeed abstractions. if there is no such evidence, then there seems to be no reason to assume that they are just abstractions - i really don't see how we can make sense of anything if the dimensions of space and time are not assumed. iow, i don't see how we can accurately describe and conceptualize the objective reality we experience if space and time are not assumed (presuming there is no good scientific reason to reject their objective existence, of course).

with regard to your second objection: if space and time are indeed properties of the physical realm, then is it not the case that the big bang represents the beginning of said realm? would you disagree that, if space and time are objective properties, that the big bang represents their beginning?

even if you would suggest that some sort of space-time manifold was a property of some part of objective reality before the beginning of this 4-dimensional universe, i think it would still be case that there would need to some acknowledged beginning point. if not, we have time existing perpetually into the past, and the problem of an infinite regress comes into play. i don't see how "infinite past time" can be posited, because no event would ever be realized (there would always still be infinite time prior to that event).

morpheus:
unless you are now arguing against the posssibility of a state of nothingness on logical grounds, by claiming that there can be no such thing. if that is the case, then i don't necessarily disagree. ”

garth:
Your latter paragraph sufficiently summarizes my issue with the "existence of non-existence." It really only holds when were talking in absolute terms, though, and when speaking about the nature of the real universe our terms must be absolute.

ok. i would say that i have to agree with you there. to talk of there "being nothingness" or of a "state of nothingness" is illogical.

Let me just reiterate that an ultimately comprehesive description of the natural world (i.e. theory of everything) must be rational because our qualfications for rationality (and naturality) proceed from our encounters with the real universe. Anything which does not act in accordance with this comprehensive discription therefore must be irrational. (notice here that I'm speaking about a hypothetically comprehensive description of the natural world, and I'm not implying that our current descriptions are in any way comprehensive)

IOW, if we successfully brought the natural realm into perfect coincidence with the real universe by virtue of a theory of everything, anything that is supernatural would be unreal and irrational.

fine. as i described above, if the word natural is being used in such a sense, i.e., in reference to anything physical or non-physical that we encounter in the real universe, then i don't think it's being used the same way as theists intend when they utilize the word "supernatural."

Heck, the very process of making reliable observations requires the presupposed absence of the effects from intermeddling gods.

what i think you're saying here is that in order for our observations of objective reality to be considered reliable, we must presuppose that there isn't some being out there just screwing with our head. and on that point i would agree, though the disproof of the existence of such a being is no more possible than the disproof of the idea that what we perceive as objective reality is actually just the matrix.

If this entity is postulated as the creator of the natural world, it is possible that it was created so as to falsly reflect reality and there would me no means of revealing the falsehood without requiring blind faith.

as you have been using the word "natural" above, the typical god is not postulated as the creator of the natural world (of which he would be a part if he existed and was known by us), but of the physical realm.

as i said just above, the possibility that there is some being out there feeding us a false view of reality is always there, regardless of whether one posits the existence of a benevolent god or not.

For that reason such hypotheses are disregarded: the supernatural (as in that which does not conform to the natural world) is inherently unfalsifiable.

as you have been using the word natural, yes, because he would then be beyond rational scrutiny. but this is not the view of god held by the typical theist (including myself).

But all our tests for falsity must presuppose methodological naturalism in order to return reliable results. The reason for that is that it is indistinguishable whether or not the water was really turned to wine, from whether or not Loki simply altered the photons before they hit your retinas to give the false appearance of water-to-wine, from whether or not Zoroaster created the universe 5 seconds ago with you and I posessing complete and consistent memories of an event that didn't really happen. All of these scenarios are equally plausible and yet unfalsifiable by objective means.

but regardless of whether or not one posits the existence of a god, in order to test for falsity he must assume that our experience with objective reality is generally reliable. the case is no different for the non-theist or the theist. i could just as easily state that "it is indistinguishable whether or not the chemical reaction took place as you observed it, from whether or not some evil demon deceptively caused you to have said observations." christianity does not posit the existence of a god whose observable (to us) effects in the world do not mirror objective reality, so the claim that the posited existence of some god is inconsistent with how we observe and experience reality doesn't seem relevant to my specific viewpoint. furthermore, christianity is centered around posited historical events that supposedly actually occured in the physical realm, and is thus falsifiable in the historical sense of the word.

and i don't see why all tests for falsity must presume methodological naturalism. in science, yes, i would agree. but in philosophy, through the use of logic and argumentation, i could hypothetically falsify the existence of some internally inconsistent conception of a deity, and this falsification would have nothing to do with methodological naturalism. all that is necessary is that one presuppose that his thoughts/perceptions are generally reliable, and that he isn't being screwed with by some outside force.

I think it may the case that the easiest way to describe the Big Bang (i.e. space-time begins there) does not really reflect what the Big Bang is (the appearance of space-time over the event horizon (i.e. runner over the hill)). As a result, the simplistic description gets confused with the actual position of "mainstream science."

ok. so if the big bang represents the appearance of space-time in a similar way to the runner coming over the hill, then would it be the case that space-time actually existed before the big bang? the runner certainly exists even before he comes over the hill. if so, then it would seem like the question (assuming that space and time aren't just abstrations) is just pushed back another level - when did space and time begin to exist? i think one must hold that they began to exist at some point, because the positing of infinite past time seems irrational. it's like if i'm standing up in a room that has an infinite number of people, and can't sit down until an infinite number of people sit down before me. i won't ever sit down; similarly no event will ever actually occur if there is an infinite temporal regress.

i realize that science doesn't have all the answers on these issues and that this fact does not lead to the conclusion that god exists, but said issues are interesting and pertinent.

I was under that mistaken impression myself for quite a while, actually. Einstein equates mass and energy, not matter and energy. Matter has mass-energy, but is not equivalent to it.

hmm, very interesting. what else could matter be, if it is not directly equivalent to mass/energy?

morpheus:
and doesn’t energy itself take up space?

garth:
Not necessarily, I don't think.

you may be right here, but it would seem like energy would need to take up space. mass takes up space, and, if it is equivalent to energy, how could the latter not take up space? if energy does not necessarily take up space, then could not some mass X, which takes up some space, change its form to energy and take up no space at all?

I don't think the existence of energy requires that it be observed exclusively within our four-dimensional space-time. IOW, there may exist "space-time" "before" the BB, but it would simply be four dimensions among the many and all of our typical notions of spatio-temporal relations would be meaningless.

ok, i see your point, and i think it is sufficiently covered above.

Infinity is like an asymptote. It has a constant value, but can never be reached by discrete sequential increments. It is the maximal limit, and there can only be one maximal limit. If it can only have one value, then its value must be constant. It does not have a numerical value like the other numbers which is what I think is hanging you up. I'm really struggling to come up with a more coherent way of explaining it to you. I heartly encourage you to perhaps inquire of an advanced mathematician to attempt to explain it to you more clearly.

i think i better get what you mean now; the comparison to an asymptote was helpful. i'm still not sure i necessarily agree, because i'm not sure about equating infinity with the "maximal limit" when there really, to my mind, is not a maximal limit. however, i think we can drop this point now.

It was a poor analogy, I'll admit, although the point still remains. Space is defined in terms of relations between points, and if we can define infinitely many unique metric relations between any two non-congruent points then the space bewteen them is in fact infinite. This is actually perfectly consistent with the notion that space-time is an abstraction since we could theoretically abstract space from every singe unique point on the continuum.

this comes back to the issue of whether space is continuous or grainy, does it not? my impression is that this issue is non-conclusive amongst the scientific community. personally, i would lead toward the conclusion that it is in fact grainy, though i only speak as a layman. before planck time i'm sure it was probably held that some unit of time was infinitely divisible; in fact, such a view is the motivation of puzzles such as xeno's paradox. furthermore, it just seems completely counterintuitive to say that the space between any two non-congruent points is infinite. if i have a cube, it has a finite volume, based on its length, width, and height. but if space is continuous, wouldn't the conclusion be that the cube's volume is infinite, since the space between the cube's vertices that measures its dimensions is, strictly speaking, infinite?

regards.

[garthoverman]

Morpheus:

Just in case you're wondering, I will address your post in detail later, but I lack the motivation to tackle it today.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Obeisances, Morpheus. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to this post.

this is interesting. from what i've heard, it seemed that space and time were necessary properties of the physical realm (i will also adopt this terminology) - space as necessary for the existence of matter, and time for the existence of any kind of sequential events. you seem to be indicating that these properties may not actually exist outside of a human perception of the physical realm. is there really scientific evidence to back this position? how can, say, a rock exist if it is not taking up some sort of space? or how can a chemical reaction occur without some passage of time? i don't see how there can be valid explanations for such phenomena in objective reality if space and time do not themselves exist in objective reality.
These are the most challenging questions, and I do not have answers for them. Assuming space-time was an inherent characteristic of human perception, how would we ever come to objectively detect it? How can we perceive the world without framing it in a spatio-temporal context if space-time is an inherent characteristic of our ability to perceive?

Personally, I think it will need to involve a much more comprehensive understanding of the nature of consciousness - which is the basis for all awareness and perception. I think there is much to be learned from analyzing the dream state and other fluctuations of consciousness. It may even take a small revolution within the body of science as we currently know it stemming from the recognition of the inability of a materialistic paradigm (in its present state) to address what David Chalmers calls the "Hard Problem" of consciousness - specfically the qualitative nature of individual subjective experiences. Science can measure the wavelength of light that we call red. Science can quantify and categorize it, but it cannot (again, in its present state) measure what its like to see red. I think that there is progress to be made here within the study of information theory. I even think that their is progress to be made in theorizing and testing hypotheses such as intelligent design and teleologic evolution - although I will add that it depresses me that the latter two arenas seems only to be populated by quasi-fundamentalist Christians intent on advancing their own presuppositions about Yahweh, "Christ," Creation, the Flood, sin, Heaven, Hell, etc... and a more objective and open-minded cross-section of researchers seem conspicuously absent.

so, assuming for a second that space and time really are just abstractions, would you then say that the physical realm ("that which can be framed within four-dimensional space-time") did not exist until the abstractions of space and time were perceived? i understand that you're not saying that actual existents, such as rocks or the material in a chemical reaction, are abstractions themselves, but if the physical realm includes the concepts of space and time, and these concepts only exist as abstractions of some perceiver, then it would seem that the answer to this question would be yes. and would it necessarily be a "human-ized" model of objective reality? though we aren't privy to the mind/consciousness of lower animals, might it be the case that they were the first to frame objective reality in the space-time manifold, and as such were the original "creators" of the physical realm?
In response to the first question in the first sentence of this paragraph, I would conjecture yes, the physical realm is defined by space-time and did not exist until space-time was perceived. Now, let me add that that doesn't mean that nothing existed. It simply means that a certain way of perceiving things didn't exist until being existed with the built-in faculty of such perception. For example, we created language in order to share our thoughts with eachother, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts didn't exist until we could speak them. In much the same way, I think that the physical realm exists so that we can share our experieces - but that doesn't mean that experieces didn't exist until the physical realm did. In fact, to extend the analogy a little further, I think that in the same way that language is a creation of the human mind, physical reality is likewise. Objects are like words - symbols standing for a reality of experience. Space and time, then, are like the syntax of the language of physical experiece. IOW, they are the rules that are assumed in order to interpret experience. In language, without assuming the syntax of the language, i.e. the rules governing the sequences of symbols (in writing) or sounds and silences (in speaking), the words lose much of their communicative faculty and meaning. In physical experience, without assuming the relationships that define space-time (the syntax), physical reality would also lose much of its communicative faculty and meaning - except in this instance, the inability to precisely interpret physical experience doens't just affect your ability to share experiences with other humans, it directly affects your bodily survival.

Your body is a physical body. Without the ability to precisely interpret its physical surroundings, it would be nearly impossible to sustain its existence. As a result, and from an evolutionary perspective, it seems then that the ability (or even the necessity) to focus physically is coded directly into the genes. Likewise, the animals with which we share the earth have learned similar focus and likely have coded that into their genes. Now, it may be the case, as I said before, that animals perceive the dimensions differently than us, somewhat in the same way that different language systems exist within the human race (Arabs write from right to left, for example, and Asians write up and down). But from a holistic perspective, they intersect our existence in the same way that we intersect theirs. They may have simply developed according to different rules.

<snip-snip-snip>

with regard to your second objection: if space and time are indeed properties of the physical realm, then is it not the case that the big bang represents the beginning of said realm? would you disagree that, if space and time are objective properties, that the big bang represents their beginning?
I don't know, and its possible we can never know for certain. It might appear that way, though.

even if you would suggest that some sort of space-time manifold was a property of some part of objective reality before the beginning of this 4-dimensional universe, i think it would still be case that there would need to some acknowledged beginning point. if not, we have time existing perpetually into the past, and the problem of an infinite regress comes into play. i don't see how "infinite past time" can be posited, because no event would ever be realized (there would always still be infinite time prior to that event).
There really is no problem of infinite regress in time. It is only a problem if space-time is discrete and disconstinuous that "traversing an infinite" is impossible, and it seems that space-time is not discontinuous. (its called a "continuum" for a reason. :wink:)

<snip>

I think you understand clearly where I'm coming from in defining "natural" and rejecting "supernatural." I agree that this does not rule out the existence of the Christian God, it merely redefines Him as the basis of all naturality and thus existing within the natural realm, even though beyond all our present comprehension.

but regardless of whether or not one posits the existence of a god, in order to test for falsity he must assume that our experience with objective reality is generally reliable. the case is no different for the non-theist or the theist. i could just as easily state that "it is indistinguishable whether or not the chemical reaction took place as you observed it, from whether or not some evil demon deceptively caused you to have said observations." christianity does not posit the existence of a god whose observable (to us) effects in the world do not mirror objective reality, so the claim that the posited existence of some god is inconsistent with how we observe and experience reality doesn't seem relevant to my specific viewpoint. furthermore, christianity is centered around posited historical events that supposedly actually occured in the physical realm, and is thus falsifiable in the historical sense of the word.
Regarding the ability to trust the Christian God, it is irrelevant that Christians posit Him as the ultimate in honesty if we have no means of testing that honesty in order to verify it, especially if He is also posited as possessing the ability to affect our experience such that is does not conform to the regularities that we have so far encountered and defined as natural law. That is, unless it is also included with this postulate that it is possible that we may someday come to comprehend and reproduce those effects ourselves (through some methodological approach) such that it may be included in our descriptions of natural law.

Regarding historical falsifiability, I think that you have a good point, however Christian history relies all too much on a specific text which includes description of extraordinary events that are not regularly observed in our present experience and as a result its reliability is undermined with regard to those events. IOW, I think the Bible is good at corroborating the history of Pontius Pilate's existence, the existence of Herod, even the existence of Jesus. However, I do not think its reliable at affirming the extraordinary events like water-to-wine transformation, walking on water, and resurrection.

<snip>

you may be right here, but it would seem like energy would need to take up space. mass takes up space, and, if it is equivalent to energy, how could the latter not take up space? if energy does not necessarily take up space, then could not some mass X, which takes up some space, change its form to energy and take up no space at all?
Matter is mass/energy defined in a spatio-temporal syntax. To continue with the language analogy. Words have meanings, but they are not their own meanings. The word "car" means "car," or "automobile," etc.. but the word is not a car. The word "computer" is not a computer. In the same way that words have meaning, matter has mass/energy but is not mass/energy. The meaning of words is interpreted by way of the syntax of the language, and the mass/energy of matter is interpreted through the syntax of space-time.

<snip>

I feel like I've sufficiently addressed the main points of our discussion, even while snipping out certain paragraphs that seems to repeat or elaborate on those main points. If you feel that I've snipped something that you would like spefically to be address, please feel free to bring it up again. Conversely, if there are any points that you feel are settled to your satisfaction, feel free to snip them.

Yours,
Garth

[markporter]

to address the OP (feel free to continue whatever's going on around me, I just felt like addressing it rather than the issues that have sprung up since).....

"Where did God come from?
Who made God?"

This is essentially a meaningless question....God as the ultimate, doesn't need one; found the analogy somewhere of the world resting on the back of a turtle, and the turtle resting on the back of an elephant (or whatever....) and there thus being an infinite succession of things needed for them to rest on. However, if you then say that they exist in infinite space, and the question is asked 'what does infinite space rest on?' it would be shown that the concept of infinite space was not fully understood. Think the same kind of applies with God.

I personally think that the universe (not including God) is insufficient to be equivalent to this infinite space....I think that only God can be that.

and also in response to the God having caused the beginning of the universe type stuff.....I'm not really sure that it makes sense to see God as causing the beginning, more as God continually sustaining the universe, whether it had a literal beginning or not. Yes I think the idea of an action happening outside time is meaningless, God never changes.....but I would take the view that instead of the thing not happening, it just doesn't happen at a later time.....less cause and effect as ground and consequent.....

[John Powell]

JALTUS:
Also, the universe averages very low density, something like 1 hydrogen atom per thousand meters cubed, but I cannot recall the exact percentages off the top of my head and I lent out my book on subatomics to one of my wife's students.


POWELL:
Our Astronomy textbook, "Universe" by Freedman and Kaufmann quote the average density of matter as being in the range of 2-4 x 10^-27 kg/m^3 which would be like one or two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. This would be a factor of a billion times more density than what you suggested since
1 km^3 = (1000 m)^3 = 1 billion m^3. :deal:

John Powell

[markporter]

sorry, but on a related note to the OP, and in relation to my earlier post...I'm quite happy with the idea that God doesn't need a cause, but surely neither does total non-existence, why should there be God instead of nothing? I suppose it could be argued that nothing is actually a state, and if nothing exists then nothing exists as a truth, and therefore something does. Don't know if that stands up or not....any thoughts?

[markporter]

did I kill the discussion?

[Morpheus]

garth -

i just returned from vacation. i will be responding to your latest post when i have the time.

[Satori]

Oh dear, there seems to be no limit to the absurdity of the conversation on this site.


05-22-2003 @ 06:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103878#post103878)
Socrates:
No He is not

"He"? You aren't even sure if such an entity exists and you are assigning it a gender? Oh boy that's sad.

-- theologians point out that God is &quot;simple&quot;, i.e. not composed of parts.

You say that as if theologians have any good reasons to back up their wild speculations. They do not.

It also seems absurd to me to be talking about the makeup of something that which you don't even know exists or not. Incredibly absurd.

No He can't be evil since this is contrary to His nature.

Oh dear. In addition to assigning existence and a gender to this speculative theory, you are now assigning human attributes to it too? Could this conversation get any more absurd?

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to provide an objective standard by which He can be judged.

Why would anyone do so if the theories can't even be tested or verified?

It would seem that your deep-rooted obligations to buy into this metaphysical theory are again clouding your reason.

:dufus: Try distinguishing between &quot;God&quot; (capital G) and &quot;gods&quot; (lower case).

That would be funny if it were not so sad and petty.

Try distinguishing between reality and fantasy. Oh right, you have chosen to not make such distinctions, which is why I lower my standards for conversation so much when I bother to come here.

Satori

PS: Why do I bother trying to reason with those for whom reason is worthless? Am I just wasting my time? Yes. But I feel some things are simply too important to not say.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Satori:

How about you stop whining about what poor deluded fools we all are and actually engage in some constructive discussion.

If you are as convinced as you sound that atheism is rational and reasonable and theism is the result of clouded judgement, then defend your position. If it is as convincing as you claim, no one will be able to fault you.

If however, it appears that you are the one with the clouded reason and the one whose beliefs are founded on "wishful thinking", then I would expect that you would be as prepared to abandon your position as you would like others to be.

[Morpheus]

to garth.

These are the most challenging questions, and I do not have answers for them. Assuming space-time was an inherent characteristic of human perception, how would we ever come to objectively detect it? How can we perceive the world without framing it in a spatio-temporal context if space-time is an inherent characteristic of our ability to perceive?

i certainly agree that direct perception (i.e., via the senses) without a spatio-temporal context is, humanly speaking, impossible. however, the objective existence (or lack thereof) of space-time could, i would conjecture, be determined through physics and mathematics, which obviously can and do deal with aspects of the world beyond our direct perception. that's kind of what i was hinting at when i asked whether there was any evidence that space-time is just an abstraction - the physics literature with which i am familiar always seems to describe the space-time continuum as an actual and integral facet of the universe, and i don't see why its objective reality should be doubted unless there is strong scientific evidence that it is just a product of our perception.

Personally, I think it will need to involve a much more comprehensive understanding of the nature of consciousness - which is the basis for all awareness and perception. I think there is much to be learned from analyzing the dream state and other fluctuations of consciousness. It may even take a small revolution within the body of science as we currently know it stemming from the recognition of the inability of a materialistic paradigm (in its present state) to address what David Chalmers calls the "Hard Problem" of consciousness - specfically the qualitative nature of individual subjective experiences. Science can measure the wavelength of light that we call red. Science can quantify and categorize it, but it cannot (again, in its present state) measure what its like to see red. I think that there is progress to be made here within the study of information theory.

i completely agree that reductionism has run into a brick wall when dealing with consciousness and subjective experience.

I even think that their is progress to be made in theorizing and testing hypotheses such as intelligent design and teleologic evolution - although I will add that it depresses me that the latter two arenas seems only to be populated by quasi-fundamentalist Christians intent on advancing their own presuppositions about Yahweh, "Christ," Creation, the Flood, sin, Heaven, Hell, etc... and a more objective and open-minded cross-section of researchers seem conspicuously absent.

myself a theistic evolutionist, i generally agree. i think these hypotheses really could provide some intriguing answers to these questions, but from my pov proponents of these ideas would do better if they presented them more rigorously and even-handedly, as opposed to the common trend of producing watered-down material for means of popularization amongst the general public.

In response to the first question in the first sentence of this paragraph, I would conjecture yes, the physical realm is defined by space-time and did not exist until space-time was perceived. Now, let me add that that doesn't mean that nothing existed. It simply means that a certain way of perceiving things didn't exist until being existed with the built-in faculty of such perception. For example, we created language in order to share our thoughts with eachother, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts didn't exist until we could speak them. In much the same way, I think that the physical realm exists so that we can share our experieces - but that doesn't mean that experieces didn't exist until the physical realm did. In fact, to extend the analogy a little further, I think that in the same way that language is a creation of the human mind, physical reality is likewise. Objects are like words - symbols standing for a reality of experience. Space and time, then, are like the syntax of the language of physical experiece. IOW, they are the rules that are assumed in order to interpret experience. In language, without assuming the syntax of the language, i.e. the rules governing the sequences of symbols (in writing) or sounds and silences (in speaking), the words lose much of their communicative faculty and meaning. In physical experience, without assuming the relationships that define space-time (the syntax), physical reality would also lose much of its communicative faculty and meaning - except in this instance, the inability to precisely interpret physical experience doens't just affect your ability to share experiences with other humans, it directly affects your bodily survival.

i understand the language analogy, and how you are applying this toward the idea of space-time as an abstraction. i think a problem is that talking about "experiences" existing outside of the space-time context is meaningless. what kind of an experience does not take up space or time? can "experiences" be explained through scientific or mathematical language, let alone in casual dialogue, without some invocation of space and time? i see where you're coming from, but to a denial of space-time as objectively real seems to tend toward unintelligibility with regard to what is objectively real; therefore, i would need to see unusually strong evidence to accept such a claim. it reminds me of the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" cliche. from my pov, the idea that space-time is just an abstraction qualifies as an extraordinary claim.

There really is no problem of infinite regress in time. It is only a problem if space-time is discrete and disconstinuous that "traversing an infinite" is impossible, and it seems that space-time is not discontinuous. (its called a "continuum" for a reason. )

i was under the impression that mainstream science held that time is discrete, while the verdict was still out with regard to space. is this incorrect?

but even assuming time is continuous, there is still an ostensible problem. consider some every day measured value of time - e.g., one second. i think that to consider the existence of infinite seconds in the past is incoherent. if i'm in a hypothetical room with infinite people, with one sitting down every second, and i cannot sit down until an infinite number of people have sat down, i will never sit down. similarly, if there are infinite seconds in the past, then the present would never be realized.

the logical conclusion based on the seeming incoherence of the alternative and the mainstream scientific position is that time had a beginning. that's where the thrust of the cosmological argument comes into play. something that begins to exist has a cause - this seems true prima facie unless a sufficient argument can be provided otherwise. i think that at this point the question becomes more metaphysical than physical - i forget the guy's name, but there was a scientist i read who said that science can only explain things back to the big bang singularity. beyond that, the issues are philosophical.

Regarding the ability to trust the Christian God, it is irrelevant that Christians posit Him as the ultimate in honesty if we have no means of testing that honesty in order to verify it, especially if He is also posited as possessing the ability to affect our experience such that is does not conform to the regularities that we have so far encountered and defined as natural law. That is, unless it is also included with this postulate that it is possible that we may someday come to comprehend and reproduce those effects ourselves (through some methodological approach) such that it may be included in our descriptions of natural law.

i certainly cannot falsify the proposition that there is an existing god who is deceitfully manipulating us so that our ideas of the world are completely false. however, once such a being is posited we are no longer even talking about the christian god. honesty is an attribute that is built into a conceptualization of the christian god - to talk of "the christian god who intentionally and malevolently deceives" is incoherent, because the christian god as such does not do this.

Regarding historical falsifiability, I think that you have a good point, however Christian history relies all too much on a specific text which includes description of extraordinary events that are not regularly observed in our present experience and as a result its reliability is undermined with regard to those events. IOW, I think the Bible is good at corroborating the history of Pontius Pilate's existence, the existence of Herod, even the existence of Jesus. However, I do not think its reliable at affirming the extraordinary events like water-to-wine transformation, walking on water, and resurrection.

i disagree, but i do not think this is the place to debate the historical merit of the resurrection or any other miraculous event.

Matter is mass/energy defined in a spatio-temporal syntax. To continue with the language analogy. Words have meanings, but they are not their own meanings. The word "car" means "car," or "automobile," etc.. but the word is not a car. The word "computer" is not a computer. In the same way that words have meaning, matter has mass/energy but is not mass/energy. The meaning of words is interpreted by way of the syntax of the language, and the mass/energy of matter is interpreted through the syntax of space-time.

yeah, i don't even know what i was thinking here. matter has mass/energy - it is not equivalent to mass/energy. when i weigh a sample solid in a chemical experiment, i measure the mass of the solid (i.e., of the matter). i'm not sure why i wasn't making this distinction previously.

I feel like I've sufficiently addressed the main points of our discussion, even while snipping out certain paragraphs that seems to repeat or elaborate on those main points. If you feel that I've snipped something that you would like spefically to be address, please feel free to bring it up again. Conversely, if there are any points that you feel are settled to your satisfaction, feel free to snip them.

agreed. i do have one quick question with regard to the issue of whether space is grainy or continuous. if space is continuous and, as you say, there is infinite space between two non-congruent points, there seems to be a problem i brought up in my last post. if i have a cube, it has a finite volume, based on its measured length, width, and height. but if space is continuous, wouldn't the conclusion be that the cube's volume is technically infinite, since the space between the cube's vertices that measures its dimensions is, strictly speaking, infinite?

[garthoverman]

06-21-2003 @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=129336#post129336)
Morpheus:

to garth.



i certainly agree that direct perception (i.e., via the senses) without a spatio-temporal context is, humanly speaking, impossible. however, the objective existence (or lack thereof) of space-time could, i would conjecture, be determined through physics and mathematics, which obviously can and do deal with aspects of the world beyond our direct perception. that's kind of what i was hinting at when i asked whether there was any evidence that space-time is just an abstraction - the physics literature with which i am familiar always seems to describe the space-time continuum as an actual and integral facet of the universe, and i don't see why its objective reality should be doubted unless there is strong scientific evidence that it is just a product of our perception.
To the best of my knowlege, attempts have already been made to detect the presence of a material space-time. The substance of space-time was supposed to be the "ether" or "luminiferous aether." As far as I know, all of those experiments failed.

<snip>

myself a theistic evolutionist, i generally agree. i think these hypotheses really could provide some intriguing answers to these questions, but from my pov proponents of these ideas would do better if they presented them more rigorously and even-handedly, as opposed to the common trend of producing watered-down material for means of popularization amongst the general public.
Hear hear! :cheers:


i understand the language analogy, and how you are applying this toward the idea of space-time as an abstraction. i think a problem is that talking about &quot;experiences&quot; existing outside of the space-time context is meaningless. what kind of an experience does not take up space or time?
I would argue that dreaming is real experience that does not happen in space or time. IOW, dream objects do not take up space and time (as we commonly regard space-time), yet perceiving them is valid experience. Then again, if space-time is an abstraction, it could be said that even abstract imagery like dreams have legitimate spatio-temporal attributes.


can &quot;experiences&quot; be explained through scientific or mathematical language, let alone in casual dialogue, without some invocation of space and time?
Probably not, although there's always hope that I'm wrong! :wink:

i see where you're coming from, but to a denial of space-time as objectively real seems to tend toward unintelligibility with regard to what is objectively real; therefore, i would need to see unusually strong evidence to accept such a claim. it reminds me of the &quot;extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&quot; cliche. from my pov, the idea that space-time is just an abstraction qualifies as an extraordinary claim.
I agree, and you are within your right to doubt my assertions. I just think that space-time seems objectively real because it is common to the experience of every other human. Subjectively existing things generally don't have that attribute. I have involved theories that account for this, but ultimately they're conjectural and maybe even unfalsifiable.



i was under the impression that mainstream science held that time is discrete, while the verdict was still out with regard to space. is this incorrect?
Well, I don't think one can be discrete and yet not another since GR makes them essentially inseperable. I used to think that space-time was discrete simply because it has generally been undefined below quantum limits. Then, just recently, some experimental observations were reported that explored spatio-temporal continuity below the Planck scale. They expected to return grainy results and instead returned precisely continuous observations. Still, there is a limit to the smallest space-time metric that we can measure presently, however that isn't enough to conclude that space-time is actually discrete below that limit since the trend seems to have been established that the smaller we go, space and time remain continuous. Basically, the limitations are our inherent in our instrumentation and techniques, not actually that space-time is discrete. A poster on CARM once linked me to an article that described these experiments. I'll see if I can find it later tonight.

but even assuming time is continuous, there is still an ostensible problem. consider some every day measured value of time - e.g., one second. i think that to consider the existence of infinite seconds in the past is incoherent. if i'm in a hypothetical room with infinite people, with one sitting down every second, and i cannot sit down until an infinite number of people have sat down, i will never sit down. similarly, if there are infinite seconds in the past, then the present would never be realized.
That really only arises from the fact that we arbitrarily define discrete intervals of time by some relative motion. A "second" is merely an approximation and a relative observation, not an objectively discrete time interval.

the logical conclusion based on the seeming incoherence of the alternative and the mainstream scientific position is that time had a beginning. that's where the thrust of the cosmological argument comes into play. something that begins to exist has a cause - this seems true prima facie unless a sufficient argument can be provided otherwise. i think that at this point the question becomes more metaphysical than physical - i forget the guy's name, but there was a scientist i read who said that science can only explain things back to the big bang singularity. beyond that, the issues are philosophical.
That may or may not be true. Given the recent many-world theory of cosmology (which is so far only distantly related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM), scientists are indeed theorizing about things happening "before the BB."


i certainly cannot falsify the proposition that there is an existing god who is deceitfully manipulating us so that our ideas of the world are completely false. however, once such a being is posited we are no longer even talking about the christian god. honesty is an attribute that is built into a conceptualization of the christian god - to talk of &quot;the christian god who intentionally and malevolently deceives&quot; is incoherent, because the christian god as such does not do this.
But such a definition is either arbitrary or circular. There is no rational foundation for that belief other than a priori postulation out of necessity. Its like solipsism. We postulate the falsity of solipsism not because we can prove it false (its impossible), but simply because we must in order to have a coherent communicable existence.



i disagree, but i do not think this is the place to debate the historical merit of the resurrection or any other miraculous event.
Good, I didn't want to get into that here. The point I am trying to make is that lots of historical tales are accurate about places, times, and people. However, a different standard of evidence is required to believe the extraordinary events depicted. For example, the Illiad and the Odyssey are reliable about confirming the existence of the city of Troy and the occurance of the Trojan War. That doesn't mean we should believe that Scilla and Charbydis actually existed, nor that there existed "dog-faced Aetheopians" in Northern Africa.

<snip>

agreed. i do have one quick question with regard to the issue of whether space is grainy or continuous. if space is continuous and, as you say, there is infinite space between two non-congruent points, there seems to be a problem i brought up in my last post. if i have a cube, it has a finite volume, based on its measured length, width, and height. but if space is continuous, wouldn't the conclusion be that the cube's volume is technically infinite, since the space between the cube's vertices that measures its dimensions is, strictly speaking, infinite?
I'm not really sure if that would be the proper way to regard it. I would think that the way you've described it is correct, as counterintuitive as it may be.

Yours,
Garth

[Morpheus]

to garth.

To the best of my knowlege, attempts have already been made to detect the presence of a material space-time. The substance of space-time was supposed to be the "ether" or "luminiferous aether." As far as I know, all of those experiments failed.

this makes me wonder what a proper conceptualization of space time actually is. when most people think of space or time (myself, at least), i don't think of them as material, but as something else. for example, i think of space as what matter takes up (e.g., "the cube occupies 64 m^3 of space"), but not as matter itself. i could be way off base here, but is it proper to think of space-time as something material? if not, then experiments that attempt to detect its material presence aren't too relevant.

if space-time is posited as being material, then i see a possible problem with this in conjunction with the big bang. most scientists posit the big bang as the beginning of space-time - it would therefore be equivalent to saying that it was the beginning of something material. but this sounds like it goes against the conservation of mass.

of course, you may just say that space-time is an abstraction, and that it doesn't exist materially or non-materially, since it doesn't objectively exist at all.

morpheus:
i think a problem is that talking about "experiences" existing outside of the space-time context is meaningless. what kind of an experience does not take up space or time?

garth:I would argue that dreaming is real experience that does not happen in space or time. IOW, dream objects do not take up space and time (as we commonly regard space-time), yet perceiving them is valid experience.

i don't know if a dream is a valid example of an experience existing outside of a space-time context. it still occurs temporally, and it still occurs in our mind within "dream-space."

furthermore, if a dream can be reduced to neuronal activity in the brain, i suppose it could be said that the dreaming experience occurs within the space-time of the physical brain.

I agree, and you are within your right to doubt my assertions. I just think that space-time seems objectively real because it is common to the experience of every other human. Subjectively existing things generally don't have that attribute. I have involved theories that account for this, but ultimately they're conjectural and maybe even unfalsifiable.

ok. i don't know if we can proceed any further on this issue.

morpheus:
i was under the impression that mainstream science held that time is discrete, while the verdict was still out with regard to space. is this incorrect?

garth:
Well, I don't think one can be discrete and yet not another since GR makes them essentially inseperable.

you are probably correct here.

I used to think that space-time was discrete simply because it has generally been undefined below quantum limits. Then, just recently, some experimental observations were reported that explored spatio-temporal continuity below the Planck scale. They expected to return grainy results and instead returned precisely continuous observations. Still, there is a limit to the smallest space-time metric that we can measure presently, however that isn't enough to conclude that space-time is actually discrete below that limit since the trend seems to have been established that the smaller we go, space and time remain continuous. Basically, the limitations are our inherent in our instrumentation and techniques, not actually that space-time is discrete.

i see your point. in fact, to me it seems intuitively more likely that space-time is continuous as opposed to grainy. if space-time was divided, and then those divisions were divided, etc., would there ever come a point where another division could not be made? i would conjecture that the answer is no, though once again this is just an issue where an appropriate verdict cannot be rendered until more evidence and knowledge comes to the fore.

morpheus:
but even assuming time is continuous, there is still an ostensible problem. consider some every day measured value of time - e.g., one second. i think that to consider the existence of infinite seconds in the past is incoherent. if i'm in a hypothetical room with infinite people, with one sitting down every second, and i cannot sit down until an infinite number of people have sat down, i will never sit down. similarly, if there are infinite seconds in the past, then the present would never be realized.

garth:
That really only arises from the fact that we arbitrarily define discrete intervals of time by some relative motion. A "second" is merely an approximation and a relative observation, not an objectively discrete time interval.

i think a resolution here rests on two of the other issues touched on above:

1) whether space-time is discrete - if it is, then the infinite regress becomes a problem.

2) whether space-time objectively exists or if it is an abstraction. if it objectively exists, then it would seem that objectively discrete time intervals must exist in some fashion, and again the regress may be problematic.

however, the majority position is that time had a beginning, and that that beginning was at the big bang singularity. the infinite regress only becomes an issue for someone who posits that time (assuming that it objectively exists) never had a beginning.

morpheus:
i forget the guy's name, but there was a scientist i read who said that science can only explain things back to the big bang singularity. beyond that, the issues are philosophical.

garth:
That may or may not be true. Given the recent many-world theory of cosmology (which is so far only distantly related to the many-worlds interpretation of QM), scientists are indeed theorizing about things happening "before the BB."

interesting. when they speak of "before the big bang," are they referring to some actual time before the big bang, or just to something logically prior to the big bang?

morpheus:
honesty is an attribute that is built into a conceptualization of the christian god - to talk of "the christian god who intentionally and malevolently deceives" is incoherent, because the christian god as such does not do this.

garth:
But such a definition is either arbitrary or circular. There is no rational foundation for that belief other than a priori postulation out of necessity.

i'm not sure i agree. the christian god is god as conceptualized by christians. christians get this conceptualization - which includes that god is honest - from what they perceive in the bible. now, of course, i cannot prove to you that what the bible says about god is not completely false, and that the god who wrote it did so with intentional deception, or even that a god does not exist who causes us to perceive what is in the bible completely differently than what it actually says. but if either is the case, then we're not talking about the christian god, because it doesn't fit the bill as "god conceptualized by christians." if we are actually being intentionally deceived by some evil god who made the bible as a deceptive tool or something like that, it isn't the case that the christian god is deceptive, but just that the christian god doesn't exist, because there is no being that exists that matches the conceptualization of the christian god (which includes his honesty).

and i don't see how this is only a problem for theists. i posit a monotheistic reality; you do not. but i don't see how my position is more problematic due to the possibility of an evil, deceptive god than yours, because i don't see any difference in the possibility of such a being existing in either worldview. both views just assume that such a being does not exist, because to not do so leads to unintelligibility.

The point I am trying to make is that lots of historical tales are accurate about places, times, and people. However, a different standard of evidence is required to believe the extraordinary events depicted. For example, the Illiad and the Odyssey are reliable about confirming the existence of the city of Troy and the occurance of the Trojan War. That doesn't mean we should believe that Scilla and Charbydis actually existed, nor that there existed "dog-faced Aetheopians" in Northern Africa.

the problem i have with the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" concept, specifically with respect to the claim that jesus was god, is that he who says this (in this case, the non-christian) somewhat presupposes his view when the statement is made. in other words, the claim "jesus was god" is only an extraordinary one to he who doesn't think jesus was god - for the christian, such a claim is not really extraordinary, because it is a statement that reflects reality.

so what makes a claim extraordinary, in an unbiased sense? if it posits something very uncommon? i don't know if this works in a historical sense, because the existence of very uncommon events and people in history is, in fact, very common. so i don't think the very fact that the claim "jesus christ existed as god on earth" represents the positing of an uncommon person who did uncommon thing qualifies the statement as extraordinary (in an unbiased sense), in and of itself.

i will also just say as an aside that the iliad and odyssey were clearly written in a mythical form, whereas the literature that comprises the gospel accounts of jesus generally take a historical form.

regards.

[Satori]

05-22-2003 @ 06:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=103882#post103882)
Socrates:
Of course. The main point to think about is that a proper Kalaam Cosmological argument is: Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.Since God doesn't have a beginning and the universe does, God doesn't need a cause. See If God created the universe, then who created God? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp)

Oh dear. Are you still spouting this mindless drivel? And then you post a link to that awful AiG website?

Aren't you embarassed to associate your handle with such nonsense? You really should be, and I am embarassed for you.

However, if that's the kind of intellectually self-defeating presumptuous ignorance that helps you maintain your beloved obligation to believe whatever it is that you happen to believe, then who am I to point out how inherently baseless it is? In that case, forget I said anything, I just don't like that you are saying this half-witted nonsense, so it needs to be pointed out as being the innane gibberish that it truly is, because not everyone is intelligent enough to see through it and some might actually become sucked in by it.

Kalaam cosmological argument indeed. Please, too ridiculous. The world is filled with enough presumptuous ignorance as it is. We don't need this further nonsense attempting to make such presumptions sound logically grounded. People deserver better than this.

in reason,

Satori

[Satori]

Hey man, thanks for the reply :)

06-17-2003 @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125706#post125706)
FirstSunday33ad:

Satori:

How about you stop whining about what poor deluded fools we all are and actually engage in some constructive discussion.

By pointing out the inherently presumptuous nature of the argument I was addressing, I feel I was in fact doing just that.

I expect you to take a step back, neglect your faith fueled obligations for a moment, and actually take a serious look at what you are saying/thinking (that is, if you have that degree of self-honesty, of course).

If you are as convinced as you sound that atheism is rational and reasonable and theism is the result of clouded judgement, then defend your position. If it is as convincing as you claim, no one will be able to fault you.

This is simply so off-base for 2 reasons, I will explain:

- I'm not an atheist. Unlike most people here it seems, I'm open-minded, self-honest, and fearless enough to admit that I simply do not know if there is a god or not. You don't know if there's a god or not either, the difference is that you pretend that you DO know, that you "believe" it, and I don't pretend. In fact, you know no more about the nature of reality than anyone else, but I understand your god will be angry with you if you admitted that to yourself, so I don't expect that you will, even though it's entirely obvious. My mind isn't clouded by any obligations to believe anything. It's a shame that not everyone here can say the same, and that just happens to also be the reason why I'm here, to help open a few eyes and minds and help people accept and admit to their own inherent ignorance with regard to the nature of ultimate reality. There's a lot of honour in being able to admit to the limitations of your own subjectivism, I think.

- You ask me to defend my position? Are you attempting to put me on the defensive? I've noticed that is a common theistic tactic, the primary tactic in fact, since they actually have NO solid reasons or hard evidence to back their own wildly speculative claims, they resort to pointing out spelling errors and dumping on one's character/intelligence. I'm not here to defend any position cuz I have no fixed position. All I have are opinions which happen to agree with reason, common sense, and the available evidence. What I will defend however is the NEED for open-mindedness and not clinging so tightly to any single point of view that you are unwilling the change your mind about it. That's what faith is all about, and such narrow-mindedness is, I feel, the seat of self-maintained ignorance and self-dishonesty (how can you be honest with yourself with what you actually think with some inhumane god demanding and threatening you? I feel that you cannot, and that's why I feel that faith = self-delusion & self-dishonesty). I'd be willing to discuss this more if you are interested, however, if you are only interested in finding reasons to keep clinging to your faith, as if that was the most important think in the world, then I won't bother, it's a pointless task. Being faithfully devoted to believe in one of the world's surviving theological systems, and being self-honest and truly open-minded, are just on opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum, and it's extremely difficult to jump from one to the other.

If however, it appears that you are the one with the clouded reason and the one whose beliefs are founded on &quot;wishful thinking&quot;, then I would expect that you would be as prepared to abandon your position as you would like others to be.

My "beliefs" (whatever those are, I don't have any really, I only have loosely held opinions) founded on "wishful thinking"? I don't know how that could be, as I don't think some alien or god thing is going to come whisk me away to some paradise based on what I can convince myself of without any solid reasons for doing so. Wishful thinking is truly the domain of theism and self-delusion. There's no wishful thinking sort of obligations in simply being rational and open-minded.

Believe me, I am prepared to abandon my loosely held position in a second, not a problem (that's self-honesty and open-mindedness, and therefore it's not something I expect from theists who are far more geared toward convincing themself of this or that than they are with actual reality). After all, I'm have no such faith obligations clouding my reason and contributing my own self-dishonesty.

However, I do not expect theists to be that free or open-minded. I expect them to be extremely closed-minded, and desperately clinging to whatever innane "substantiation" they can find (like creationists are famous and noted for). In fact, I regard the faith obligation, imposed on people by various theisms, as a prison of the mind, from which escape is almost impossible, and that's why I have so much compassion for those who are so obligated to believe in some wild theory at the absolute negation of all others. I think you deserve better than that, and if someone was holding a gun to your head and demanding that you "believe" anything (religious or otherwise) I'd think that was unethical coercion as well. That's why I think making threats and promises to people to act as incentives to get them to believe in Allah or the other various great gods in the skies, in other words *obligating* them by exploiting their fears and selfish desires to buy into a given metaphysical theory, is so very unethical.

I think everyone deserves better than to have their minds toyed with in exactly this manner. Such punishment/reward coercion is the lowest of psychological trickery, and I think it demonstrates a complete lack of regard for people's deepest intellectual freedoms and mental health. Kids are being fed this sort of stuff way to early and because it is so very threatening, demanding, and condemning, it can traumatize them (and I know MANY people in exactly this situation). I think everyone deserves the opportunity to be open-minded and free to think whatever they like about that big question mark that is the nature of reality as humanity has come to understand it.

Sincerely and compassionately,

Satori

[garthoverman]

My apologies, Morpheus, for putting off your thoughtful response for so long. It takes me getting into the right mood to undertake such an endeavor. I notice now that I have additional responses from mattbballman19 which may need to wait longer. :frown:

06-26-2003 @ 10:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133763#post133763)
Morpheus:

to garth.

this makes me wonder what a proper conceptualization of space time actually is. when most people think of space or time (myself, at least), i don't think of them as material, but as something else. for example, i think of space as what matter takes up (e.g., &quot;the cube occupies 64 m^3 of space&quot;), but not as matter itself. i could be way off base here, but is it proper to think of space-time as something material? if not, then experiments that attempt to detect its material presence aren't too relevant.

if space-time is posited as being material, then i see a possible problem with this in conjunction with the big bang. most scientists posit the big bang as the beginning of space-time - it would therefore be equivalent to saying that it was the beginning of something material. but this sounds like it goes against the conservation of mass.

of course, you may just say that space-time is an abstraction, and that it doesn't exist materially or non-materially, since it doesn't objectively exist at all.
I agree with all of the above.


i don't know if a dream is a valid example of an experience existing outside of a space-time context. it still occurs temporally, and it still occurs in our mind within &quot;dream-space.&quot;

furthermore, if a dream can be reduced to neuronal activity in the brain, i suppose it could be said that the dreaming experience occurs within the space-time of the physical brain.
You are partially right in that there are physical counterparts o dreams such a hormonal release and eye movement, talking, walking, etc... but the dream experience is of objects and events that are nowhere represented in the officially recognized spatio-temporal manifold. When I dream of my family, I experience them legitimately, yet I am not experiencing them within the officially recognized space-time else others could share the experience.


<snip-snip>

i see your point. in fact, to me it seems intuitively more likely that space-time is continuous as opposed to grainy. if space-time was divided, and then those divisions were divided, etc., would there ever come a point where another division could not be made? i would conjecture that the answer is no, though once again this is just an issue where an appropriate verdict cannot be rendered until more evidence and knowledge comes to the fore.
I agree.


i think a resolution here rests on two of the other issues touched on above:

1) whether space-time is discrete - if it is, then the infinite regress becomes a problem.

2) whether space-time objectively exists or if it is an abstraction. if it objectively exists, then it would seem that objectively discrete time intervals must exist in some fashion, and again the regress may be problematic.[quote]
I agree with both statements. I think a strong argument could be made that there is no such thing as an objectively existing continuum. All continuums must be abstract. (That's not an assertion I would necessarily hold to, but only an assertion that I think could be strongly supported).


[quote]however, the majority position is that time had a beginning, and that that beginning was at the big bang singularity. the infinite regress only becomes an issue for someone who posits that time (assuming that it objectively exists) never had a beginning.
If you think about a common 2-D graph, we have two axes: the x-axis, and the y-axis. Imagine that the horizontal x-axis represents time. On this graph, there is an "Origin" at the coordinates (0,0). Obviously, however, if we imagine the x-axis as uni-directional (say, left to right), the origin is not the beginning of the axis. However, when cosmologists speak of a "beginning of time," I think they regard it much like the Origin on the 2-D graph. That is, when taking General Relativity into account, the "beginning of time" is simply where the meaning of the coordinates originates, and all time coordinates are meaningful only in their relation to this point or other points. IOW, I think that regarding the origin of time with classical concepts of uni-directional time can lead to erroneous suppositions.


interesting. when they speak of &quot;before the big bang,&quot; are they referring to some actual time before the big bang, or just to something logically prior to the big bang?
To be honest, I'm not certain. What comes "before" the Origin coordinates (0,0) on our graph? IOW, its still difficult for me to conceptualize what cosmologists mean by "before" in any precise terms.

i'm not sure i agree. the christian god is god as conceptualized by christians. christians get this conceptualization - which includes that god is honest - from what they perceive in the bible. now, of course, i cannot prove to you that what the bible says about god is not completely false, and that the god who wrote it did so with intentional deception, or even that a god does not exist who causes us to perceive what is in the bible completely differently than what it actually says. but if either is the case, then we're not talking about the christian god, because it doesn't fit the bill as &quot;god conceptualized by christians.&quot; if we are actually being intentionally deceived by some evil god who made the bible as a deceptive tool or something like that, it isn't the case that the christian god is deceptive, but just that the christian god doesn't exist, because there is no being that exists that matches the conceptualization of the christian god (which includes his honesty).
I agree, my point was merely that you can't suppose the honesty of your God in order to demonstrate his existence since honesty is an attribute of a being that we are not certain exists yet. Therefore, "miracles" are not conclusive proof of YOUR God's existence, although it might prove that SOME god or supernatural being exists.

and i don't see how this is only a problem for theists. i posit a monotheistic reality; you do not. but i don't see how my position is more problematic due to the possibility of an evil, deceptive god than yours, because i don't see any difference in the possibility of such a being existing in either worldview. both views just assume that such a being does not exist, because to not do so leads to unintelligibility.
As I think we touched on in another thread. Both theists and atheists must postulate a priori that their senses are reliable, but the theist has to make the additional postulation that the reality he supposes he can interpret correctly is also not the hoax of the deity He believes created it.


the problem i have with the &quot;extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence&quot; concept, specifically with respect to the claim that jesus was god, is that he who says this (in this case, the non-christian) somewhat presupposes his view when the statement is made. in other words, the claim &quot;jesus was god&quot; is only an extraordinary one to he who doesn't think jesus was god - for the christian, such a claim is not really extraordinary, because it is a statement that reflects reality.
To a certain extent I would agree, but I think when all things are considered a person claiming to be God is not that extraordinary (walk down the streets of NY some time), but a person actually being God is rather extraordinary, and for that claim to be believed by someone who has never experieced a god or gods, the claim will require some extraordinary evidence to support it.

so what makes a claim extraordinary, in an unbiased sense? if it posits something very uncommon? i don't know if this works in a historical sense, because the existence of very uncommon events and people in history is, in fact, very common. so i don't think the very fact that the claim &quot;jesus christ existed as god on earth&quot; represents the positing of an uncommon person who did uncommon thing qualifies the statement as extraordinary (in an unbiased sense), in and of itself.
I will concede that "extraordinary" presumes a definition of "ordinary" that is somewhat arbitrary. However, I think you must concede that if God was indeed walking on earth, the event was rather extraordinary since you must also believe that it has only happened once in the entire history of the world. Where "ordinary" is loosely defined as "events which regularly transpire," I think Jesus as God qualifies as "extraordinary."

i will also just say as an aside that the iliad and odyssey were clearly written in a mythical form, whereas the literature that comprises the gospel accounts of jesus generally take a historical form.
I think that is subject to interpretation. Most histories I've read (that are generally regarded as histories) do not include stories of men coming back from the dead, walkning on water, changing water to wine, feeding 5000 with two fish, etc... Generally, accounts with such events are considered tall tales, folklore, myth, etc...

Yours,
Garth

[Warcraft3]

Hello there Satori:


By pointing out the inherently presumptuous nature of the argument I was addressing, I feel I was in fact doing just that.

I do believe that from your perspective, you believe were doing that.

I expect you to take a step back, neglect your faith fueled obligations for a moment, and actually take a serious look at what you are saying/thinking (that is, if you have that degree of self-honesty, of course).
Satori.....you need to do this as well.

- I'm not an atheist. Unlike most people here it seems, I'm open-minded, self-honest, and fearless enough to admit that I simply do not know if there is a god or not. You don't know if there's a god or not either, the difference is that you pretend that you DO know, that you "believe" it, and I don't pretend. In fact, you know no more about the nature of reality than anyone else, but I understand your god will be angry with you if you admitted that to yourself, so I don't expect that you will, even though it's entirely obvious. My mind isn't clouded by any obligations to believe anything. It's a shame that not everyone here can say the same, and that just happens to also be the reason why I'm here, to help open a few eyes and minds and help people accept and admit to their own inherent ignorance with regard to the nature of ultimate reality. There's a lot of honour in being able to admit to the limitations of your own subjectivism, I think.

- You ask me to defend my position? Are you attempting to put me on the defensive? I've noticed that is a common theistic tactic, the primary tactic in fact, since they actually have NO solid reasons or hard evidence to back their own wildly speculative claims, they resort to pointing out spelling errors and dumping on one's character/intelligence. I'm not here to defend any position cuz I have no fixed position. All I have are opinions which happen to agree with reason, common sense, and the available evidence. What I will defend however is the NEED for open-mindedness and not clinging so tightly to any single point of view that you are unwilling the change your mind about it. That's what faith is all about, and such narrow-mindedness is, I feel, the seat of self-maintained ignorance and self-dishonesty (how can you be honest with yourself with what you actually think with some inhumane god demanding and threatening you? I feel that you cannot, and that's why I feel that faith = self-delusion &amp; self-dishonesty). I'd be willing to discuss this more if you are interested, however, if you are only interested in finding reasons to keep clinging to your faith, as if that was the most important think in the world, then I won't bother, it's a pointless task. Being faithfully devoted to believe in one of the world's surviving theological systems, and being self-honest and truly open-minded, are just on opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum, and it's extremely difficult to jump from one to the other.



My "beliefs"(whatever those are, I don't have any really, I only have loosely held opinions) founded on "wishful thinking"? I don't know how that could be, as I don't think some alien or god thing is going to come whisk me away to some paradise based on what I can convince myself of without any solid reasons for doing so. Wishful thinking is truly the domain of theism and self-delusion. There's no wishful thinking sort of obligations in simply being rational and open-minded.

Believe me, I am prepared to abandon my loosely held position in a second, not a problem (that's self-honesty and open-mindedness, and therefore it's not something I expect from theists who are far more geared toward convincing themself of this or that than they are with actual reality). After all, I'm have no such faith obligations clouding my reason and contributing my own self-dishonesty.

However, I do not expect theists to be that free or open-minded. I expect them to be extremely closed-minded, and desperately clinging to whatever innane "substantiation" they can find (like creationists are famous and noted for). In fact, I regard the faith obligation, imposed on people by various theisms, as a prison of the mind, from which escape is almost impossible, and that's why I have so much compassion for those who are so obligated to believe in some wild theory at the absolute negation of all others. I think you deserve better than that, and if someone was holding a gun to your head and demanding that you "believe" anything (religious or otherwise) I'd think that was unethical coercion as well. That's why I think making threats and promises to people to act as incentives to get them to believe in Allah or the other various great gods in the skies, in other words *obligating* them by exploiting their fears and selfish desires to buy into a given metaphysical theory, is so very unethical.

I think everyone deserves better than to have their minds toyed with in exactly this manner. Such punishment/reward coercion is the lowest of psychological trickery, and I think it demonstrates a complete lack of regard for people's deepest intellectual freedoms and mental health. Kids are being fed this sort of stuff way to early and because it is so very threatening, demanding, and condemning, it can traumatize them (and I know MANY people in exactly this situation). I think everyone deserves the opportunity to be open-minded and free to think whatever they like about that big question mark that is the nature of reality as humanity has come to understand it.

Sincerely and compassionately,

Satori



Satori, you obviously have very strong feelings about these issues as is evidenced by your often "colorful" language. Might I suggest taking a step back and trying to seperate your strong feelings from your posts. It will make the discussion/debate much better.


Russ

[kkawohl]

Let's try a little humor...cause people have a tendency to complicate things...and kill each other in the name of Allah/God.

...I suppose we’all have to live by the word of Allah/God because someone told it...it's in the Qur’an, Torah, and the Bible...and we have to believe it...if we didn't believe it...we’all would be condemned to hell...do I have it straight?

And...This God...HE magically appeared out of nowhere...HE then created the whole universe, magically...out of nuthin'...cause he was lonely by HIMSELF...cause there was nuthin' but himself floatin' around in nuthingness...do I have it straight?

Y’all need to think straight...y’all have been duped...and need to get rid of superstitions...it's the 21st Century.

My spirit has seen the face of God and if I'm lying I'm risking the survival of my soul...and I KNOW that my soul will be with God...God is spiritual and is the progressive and accumulative spiritual intelligence of the universe; of all the righteous souls who have passed into the spiritual realm. God does not and never has meddled in the tangible universe.

It is of no importance during our physical life whether God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference to God. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul.

One's life can be enhanced by receiving solace and being comforted during life's trials and tribulations by having our spirit inspired and blessed by the Spirit of God. This is normally man's only connection with God except when God’s Spirit interacts with a person’s spirit directly; God’s messenger. However, the Ultimate Truth is indecipherable by the human mind and can only be divulged to the spirit which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and beliefs.

Our life on earth is to prepare us and to give us examples of the hereafter. Everything is progressive and accumulative. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings, the beauty of every organism that surrounds us, the landscape that adds to our perception; then we can begin our next journey.

We should live our life to its fullest. One hundred years from now, almost every single person alive today will have died. Several billion people, wiped off the face of this earth. Our life is but a blip on the radar screen of time.

We are the most important person responsible for whether our soul will live or die. Here we have to learn how to intertwine with a community; there we can experience anything that the imagination can perceive.

Envision yourself as a spirit that is uninhibited by any resistance or external influences; you can travel to any star or planet instantly, explore the beauty of the universe, and still be in sync with God.

As an example: Imagine the most advanced form of Virtual Reality that can access a super-computer and place you in whichever setting you desire; you can play with the animals, be with your loved ones, listen to the greatest opera, stage or musical performances, or simply relax next to a bubbling brook and enjoy the scenery. You feel no pain, despair, heartache, or negative emotions.

God is like a Master Planner who/that guides the universe rather than one who controls it. God is not this mighty ruler who wishes to enslave mankind, but a peaceful coexistence of the spirits or souls of many of our forefathers, past prophets, and all who lived righteously;

Cultures change with time. God has always been the same, but our perception of God will vary with time.

Kurt
http://transcendentalism.us

[kkawohl]

In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the Universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the Universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics.

Continuity is an uninterrupted connection in space, time, operation or development. To have an initial connection or junction, it must have a starting point then continuity. A circle can not be created without a starting point.

Some atomic particles possess vast amounts of energy and energy or life and is a fundamental attribute and function of the universe; it infers that an equivalent quantity of physical energy was expended in creating the atom. In the beginning atoms were created from energy and came into existence from nothingness, which can be vacuum or space that is empty of matter. An explosion from a compression of atoms, caused the “big bang”. This was the beginning of the universe.

For example: If nothingness is vacuum and space at the beginning was empty of matter and we reason that everything has to have a beginning, we can rationalize that atoms formed compounds; then how did atoms originate?

Modern atomic theory is generally said to begin with John Dalton, an English chemist and meteorologist who in 1808 published a book on the atmosphere and the behavior of gases that was entitled A New System of Chemical Philosophy. Dalton's theory of atoms rested on four basic ideas: chemical elements were composed of atoms; the atoms of an element were identical in weight; the atoms of different elements had different weights; and atoms combined only in small whole-number ratios, such as 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 2:3, to form compounds.

Kurt