An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

Jim of course you have to have change to have time, time would not exist otherwise, how could it?

If nothing but a true vacuum existed how would you know whether time was passing or not? Your assumption suggest that time itself isn't real, that only change is real.

[JimL]

AFAICT, not for the creator. The reason for this is that they are positing an allpowerful, supernatural being. Except for a logical contradiction, there is nothing this being cannot do. It is not driven by external causes - it is self-caused, which is an internally consistent position, AFAICT. The best the atheist can say is that there is nothing necessary about this "uncaused cause" having sentience.

Well, I think we have to take logical contradictions into account. If god is a creative entity, then his creative activity would itself have to regress into infinity.

This makes your language a little more precise. But, again, if you take it from their worldview, something is not coming from nothing - it is coming from god. It is true that the material is arising from the immaterial, but the immaterial is not "nothing." As for the mechanics of it all, well, if it's a supernatural immaterial with unlimited "power," whatever that means, whose to say what it can or cannot do. However, I agree with your general statement that the entire thing is implausible, even if we have to acknowledge that it is possible. I am an atheist because I believe god DOES not exist, not because I believe god COULD not exist.

True, but again immaterial and material would be in contradistinction. Thats the whole point of the idea behind the existence of god, he is not of the same substance as that of the world, if he were of the same substance then the world would be part and parcel of god, aka pantheism. Therefore if god created the world, logically speaking, he would need have created it out of nothing.

Yes - I think religion has provided a framework for driving social order. "God says so" is a powerful inducement. It is also a powerful mechanism for control. This is why, I believe, religions have a checkered history. When the religious leaders are good and moral people, they can control their "flock" in good and moral directions. When they are unscrupulous people, that same control can (and has been) used to wreak havoc. The same is true of pretty much and tool used to drive social order.

Agreed, and well put.

[carpedm9587]

Well, I think we have to take logical contradictions into account. If god is a creative entity, then his creative activity would itself have to regress into infinity.

Why? Isn't it possible this being created as a one-off event?

True, but again immaterial and material would be in contradistinction. Thats the whole point of the idea behind the existence of god, he is not of the same substance as that of the world, if he were of the same substance then the world would be part and parcel of god, aka pantheism. Therefore if god created the world, logically speaking, he would need have created it out of nothing.

Umm... no...If there is god, there is "something." If god created, then god i not creating out of nothing, god is creating out of him/her/itself. That god is immaterial and is creating the material does not mean the material is being created out of "nothing," it means it is being created out of something that is not material.

Look, you can say that theists believe the world was not created from a material source - but you cannot say it was created from "nothing" because they say it was created from god - who is proposed to be pure mind and immaterial - but not "nothing." I agree that we have a lot of experience of mind arising from matter/energy and no experience of matter/energy arising from mind. So I consider their concept an unsupported leap. But it does not help to characterize it as something it is not.

Agreed, and well put.

As always...

[JimL]

Why? Isn't it possible this being created as a one-off event?

It's possible, and I could be mistaken, but I don't believe so . If the argument is that god is outside of time, that he is himself eternal and timeless, then the beginning of his creation, the beginning of time, would be simultaneous with eternity. Something can't be said to have its beginning at some particular point within a timeless eternity, it's a contradiction.

Umm... no...If there is god, there is "something." If god created, then god i not creating out of nothing, god is creating out of him/her/itself.

No, "out of nothing" means that it is a wholly new and independent substance than its cause. In philosophy, the effect, in this case, the creation, would be in its cause, and the cause, i.e. god, would be in the effect. In other words the substance of the one is in the substance of the other. The effect, in this case the creation, the universe, the material world, even if created, it is created from out of thin air, or to be more precise, from out of nothing. If an effect is of a wholly different and independent substance than its cause, even if created, then that is what is meant by "coming from out of nothing."

That god is immaterial and is creating the material does not mean the material is being created out of "nothing," it means it is being created out of something that is not material.

Yes, that's exactly what it does mean. Matter is not being created "out of something that is not material," It is being "created out of nothing" by "something that is not material."

Look, you can say that theists believe the world was not created from a material source - but you cannot say it was created from "nothing" because they say it was created from god - who is proposed to be pure mind and immaterial - but not "nothing." I agree that we have a lot of experience of mind arising from matter/energy and no experience of matter/energy arising from mind. So I consider their concept an unsupported leap. But it does not help to characterize it as something it is not.

No, what theist contend is that the material world was created by god not that it was created out of, or from, god. Big difference.

As always...

Again, I agree.

[shunyadragon]

There are some scientists which think the laws of physics could have been different.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...-be-explained/

True in multiverse scenario, but no one knows what the possible range laws of physics and the constants of our universe. There may be little or no variation, or a wide range of values for the constants that are the basis for our universe and all possible universes.

Sort of ah, . . . so what?!?!?!

[Tassman]

Can you provide a specific example of where he does that so we can analyze it?

You frequently say this but have not provided a specific case.

It would be more effective if you could provide an example of where WL Craig (et al) uses science to provide the premises for a theological argument instead of (as I contend) using science to try and reinforce his existing religious presuppositions.

That is why it is a hypothetical. Extreme hypotheticals expose illegitimate positions better than nuanced ones. I am not the one making the point that science cannot be used to underpin theological arguments so I would have to consider the data.

Revelation, not data, underlies theological arguments.

Do you have a study to back that up?

https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/social-support

And:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...s/art-20044860

[Tassman]

A multiverse is not nothing in any sense Tass, Hawking in that theory was not speaking of creation from the multiverse. And Vilenkin's nothing does not include time or space - so where would matter or energy exist where there is no time or space? The only thing required are the laws of physics, in the "Platonic" sense.

What? So the whole multiverse BEGAN to exist? It is not past eternal?

See above.

The fact is Tass, your faith needs eternal matter and energy - whether in the form of a multiverse of something else.

I am interested in evidenced factual knowledge, not faith. OTOH you seem merely interested in preserving your religious beliefs intact come what may.

Are you being dense on purpose? Hawking made a claim about God which he can not know or backup.

[seer]

We don't know? What makes you think we ever will? Faith?

I am interested in evidenced factual knowledge, not faith. OTOH you seem merely interested in preserving your religious beliefs intact come what may.

What nonsense Tass, you need eternal matter and energy to support your faith. And BTW Tass a multiverse does not bear on my faith in the least, God certainly could have created a multiverse and not just this universe. He could have created any number of worlds. You on the other hand need eternal energy to keep a divine foot out of the door.


No Tass, Hawking made a positive claim, that God was not needed to create the universe - that is both biased and false since neither he or anyone else actually knows how this universe was created or what was necessary. That is not science it is philosophy.

[element771]

It would be more effective if you could provide an example of where WL Craig (et al) uses science to provide the premises for a theological argument instead of (as I contend) using science to try and reinforce his existing religious presuppositions.

You made the accusation of WLC et al misusing science, you should back it up.

Revelation, not data, underlies theological arguments.

That isn't true at all. Natural theology is an example that doesn't depend on revelation.

[carpedm9587]

It's possible, and I could be mistaken, but I don't believe so . If the argument is that god is outside of time, that he is himself eternal and timeless, then the beginning of his creation, the beginning of time, would be simultaneous with eternity. Something can't be said to have its beginning at some particular point within a timeless eternity, it's a contradiction.

No THERE's an interesting observation. I'll be interested to see how that is responded to.

No, "out of nothing" means that it is a wholly new and independent substance than its cause. In philosophy, the effect, in this case, the creation, would be in its cause, and the cause, i.e. god, would be in the effect. In other words the substance of the one is in the substance of the other. The effect, in this case the creation, the universe, the material world, even if created, it is created from out of thin air, or to be more precise, from out of nothing. If an effect is of a wholly different and independent substance than its cause, even if created, then that is what is meant by "coming from out of nothing."

I don't think so, Jim. I have never seen that definition of "out of nothing." If you think it is a conventional definition, it would help for you to cite sources. Out of nothing, in every use I have ever seen, literally means what it says - something arising from nothing at all. We don't see that within our universe (though we use the expression) because we know that, within this universe, matter/energy are neither created nor destroyed - merely transformed.

Yes, that's exactly what it does mean. Matter is not being created "out of something that is not material," It is being "created out of nothing" by "something that is not material."

No, what theist contend is that the material world was created by god not that it was created out of, or from, god. Big difference.

Hmm... I understand your distinction. It's an interesting one. I'll have to noodle on it.

[element771]

Yes, I noted that you do. It was implicit in your response to my (admittedly poor) thought experiment. But I disagree with you. I don't think that what we experience within this universe necessarily applies without it. I don't think it is even reasonable speculation. The best we can say is, "we don't know."

Fair enough and maybe you are right. That is assuming that something is eternal of course that exists outside of our known universe. We don't even know that.

Look carefully at what you have said here. It is filled with assumptions we simply cannot validate. Try to look at it with an scientifically impassioned eye.

We could scientifically invalidate that information was eternal. We could not scientificailly invalidate the idea that God is behind it. I don't think that this is a problem. I hold to the position that science is not the only way to truth. I do science all day long and have trained my brain to work through everything scientifically. It annoys my wife to no end because of this. However, I don't need science to tell me that I love my kids and my family. I know that these are hormones that are being released that affect my brain to make me feel this connection. I know that this was evolved so I take care of my offspring to propagate my genes. However, this has no bearing on the actual feeling of love that I have for them. At the end of the day, I don't care that it is neurobiology that underlies my feelings of love. Does that make it any less real?

Absolutely. Now here's a thought to mess with your mind: someday, galaxies in the universe will be so significantly separated as to be undetectable to one another. Any new species arising after that moment, unless they have access to the recorded observations of a previous species, will look around their galaxy and perceive it to be "all that is," oblivious to the existence of galaxies outside the scope of their detection. The situation is not unlike the early Americans who had no idea that the horizon was not "the end" and were startled to see a ship approaching, and rather saw it as "arising from the sea." So if this is what the future holds, it raises an interesting question: what changes have already occurred in this universe of ours that blind us to how things REALLY are?

Sure but I would argue that the laws governing our universe have not changed. That is an assumption of course. And we can see pretty far back in time to see what the past was like. I guess I am not sure where you are going with this.

You seem to be arguing for a pantheism - not a monotheism.

Kinda but I think that God not only created the universe but also sustains it.

Reread what you just wrote. We are not referring to the "origins of the universe" but what the "source of the universe" is ultimately. You need to explain this - because it reads to me like someone saying, "we're not trying to figure out where that car came from - we're just trying to figure out where that car originated."

Yeah this is a tough one to get across. It was mostly to convince you that I was not looking for a pattern in nature nor was I saying that God made the Big Bang happen because we don't know how it happened. It is more of what type of stuff did the universe come out of. You don't agree with my assumption that mind / matter are the only choices so I am not really sure if this will go anywhere. However, let me think more about why I make the assumption that something like matter / energy or mind / information would exist outside of our univ

You may not be...but I am. When the basis for a belief is specious, my response is, "if that's what you believe - so be it. You haven't, however, given me a credible reason to join you."

Sure but not everyone is trying to get you to join them. For example, this thread. I am merely explaining why I believe and giving insight into my thought process. I don't expect it to persuade anyone. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if it did...however if it doesn't, I am fine with that as well.

OK...now you have me intrigued. Explain!

Sorry..Glenn Peoples calls it the Lottery Fallacy. He explains it better than I could...

http://rightreason.org/2010/the-lott...llacy-fallacy/

ETA: I just want to acknowledge that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion. The opportunity to "lock horns" on a series of ideas without someone telling me that I "make up definitions" or "am disingenuous" or "am pretending" is amazingly refreshing. Like me, I find you to be someone who passionately investigates, and wants to "shake the tree of knowledge" until it gives up its fruit. You and I may end up on the opposite sides of many things, but I find myself respecting your approach to the issues, and your willingness to assume the person on the other side of the browser isn't some moron looking to "score points." I don't know where you are (physically), but if you are ever in Vermont and would welcome a meal (possibly a beer) and some lively discourse - I'm in. I travel a fair amount, so if you want to PM me your approximate location, I can let you know if/when I am ever in that area. I would welcome the dialogue!

Thanks and I also appreciate the conversation. It is nice to speak with someone who seems actually curious and does not make snide comments about how stupid religious people are. I live in the South so it looks like we may have postpone the beer. However, I attend a number of conferences...if I am ever in Vermont, I will definitely let you know.

[JonathanL]

First, I do not do "bible passages" discussions. The bible is a collection of books written by men, subject to interpretation, and historically used to support a wide variety of positions.

I wasn't really trying to start a "bible passages discussion", I cited it because it seems to me like it's saying the same thing I am trying to say.

Second, "god was in the beginning" is a sentence that simply makes no linguistic sense (to me). I realize it is considered theologically profound, but it simply doesn't really say anything.

It really isn't that hard to figure out what it means. All it is saying is that whenever the beginning was, God was already there.

Again, the emphasized phrase simple makes no linguistic sense. "Eternity" means "infinite or unending time." That makes the phrase an oxymoron, to me. The rest of your phrase just gets us back to "something from nothing." If god begins existence begins with the beginning of the universe, then we are back to "something from nothing."

ETA: I actually found a secondary definition of "eternity," which aligns a bit more with what you are saying: "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." But that simply just brings us to the question, "what the heck does that mean?" If there is no time, there is no sequence of events - so presumably no thought or action of any kind, because that implies sequentiality. So how could a being in such a state be called "sentient" or decide to act creatively? The whole notion is filled with all the same problems that arise from any notion of "beginning."

The "secondary" definition which you found is actually the primary definition when it comes to the majority of theological discussions about God's relationship to time (or atleast that's the impression I have). I was under the impression that you were aware of that.

But in any case, lack of sequential events really doesn't seem to pose that much of a problem. Sequentiality doesn't really seem to be a criteria for sentience to me, rather it seems like sequence of thoughts is simply is simply a consequence of our own limited minds. An omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn't be limited in the same way, instead all of His "thoughts" would simply exist all at once. They would not appear to Him in sequential order, instead they would always be there in His awareness.

As to how God could decide to act creatively in eternity doesn't really seem to me to be that much of a problem either. Just because eternity is characterized as a lack of sequence of events doesn't mean that a sequence of events cannot occur. All it means is that there is (was?) a state of existence where no changes were occurring and everything was static. But by God's creative act a sequence of events was brought into being and existence ceased being static. Eternity would then be the absolute first moment where the only existence was God and the main thing separating this "eternal moment" from all the subsequent moments that followed (and are going to follow) would be that this moment was devoid of a beginning. All of the subsequent moments came into being by God's creative act, but this absolute first moment (or state of existence) never came into being, it just was.

And just to clarify, when I write moment here I'm not speaking of a "brief period of time", but rather something like a "state of existence", kind of like a single frame in a video, where the complete video stands for the entire history of existence, and a single frame is the same as the totality of existence as it appears in that place in time.

Of course, one merely needs to apply the term "supernatural" to explain it, or "it's a mystery," or "who can know god?" andthe problems just "poof," disappear. Unfortunately, they also leave the question of, "if I'm going to suspend my reason for this purpose, why am I not free to suspend it for any purpose?"

I don't think I've appealed to any of the sort, at least not yet.

[JonathanL]

These two statement are not in contradiction. An analogy may help illustrate:

1) Speed is the measure of distance traveled divided by time.
2) If there is no speed, there is no distance traveled.

These two sentences are structurally identical to the two Dawkins statements, and they are not opposites. If speed is defined by the formula, s=d/t, then if s=0 d must also be zero, ergo, distance must be zero.

Let's compare first two sentences side by side:

"Time is the measure of change" and "Speed is the measure of distance traveled divided by time"

First of all, it seems to me like there's an error in the phrasing with the statement "Speed is the measure of distance traveled divided by time". A more correct way to phrase it would be "Distance traveled divided by time is the measure of speed" (unless I'm completely missing something here)

So then we have "Time is the measure of change" and "Distance traveled divided by time is the measure of speed". Now I could be mistaken here, but something with Dawkin's statement "time is the measure of change" seems wrong to me. A far more accurate statement (to me) would be "duration is the measure of time". If time is the measure of change it seems to me like greater change would imply greater duration of time, but as far as I'm aware, there doesn't seem to exist any stable relationship between time and degree of change. Two separate measurements with the exact same duration of time could be characterized by two completely different magnitudes of change.

So while you might be technically correct that Dawkin's doesn't contradict himself, it still seems like he's wrong to me. Both in how we measure change (it's not by time) and what the relationship between time and change is. Time is simply the moving from one moment to the next, how much of a difference/change there is from one moment to the other seem to me to be completely coincidental.

Likewise, if time is the relationship between event, if there is no time, then there is no relationship between event, ergo, there must be no event. As soon as there is event, there would be time.

I agree.

Sentience implies thought and self-awareness. But thought and self-awareness suggests action (granted, immaterial action)

I don't disagree with this, but I'm not sure whether or not thought and self-awareness necessarily implies action either.

and action implies time.

No issues with this either.

Therein lies the problem. A "timeless" state suggests complete inertia. So what brought such a being out of this inert state?

A timeless state suggest not complete inertia (that is resistance to change), but rather complete "changelessness". It's not that it's impossible for change to occur, but rather that change isn't happening, for whatever reason. I'm not aware about anything inherent to eternity that prevents change, and by extension time to come into being.

[JonathanL]

It's possible, and I could be mistaken, but I don't believe so . If the argument is that god is outside of time, that he is himself eternal and timeless, then the beginning of his creation, the beginning of time, would be simultaneous with eternity. Something can't be said to have its beginning at some particular point within a timeless eternity, it's a contradiction.

As I've said before to Carpe, there are no "particular points" in the kind of eternity that theologians speak of when they say "God is eternal". Eternity in this context simply means a beginningless state of existence where no change is occurring (but not necessarily where change itself is inherently impossible). God acting would then simply mean that change was brought into being and that this static existence changed. There is nothing as far as I'm aware that makes it impossible for God to enter time and change from a state of timelessness and changelessness.

[carpedm9587]

Fair enough and maybe you are right. That is assuming that something is eternal of course that exists outside of our known universe. We don't even know that.

We could scientifically invalidate that information was eternal. We could not scientificailly invalidate the idea that God is behind it. I don't think that this is a problem. I hold to the position that science is not the only way to truth. I do science all day long and have trained my brain to work through everything scientifically. It annoys my wife to no end because of this. However, I don't need science to tell me that I love my kids and my family. I know that these are hormones that are being released that affect my brain to make me feel this connection. I know that this was evolved so I take care of my offspring to propagate my genes. However, this has no bearing on the actual feeling of love that I have for them. At the end of the day, I don't care that it is neurobiology that underlies my feelings of love. Does that make it any less real?

There is nothing you said here that I disagree with. My statement was about what we can validate - not what we cannot invalidate. As a proposed "supernatural being," a discipline that is about investigating the so-called natural (i.e., science) doesn't apply.

Sure but I would argue that the laws governing our universe have not changed. That is an assumption of course. And we can see pretty far back in time to see what the past was like. I guess I am not sure where you are going with this.

My basic point was that we are wildly speculating about "before" and "outside" our universe, applying concepts we learned from within our universe, and not even able to say if they have any application. Indeed, we do not even know that these concepts hold universally within the universe. We have already seen some odd exceptions in quantum mechanics. So to put "god did it" in place of that speculation and those assumptions and that lack of clarity is, for me, a "god of the gaps" approach. In other words, I'm not going to arrive at "god is" from "the universe is."

Kinda but I think that God not only created the universe but also sustains it.

That I will have to leave to you, for obvious reasons.

Yeah this is a tough one to get across. It was mostly to convince you that I was not looking for a pattern in nature nor was I saying that God made the Big Bang happen because we don't know how it happened. It is more of what type of stuff did the universe come out of. You don't agree with my assumption that mind / matter are the only choices so I am not really sure if this will go anywhere. However, let me think more about why I make the assumption that something like matter / energy or mind / information would exist outside of our univ

Sure but not everyone is trying to get you to join them. For example, this thread. I am merely explaining why I believe and giving insight into my thought process. I don't expect it to persuade anyone. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if it did...however if it doesn't, I am fine with that as well.

My enjoyment of a spirited debate has several people doubtful about this claim - but your approach is essentially mine as well. I'm interested in why people believe as they do, I'm happy to explain why I believe as I do, and I'm even happy to engage in a spirited debate about concept X, Y, or Z. At the end of the day, I am fine with whatever someone chooses to believe. I am not "fine" when their belief is harmful to others, and those I will speak out against. That is the one place where I may well attempt to convince - on moral matters. Beyond that - to each their own.

Sorry..Glenn Peoples calls it the Lottery Fallacy. He explains it better than I could...

http://rightreason.org/2010/the-lott...llacy-fallacy/

So here's my response to his response, which perhaps I should call the Lottery Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy? The Lottery Fallacy is based on a misunderstanding or miss-application of probability and statistics. The author correctly notes that an individual has a miniscule chance of winning (say, 1/175M). However, the probability that SOMEONE will win the lottery is substantially higher, because several tens or hundreds of millions of tickets are sold! The same applies to his swimming pool analogy - and he is making the same mistake. If we are asking ourselves, "what is the probability that the sole black marble will be picked?" it is vanishingly small - assuming one pick and one pick only. But if there are 175M marbles in that pool, and there are 175M opportunities to pick, the probability that the black one will be picked becomes very high - it can even approach certainty (probability of 1).

This was part of my thought experiment. If there exists a "matrix of stuff" whose very nature is to be in motion and spawn singularities - and it is infinite in expanse and duration, then it follows that an infinity of universes have been created and will continue to be created. Even if the vast majority of those are duds, the probability that at least one of them would exhibit the "fine tuned" characteristics that ours exhibits is almost certain. Indeed, as long as the probability of a fine-tuned universe is not zero - with an infinity to work with - and infinity of such universes would have been created. Indeed, an infinity of EVERY type of possible universe would be created. That's what the statistics tell us, and what is commonly ignored.

People seem to forget that "infinity" is a really big number!

But even if we take the case that this universe is the only one that has ever (or will ever) exist, its fine-tuned nature is not a problem for me. You see, probability helps us predict what will happen. Once it has happened, it has a probability of 1. If I play Yahtzee, when I roll the five die, the probability that I will role five sixes is (1/6)^5. That's a 0.013% chance (1 chance in 7,776). If I pick up the die for the very first time ever, and role five sixes, I cannot say "whoa...these die are loaded - that shouldn't have happened!" The fact is, it DID happen. Now, if I roll them a second time and get the same result, I start to wonder. A third time and I'm suspicious. by the 10th time, I'm almost certain the die are loaded. But on one roll? I can say nothing. The same is true with this universe. It is what it is - and we have ONE observable universe. If you told me "very low odds," and it happened multiple times, I'd be suspicious. But you cannot draw conclusions on a sample space of one.

Thanks and I also appreciate the conversation. It is nice to speak with someone who seems actually curious and does not make snide comments about how stupid religious people are. I live in the South so it looks like we may have postpone the beer. However, I attend a number of conferences...if I am ever in Vermont, I will definitely let you know.

If "south" is anywhere near Atlanta - I do a lot of business there. I'll keep this in mind and let you know when next I travel to the south and where. Perhaps we can connect. Until then, I'll try not to betray how stupid I think religious people are...


P.S. That was a joke. My wife is religious. She would not let me get away with such things...