An infinite series of finite causes.

[Tassman]

You'll have to clarify where you're going with this.

[JonathanL]

I'm still having trouble understanding what you're trying to get at. I know what the omnipotence paradox is, I just don't get how it's relevant to the post you quoted. I'm also not sure what you mean by a "property or quality of 'existence'".

[element771]

How are you not contradicting your self?

Most of WLC arguments are from natural theology.

Can you post a specific example where WLC hijacks science and shoehorns it in?

At least then we can have a specific argument to dissect.

[carpedm9587]

In response to your post, permit me to carpesplain it to you!

The reason that it is not a god of the gaps is that I do not conclude that science cannot figure out the origins.

Nor do I. But science HAS not, and does not even have an idea of how that might be accomplished (as far as I know). So until then, "god did it" is attempting to fill "we don't know" with an explanation, at least from my POV.

This is something I really don't understand how you would posit this. There is no evidence for other universes that we can observe yet. Also, it could be that we cannot observe this evidence by definition. This doesn't mean that there are not any reason to give up looking but as a scientist, I don't see any evidence that currently makes me take them seriously.

I do not believe I claimed that there ARE multiple universes. My claim was that the lottery argument presupposes there aren't. Since we do not know that to be true, we do not know the lottery argument works. I am not saying it is "proven untrue," I am saying it is "not proven true."

The idea that the constants can vary is due to the error that physicists made in calculating the cosmological constant. This may be a reason that they vary but I can also see having an option that they don't.

There is no sample space of one problem for the following reason:

Hypothetical:

Jane wins the lottery. The probability of Jane winning the lottery after she has won it is 1. I believe that this is where you incorrectly stop at this point. However, to say we can't ask what is the probability of Jane winning before she actually won is wrong.

We can easily calculate the probability of Jane winning in the first place. This probability is not 1. Otherwise people wouldn't tell Jane how lucky she is...they would not be surprised that she won the lottery because she already won.

We are in agreement here, I think. I agree we can calculate the probability Jane winning the lottery. After all, we know ALL of the variables: six numbers each 1-50, and the result is a simple mathematical model. But if Jane has already won the lottery, claiming that "god must have done it" because Jane won is the error. However improbable - it happened and it was not impossible. We cannot jump from the probability to "god did it" on the basis of that probability.

But there is a greater problem - in the case of the universe, we are attempting to calculate a probability without even a clue as to the actual variables. If it turns out that the parameters governing this universe are NOT variable, they are fixed, then the probability of a created universe being like this one is 1. From there the probability diminishes, but we don't have a clue what it diminishes to.

Come on Carp, I have never heard someone say.... Well I don't believe in God but the tuning in the "fine tuning" argument necessitates a tuner so I guess I will throw in the towel bc what other choice do i have. There must be a tuner.

Agreed. No one who does not already believe there is no god would use that approach. Challenge: parse THAT sentence and it's triple negative...if you can!

But I have heard many theists who already believe there is a god use arguments like, "you can't have a design without a designer," and "you can't have creation without a creator," and so forth. Sometimes, folks use words that pre-suppose their belief system. So it's not "the universe," it's "creation." It's not order and organization, it's "design." And it's not "parameters ideally suited to the development of life," it's "a fine-tuned universe."

I understand that you think that the hypothesis is flawed, I simply do not agree for the reasons above

My basis for thinking the hypothesis is flawed is completely about a) the general application of probability, and b) the basing of the entire argument on the assumptions derived from within this universe, and c) the inability to determine what the sample space truly is.

[JimL]

Nope. There weren't any points of any kind in the eternal moment.

How long did the eternal moment last prior to the emergence of time?

Nope.

Well you should. If, as you suggest, eternity is timeless, and that no time passed prior to the creation of time 14 billion years ago, then its crazy to say that something existed prior to 14 billion years ago. If I were to ask you, as I did in the above, How long did this eternal moment last prior to the emergence of time, you would have no logical response.

You're correct, no time can pass within a state (or moment) of timelessness. It's a good thing I never said anything of the sort.

You don't say it, but you also can't explain it in any logical sense.

So here's the crux. I don't believe time is something that has an independent existence. Time is simply what we call the movement/change from one moment to the next. What I'm saying is that at the very beginning only one single (uncreated) moment existed, and this moment would be properly called timeless, because it had no beginning since no moments had preceded it, and there had not yet been any /movement from this moment to the next. But as soon as something changed about the state of reality it also meant that reality had moved from the absolute first eternal moment to the next moment, which was not eternal.

Again, how long did that one single uncreated moment last prior to the occurence of time, or what you would refer to as the occurence of change. And btw, eternity is not an existing thing, its just a term describing a state of being of an existing thing, beginningless. So eternity can neither be defined as temporal or timeless. An existing thing could be timeless, so what you are talking about when refering to eternity is an existing thing, or in your case that existing thing would be god, and so your argument is simply that god has always existed, but what always means you don't explain and can't do so without refering to time.

So this moment is called eternal, not because it existed for infinite time (which would be a logical contradiction) or because it was static (I believe all moments, by themselves, are like static images, or snapshots of reality at a certain point in time) but because it had no beginning, and no preceding moment before it. Time beginning is simply the very first change, from this first eternal (that is, beginningless) moment to the subsequent moment.

Like I said, eternity itself is not a thing, so it can neither be defined as timeless or temporal, but whatever change takes place within this eternally existing thing, if, as you contend, there is no time prior to that change taking place, would thus be coeternal with that thing. Otherwise, without the use of time, it doesn't make any sense to say that the cause, the thing that changed, existed prior to the effect, the change itself, or that the effect came after the cause.

[Tassman]

How are you not contradicting your self?

Most of WLC arguments are from natural theology.

Can you post a specific example where WLC hijacks science and shoehorns it in?

At least then we can have a specific argument to dissect.

[Tassman]

I'm still having trouble understanding what you're trying to get at. I know what the omnipotence paradox is, I just don't get how it's relevant to the post you quoted. I'm also not sure what you mean by a "property or quality of 'existence'".

[JonathanL]

How long did the eternal moment last prior to the emergence of time?

That's a nonsensical question.

Well you should. If, as you suggest, eternity is timeless, and that no time passed prior to the creation of time 14 billion years ago, then its crazy to say that something existed prior to 14 billion years ago. If I were to ask you, as I did in the above, How long did this eternal moment last prior to the emergence of time, you would have no logical response.

Because the question itself isn't logical. It's a bunch of words stringed together to form nothing more than nonsense. It's kind of like asking for the total value of all the angles of the corners in a circle.

You don't say it, but you also can't explain it in any logical sense.

Why should I need to explain something which I've never said?

Again, how long did that one single uncreated moment last prior to the occurence of time, or what you would refer to as the occurence of change. And btw, eternity is not an existing thing, its just a term describing a state of being of an existing thing, beginningless. So eternity can neither be defined as temporal or timeless. An existing thing could be timeless, so what you are talking about when refering to eternity is an existing thing, or in your case that existing thing would be god, and so your argument is simply that god has always existed, but what always means you don't explain and can't do so without refering to time.

"God has always existed" and "God is eternal" are two different statements. The first is saying that there are no points in time in which God did not exist. The second statement is saying that there is no starting point for God's existence. There's a difference, even if you don't see it.

Like I said, eternity itself is not a thing, so it can neither be defined as timeless or temporal, but whatever change takes place within this eternally existing thing, if, as you contend, there is no time prior to that change taking place, would thus be coeternal with that thing. Otherwise, without the use of time, it doesn't make any sense to say that the cause, the thing that changed, existed prior to the effect, the change itself, or that the effect came after the cause.

The change is not co-eternal, because time starts passing with the change. And I think you must be confused about something, because I clearly stated my belief that God ceased being timeless with His very first act in post #526 so I'm not sure where your comment about "without the use of time" is coming from.

I'll try and illustrate it:

[] = one moment

__________________________________________________ ______Time begins moving
[The first, beginningless and timeless moment when only God existed][The second moment, when God acted for the first time]

So as you see, the eternal moment is temporally prior to the second moment, but time itself doesn't begin moving with the first eternal moment, but with the second.

[JonathanL]

Except there aren't only two possible answers. There's at least two additional answers to the dilemma, one of which is that the question itself is self-contradictory nonsense and the second that the dilemma disappears when you define omnipotence as being able to do anything that's logically consistent.

But I'm not saying that God ever existed outside of time. I'm saying that God exists without time prior to His first act, and that He became a temporal being with his first act. But there is no moment since time began passing that God was not temporal.

[MaxVel]

Then it is equally a misuse of science to use its findings or lack of findings as evidence that there is no God & nothing supernatural.

You would have to use philosophy and logic to determine that, and since you suck at both of those your dogmatic atheism is probably quite good evidence that God is real.

[element771]

You are still conflating the scientific method with scientific conclusions.

I have never see him use Cliff's position. Vilenkin has gone on record to say that WLC accurately represents the science even though he doesn't agree with his conclusions.

Can you provide a specific example?

[element771]

Then it is equally a misuse of science to use its findings or lack of findings as evidence that there is no God & nothing supernatural.

You would have to use philosophy and logic to determine that, and since you suck at both of those your dogmatic atheism is probably quite good evidence that God is real.

He will most likely reply that it is not the misuse of science because both atheism and science assume that God doesn't exist.

I don't agree with his conclusions about science and theology but I am betting that he will point to the above.

[MaxVel]

He will most likely reply that it is not the misuse of science because both atheism and science assume that God doesn't exist.

I don't agree with his conclusions about science and theology but I am betting that he will point to the above.

The key word is 'assume'. You can't rationally use a methodology that rules something out as a starting assumption as evidence that thing doesn't exist.

[JimL]

That's a nonsensical question.

No it isn't, though it is a question that has no answer, not because the question is nonsensical, but because the assumption of an eternal timelessness is nonsensical.

Because the question itself isn't logical. It's a bunch of words stringed together to form nothing more than nonsense. It's kind of like asking for the total value of all the angles of the corners in a circle.

Again, it's your assumption that eternity is timeless that is not logical, but as long as you hold to that illogical notion then the question I asked you will seem to you to be illogical. The problem is that though you think eternity is timeless, you are unable to explain that idea logically.

Why should I need to explain something which I've never said?

You did say it, you say that eternity is timeless. Eternity is defined as beginningless, not necessarily timeless. That nothing changes within eternity doesn't mean that time doesn't go by for eternity. The figures in a picture on the wall don't change, but that doesn"t mean that time doesn't pass with respect to the picture itself. Thats the mistake your making, your eternal entity may not change in what you call the first [] moment, but time still passes, or if you will, the eternal entity still passes through time. Your denial of this is what you don't have a logical explanation for.

"God has always existed" and "God is eternal" are two different statements. The first is saying that there are no points in time in which God did not exist. The second statement is saying that there is no starting point for God's existence. There's a difference, even if you don't see it.

I understand the difference as you imagine it to be, but the latter, i.e. that there is no starting point for the eternal, doesn't necessarily deny the former, i.e. that eternity is timeless. That is simply an assumption that you are making, but like I said you haven't given a logical explanation as to "how that which endures, endures timelessly." Change, or no change within the eternal entity is not an answer as to why time doesn't pass for the whole of the entity, as I explained above.

The change is not co-eternal, because time starts passing with the change. And I think you must be confused about something, because I clearly stated my belief that God ceased being timeless with His very first act in post #526 so I'm not sure where your comment about "without the use of time" is coming from.

If we were to accept your illogical conclusion that eternity is timeless and that time emerged from that eternity, then time would be co-eternal with eternity. Your argument is that no time passed for the eternal, so if no time passed for the eternal, then there was no time before time, there was only a timeless eternity which would make time itself eternal. Then if you are going to argue that eternity existed, or an eternal entity existed, before creation, then there was a before which indicates time.

I'll try and illustrate it:

[] = one moment

__________________________________________________ ______Time begins moving
[The first, beginningless and timeless moment when only God existed][The second moment, when God acted for the first time]

So as you see, the eternal moment is temporally prior to the second moment, but time itself doesn't begin moving with the first eternal moment, but with the second.[/QUOTE]
Again, this makes no sense. The fact that you can't even explain it without the use of temporal language such as the "first moment" and the "second moment," should give you a hint that something is askew with your idea.

[element771]

The key word is 'assume'. You can't rationally use a methodology that rules something out as a starting assumption as evidence that thing doesn't exist.

I agree but I was preempting his response so that you might cover it before he responded.