Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[shunyadragon]

This doesn't make any sense. Natural Law is a description of the universe. It is not an actor which can cause anything, let alone physical existence.

Similarly, quantum gravity-- if it exists-- and "the energy of the Quantum World" are features of the universe.

I did not say there was a 'Creator' of the universe (ALL of the physical existences). I do not believe our physical existence is known to have a beginning nor a point where it was 'Created.' NO! Natural Law is not a description of the Universe. It is described as the cause of the events of the Universe.

They cannot be the creator of the universe.

Who is 'they?' I did not propose 'they' are the Creators of the universe.

I propose Natural Law and physical existence has simply always existed. Natural Law is simply the cause of all natural events in our physical existence.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I did not say there was a 'Creator' of the universe (ALL of the physical existences). I do not believe our physical existence is known to have a beginning nor a point where it was 'Created.'

Seer asked you, "What natural force created the universe?" Your direct response was, "Quantum gravity and the energy of the Quantum World."

NO! Natural Law is not a description of the Universe. It is described as the cause of the events of the Universe.

Yes, Natural Law is a description of the universe. Humans describe phenomena which we observe and label these descriptions "Natural Law."

I propose Natural Law and physical existence has simply always existed.

So do I. Which is why it is incoherent to claim that the universe was "caused" to exist.

[seer]

Tass, I never said that Harris claimed it was a non-natural phenomenon but that there was no natural explanation:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. even in principleAnd I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for itan analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. .

So I did not misquote Harris, and of course as a theist I have my ideas of why we are conscious. But I never claimed they were Harris' ideas...

[shunyadragon]

Seer asked you, "What natural force created the universe?" Your direct response was, "Quantum gravity and the energy of the Quantum World."

Than I misspoke, actually the nature of Quantum Gravity and the energy of the Quantum world are determined by Natural Laws

Yes, Natural Law is a description of the universe. Humans describe phenomena which we observe and label these descriptions "Natural Law."

False, the science of Physics and Cosmology represents our description of the universe and Natural Law from the human perspective. Natural Law is not a description of the universe.

So do I. Which is why it is incoherent to claim that the universe was "caused" to exist.

From the perspective of the relationship between Natural Law and the nature of our physical existence is not that Natural Law caused the "physical existence" to exist. I never claimed that. Natural Law and our physical existence has always existed as far as we know. Natural Law is the 'cause' of all the events of our physical existence. As far as our universe goes, natural law is the 'cause' of all the events that led to the formation of our universe, all the events of our universe, and ultimately the ending of our universe.

[JimL]

The future does exist on the B-Theory. I definitely think Jichard made a bit of a mistake, there.

If, as you say, the passage of time according to B=theory is an illusion, then in what sense does the future exist?

[seer]

If, as you say, the passage of time according to B=theory is an illusion, then in what sense does the future exist?

And Like I have been asking, why don't we have knowledge of the future as we do for the present and past?

[robrecht]

If, as you say, the passage of time according to B=theory is an illusion, then in what sense does the future exist?

As eternally present perhaps? So the ... 1 in the half open series (0, 1] might be taken as representative of all time as present. Perhaps this is why Jichard ends with the half-closed series at 1]. That seems to make sense to me, at the moment, after a couple of cups of coffee, but again I am only beginning to learn about this B-theory of time. Perhaps when I've had more time to comprehend it, later on, I will better understand it in the future.

[JimL]

And Like I have been asking, why don't we have knowledge of the future as we do for the present and past?

Its all about memory i think. The mind in each moment in time, all of which exist simultaneously, contains within it only past to present memory. minds in the present instant of time don't contain within them memory of the future. So the you that exist further along the timeline in the future has memory of the past, but not of his future, even though that future already exists. So it is all an illusion of memory. I think that is what is meant by the B-theory of time. I don't buy it, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to dismiss it outright either.

[JimL]

As eternally present perhaps? So the ... 1 in the half open series (0, 1] might be taken as representative of all time as present. Perhaps this is why Jichard ends with the half-closed series at 1]. That seems to make sense to me, at the moment, after a couple of cups of coffee, but again I am only beginning to learn about this B-theory of time. Perhaps when I've had more time to comprehend it, later on, I will better understand it in the future.

Yes, I am beginning to grasp the concept, but I am not up to snuff on the math so when one starts talking open and closed intervals and infinet sets i don't know how to think about it.

[seer]

Its all about memory i think. The mind in each moment in time, all of which exist simultaneously, contains within it only past to present memory. minds in the present instant of time don't contain within them memory of the future. So the you that exist further along the timeline in the future has memory of the past, but not of his future, even though that future already exists. So it is all an illusion of memory. I think that is what is meant by the B-theory of time. I don't buy it, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to dismiss it outright either.

That makes no sense, if every moment exist simultaneously then on what basis would we not have knowledge of the future. We have already experienced the future, so why no memory. Then the other contradictions come up - is the universe both a singularity and not a singularity, is entropy increasing in the universe and not increasing?

[JimL]

That makes no sense, if every moment exist simultaneously then on what basis would we not have knowledge of the future. We have already experienced the future, so why no memory. Then the other contradictions come up - is the universe both a singularity and not a singularity, is entropy increasing in the universe and not increasing?

No, only the future you has knowledge of that future. Of course in that case it is not the future that the future you has knowledge of, the future you, just like the present you, has only knowledge of their past because their memory only contains knowledge of the past, not of their future. Yeah, confusing i know, but that i think is the jist of B-theory.

[seer]

No, only the future you has knowledge of that future. Of course in that case it is not the future that the future you has knowledge of, the future you, just like the present you, has only knowledge of their past because their memory only contains knowledge of the past, not of their future. Yeah, confusing i know, but that i think is the jist of B-theory.

Again that does not make sense because we are already in the future as well as the past as well as the present. We are in all three tenses so why do we only have knowledge of two tenses?

[JimL]

Again that does not make sense because we are already in the future as well as the past as well as the present. We are in all three tenses so why do we only have knowledge of two tenses?

That I think is the million dollar question seer, and I don't think anyone can give you a logical answer to that. I certainly can't. The reason most given I think is that somehow it is a trick of the mind, an answer you might appreciate, being that that would entail the mind being a thing distinct from the world of space and time that it passes through. Although the mind in that respect wouldn't be free willed, so that won't help you any with your agenda. But B-Theory is not just some philosophical notion, it is where the physics have lead us. I still don't buy it, and don't think I will until it the mind aspect can be better explained.

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense, if every moment exist simultaneously then on what basis would we not have knowledge of the future. We have already experienced the future, so why no memory. Then the other contradictions come up - is the universe both a singularity and not a singularity, is entropy increasing in the universe and not increasing?

The problem is our perception and experience of time in our world does not change whether A-Theory or B-Theory is true, or maybe some other 'model' of time is true. The B-Theory of time was developed to be more in sinc with modern physics, the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, because when we go to the scale of the Quantum world and the Theory of Relativity, and time/space relationships A-Theory of time does not work. Examples like one moment we could be alive and next dead do not make sense, and are not the reality of the world we live in and how we perceive of time, and past/future issues in B-Theory do not reflect how we experience time.

[seer]

But B-Theory is not just some philosophical notion, it is where the physics have lead us. I still don't buy it, and don't think I will until it the mind aspect is can be better explained.

But the B-theory leads to contradictions like I suggested. The universe is both a singularity and not a singularity. A universe that has both suffered heat death and not suffered heat death. A universe where you are, and always will be, both dead and alive. You know Jim, perhaps the real problem is that we really don't understand time at all.