Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An infinite series of finite causes.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAFAICT, 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.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell, 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.
Originally posted by JimL View PostTrue, 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.
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.
Originally posted by JimL View PostAgreed, and well put.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWhy? Isn't it possible this being created as a one-off event?
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.
As always...Last edited by JimL; 04-12-2018, 06:31 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThere are some scientists which think the laws of physics could have been different.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...-be-explained/
Sort of ah, . . . so what?!?!?!
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostCan 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.
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.
Do you have a study to back that up?
And:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...s/art-20044860
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostA 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?
The fact is Tass, your faith needs eternal matter and energy - whether in the form of a multiverse of something else.
Are you being dense on purpose? Hawking made a claim about God which he can not know or backup.
Comment
-
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.
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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt 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.
Originally posted by Tassman View PostRevelation, not data, underlies theological arguments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIt'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.
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo, "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."
Originally posted by JimL View PostYes, 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.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes, 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."
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostLook 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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAbsolutely. 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?
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou seem to be arguing for a pantheism - not a monotheism.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostReread 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."
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou 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."
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOK...now you have me intrigued. Explain!
http://rightreason.org/2010/the-lott...llacy-fallacy/
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostETA: 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!
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostFirst, 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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSecond, "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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain, 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."
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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostOf 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?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThese 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.
"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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostLikewise, 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.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSentience implies thought and self-awareness. But thought and self-awareness suggests action (granted, immaterial action)
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Postand action implies time.
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostTherein lies the problem. A "timeless" state suggests complete inertia. So what brought such a being out of this inert state?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostIt'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostFair 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?
Originally posted by element771 View PostSure 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.
Originally posted by element771 View PostKinda but I think that God not only created the universe but also sustains it.
Originally posted by element771 View PostYeah 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.
Originally posted by element771 View PostSorry..Glenn Peoples calls it the Lottery Fallacy. He explains it better than I could...
http://rightreason.org/2010/the-lott...llacy-fallacy/
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.
Originally posted by element771 View PostThanks 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.
P.S. That was a joke. My wife is religious. She would not let me get away with such things...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
650 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment