An infinite series of finite causes.

[JimL]

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.

If eternity is timeless, then the creation of time is simultaneous with eternity. When you argue that no change takes place in the eternal, and that then change is brought into existence, then you are arguing that time has passed between there being a state of no change to there being a state of change. In other words you are arguing that eternity is not timeless.

[carpedm9587]

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.

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.

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.

My undergraduate degree was in philosophy. It was awarded in May of 1984. It has as much dust on it as the brain cells containing that knowledge. Some of those cells are being refreshed here, but I am certainly not going to claim to be a philosophical master by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Again, those words are organized in properly structured English sentences, but they mean nothing to me. I cannot even have "awareness" without time. I must necessarily be inert in every respect. I do not see how god is an exception to this except by simply declaring, "it is so," and leaving it at that.

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.

Again, it seems to me that theists are trying to have it both ways: god is timeless/eternal - an infinite "now" - but then god acts - which is an event - in this timeless now. Except how could there be a "moment of action" in timeless existence? If the "moment" is eternal, then what is within that "moment" is likewise eternal, except now we have time and the moment is not timeless anymore. It just seems to keep going in circles.

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.

This analogy doesn't seem to work. If that state of timeless being is like a single image - then there isn't a movie. Just an image. But theists seem to want there to be both all of existence in a single image AND a movie that unfolds. It's kind of a "resolve the conflict by simply declaring opposing things are not opposing for god," approach.

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

And there we will probably disagree. When the claims appear to be oxymoronic, it seems to me that is exactly where we are.

Or it could simply be that my philosophical roots are not deep enough. But I have the distinct impression of an argument that is akin to the ones I was warned about by an old professor of mine. He noted that we should always be wary of the philosopher who spent an hour lecturing on the insubstantiality of the walls, but then left the classroom by way of the door.

[carpedm9587]

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.

I think you are reading more into the Dawkins statements than was put there. He is expressing a fairly common definition of time (and space) and this relates to our other discussion. I read "Time is the measure of change" as being a slightly different way of saying, "time is the relationship between events." In other words, time is about how events relate to one another, using words like before, during, after, and we even have a metric for measuring these intervals comparatively. The corresponding statement is that "space is the relationship between objects."

If time is the relationship between events (which is fairly widely accepted as true), then someone who suggests an absence of time is also implying an absence of event. "Duration" has no meaning. "Activity" has no meaning. Dawkins is using the word "change" because any event involves something changing. Where I think he got sloppy was in his use of the definite article. He should have said, "time is a measurement of change," or perhaps, "time is a way of measuring change," (there are other ways). Personally, I prefer, "time is the relationship between events."

I agree.

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

Thought IS a form of action. For humans, we can "see" human thought in an MRI - and have even noted the temporal distinction between the activation of our thought organ (the brain) and the experience of thought/awareness. Of course, you (and most theists) presumably believe that "thought" and "awareness" can exist as a purely immaterial thing, but even in that context, I cannot fathom a "thought" without time. I cannot fathom a "decision" without time.

No issues with this either.

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.

I was using "inertia" in the colloquial sense (no movement), not the physics sense (resistance to change). Eternity in the sense of "endless time" has no obstacles to change. "Eternity" as in "timelessness" does indeed mean no change. It would appear to me that the theist has the same problem with this timeless god that the atheist has with the "Big Bang:" what made it start? I'm sure the claim will be "self-starting," but I just do not know how a thing can go from an inert state to an active state. It means you have to posit thought/awareness without time, and I don't even know how a being can be "god" and be inert. I am reminded of the quote from Aladdin: "Phenomenal cosmic power...itty bitty living space!"

[element771]

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 and I would never say that we should use science to answer the God question. However, I do believe that we can use the discoveries of science to bolster a case for or against.

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."

What odd exceptions?

Sure and again, that is not really what I am trying to convey. My belief in God doesn't come from a place where there is lack of scientific consensus.

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).

These examples do not show that it is based on miss-application of probability and statistics. You are making another assumption. He is correct in his assessment about the probability. However, if you assume multiple "picks" and we are talking about someone winning...you are correct. However, even with multiple picks...the probability of a certain individual winning is still exceedingly small.

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!

I mentioned that in my critique of your thought experiment.

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.

Now I think it is you who are not using probability correctly. lol

Yes there is a probability of 1 after an event happened, but that doesn't mean that we cannot calculate the probability of it happening in the first place. The probability of that happening again isn't 1, it is whatever the initial probability is. I also disagree with you about not drawing conclusion on a sample space of one. You rolling 5 sixes is certainly a rare event and if that were the odds, I would agree with you. But when does it start to seem weird, even for a probability space of one. If I asked you to choose a number between 1 and 10^120 and you got it, I would certainly suspect foul play, a loaded deck, something going on, etc. In this way, this is why I think it is a choice to believe in God.

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...

Keep me in the loop...Atlanta isn't too far away.

[carpedm9587]

Sure and I would never say that we should use science to answer the God question. However, I do believe that we can use the discoveries of science to bolster a case for or against.

I would like to see an example of what you're thinking here.

What odd exceptions?

I was thinking in terms of odd causal relationships, spooky action at a distance, and the other "weird" things we see suggested in QM.

Sure and again, that is not really what I am trying to convey. My belief in God doesn't come from a place where there is lack of scientific consensus.

I think I can appreciate that, Elem, but I do believe that those who argue for proof for god from "origins" (e.g., the cosmological argument), are doing exactly that: a god of the gaps approach.

These examples do not show that it is based on miss-application of probability and statistics. You are making another assumption. He is correct in his assessment about the probability. However, if you assume multiple "picks" and we are talking about someone winning...you are correct. However, even with multiple picks...the probability of a certain individual winning is still exceedingly small.

I think you would be surprised, Elem. The math says otherwise. Say the probability of a thing being picked is 1 in 1,000. The probability of that thing being picked in 100 pick attempts is 1 - probability of it NOT being picked. The probability of NOT being picked is 999/1000, so the probability of being picked is 1-(999/100)^100. The math says it has a 9.5% chance of being picked in 100 tries. If we go to 1000 tries, there is a 63.2% chance. Indeed, if the number of picks equals the number of objects being picked, the probability is always better than 60/40 that it WILL be picked. Increase the number of picks by one order of magnitude (e.g., 10,000 picks from 1,000 objects), and the probability approaches certainty.

I mentioned that in my critique of your thought experiment.

Now I think it is you who are not using probability correctly. lol

Yes there is a probability of 1 after an event happened, but that doesn't mean that we cannot calculate the probability of it happening in the first place. The probability of that happening again isn't 1, it is whatever the initial probability is. I also disagree with you about not drawing conclusion on a sample space of one. You rolling 5 sixes is certainly a rare event and if that were the odds, I would agree with you. But when does it start to seem weird, even for a probability space of one. If I asked you to choose a number between 1 and 10^120 and you got it, I would certainly suspect foul play, a loaded deck, something going on, etc. In this way, this is why I think it is a choice to believe in God.

And they call me a skeptic.

Seriously, I have to disagree with you on the probability issues. There are so many assumptions involved here. The entire "fine-tuning" argument kind of envisions the universe as a thing with multiple variables, each of which can take on a variety of values. Tweek one variable and the entire thing collapses. The entire metaphor invites one to posit a "tuner" sitting at the cosmic adjustment board and, Voila! God is born! We don't even know if these "variables" can be tuned. Perhaps it is the very nature of matter/energy anywhere in any universe to have these values. And even if it is not, however small the chance is, unless it is zero, it remains possible - and it apparently did happen. We don't have any basis for speculating on probabilities because we do not know the size of the sample place. It could be that any variable could have any value, which would create an infinite theoretical sample space making this universe pretty much an impossibility. It could just as likely be that each variable has only one possible value, which creates a sample space of 1 making this particular universe a certainty. And it could be anything in between. Any statements about this are pure speculation.

Keep me in the loop...Atlanta isn't too far away.

Will do. I actually usually teach in the Dunwoody area north of the city. Heading down there one week in May and one week in June.

[element771]

I would like to see an example of what you're thinking here.

Evolution is an example that is often pointed to as supporting atheism even if I don't agree. However, I can see someone who would feel this way.

I think I can appreciate that, Elem, but I do believe that those who argue for proof for god from "origins" (e.g., the cosmological argument), are doing exactly that: a god of the gaps approach.

I think it depends on their approach and their exact argument.

I think you would be surprised, Elem. The math says otherwise. Say the probability of a thing being picked is 1 in 1,000. The probability of that thing being picked in 100 pick attempts is 1 - probability of it NOT being picked. The probability of NOT being picked is 999/1000, so the probability of being picked is 1-(999/100)^100. The math says it has a 9.5% chance of being picked in 100 tries. If we go to 1000 tries, there is a 63.2% chance. Indeed, if the number of picks equals the number of objects being picked, the probability is always better than 60/40 that it WILL be picked. Increase the number of picks by one order of magnitude (e.g., 10,000 picks from 1,000 objects), and the probability approaches certainty.

I may not have been as clear as I would like to have been. When I said that the probability of a certain individual winning is still exceedingly small, I meant something like the following:

Even if there 1000 people who play the lottery where you pick a number 1-1000 and everyone has a different number... The probability of someone winning is 1 but the probability of me winning is still 1 in 1000.

And they call me a skeptic.

Seriously, I have to disagree with you on the probability issues. There are so many assumptions involved here. The entire "fine-tuning" argument kind of envisions the universe as a thing with multiple variables, each of which can take on a variety of values. Tweek one variable and the entire thing collapses. The entire metaphor invites one to posit a "tuner" sitting at the cosmic adjustment board and, Voila! God is born! We don't even know if these "variables" can be tuned. Perhaps it is the very nature of matter/energy anywhere in any universe to have these values. And even if it is not, however small the chance is, unless it is zero, it remains possible - and it apparently did happen. We don't have any basis for speculating on probabilities because we do not know the size of the sample place. It could be that any variable could have any value, which would create an infinite theoretical sample space making this universe pretty much an impossibility. It could just as likely be that each variable has only one possible value, which creates a sample space of 1 making this particular universe a certainty. And it could be anything in between. Any statements about this are pure speculation.

I don't agree that it invites a tuner necessarily. That is certainly one potential idea but it could also be that is just the way it is. While I agree with you fundamentally about it being speculation, I think that the atheist also uses speculation. The currently most successful paradigm is one universe with the constants that have allowed life to evolve. Anything beyond that is speculation. It could be mathematical speculation but that doesn't mean it isn't speculation. You can have a perfectly consistent mathematical model that describes the world yet it may not have any bearing on reality. Unless your model predicts something that can be shown to be unique to that model and that no other model predicts, then it is just speculation or an internally mathematical model that may or may not describe reality.

[carpedm9587]

Evolution is an example that is often pointed to as supporting atheism even if I don't agree. However, I can see someone who would feel this way.

I cannot say I ever thought of evolution as "supporting atheism." I never saw a conflict between evolution and Christianity, even when I WAS Christian. But your statement was about science that buttresses the argument for god. I was wondering what you were thinking about there.

I think it depends on their approach and their exact argument.

I may not have been as clear as I would like to have been. When I said that the probability of a certain individual winning is still exceedingly small, I meant something like the following:

Even if there 1000 people who play the lottery where you pick a number 1-1000 and everyone has a different number... The probability of someone winning is 1 but the probability of me winning is still 1 in 1000.

Yes, it is. But no one is contesting that, that I know of. The problem with the lottery argument is the rest of the things I raised.

I don't agree that it invites a tuner necessarily.

Think about this for a minute or two - and then name for me one thing that is "tuned" without a sentient agent "tuning" it.

That is certainly one potential idea but it could also be that is just the way it is. While I agree with you fundamentally about it being speculation, I think that the atheist also uses speculation. The currently most successful paradigm is one universe with the constants that have allowed life to evolve. Anything beyond that is speculation. It could be mathematical speculation but that doesn't mean it isn't speculation. You can have a perfectly consistent mathematical model that describes the world yet it may not have any bearing on reality. Unless your model predicts something that can be shown to be unique to that model and that no other model predicts, then it is just speculation or an internally mathematical model that may or may not describe reality.

Which is why I think the only rational response is "I don't know." In a nutshell - the origins of the cosmos tells me nothing about the presence or absence of a god. I cannot use the existence of the cosmos as an argument for god without falling into a "god of the gaps" position. I cannot use the existence of the cosmos to prove there is not a god without making wild and unsupportable assumptions. The best I can do is create a thought experiment about origins and ask myself, "is there anything about this that is necessarily impossible?" If not - then it is possible. However, as best I can tell, both the atheist and theist can do this without internal contradiction, so we are left at "either is possible."

[element771]

I cannot say I ever thought of evolution as "supporting atheism." I never saw a conflict between evolution and Christianity, even when I WAS Christian. But your statement was about science that buttresses the argument for god. I was wondering what you were thinking about there.

One example could be the beginning of the universe. IF I assumed that the universe had to have a beginning in order for there to be even a possibility of a God existing, I could use that science of the Big Bang supports this premise. It isn't 100% proof but it supports my idea that it is necessary for the universe to have a beginning if there is a God.

(I am just using this as an example not claiming I think this way)

Yes, it is. But no one is contesting that, that I know of. The problem with the lottery argument is the rest of the things I raised.

But your lottery argument issues arise only if you modify the argument to include more than one pick which was not part of Glenn's argument if I remember correctly.

But even if there are multiple picks, the odds of me winning are still the same since I only have one pick. This is analogous of what is being argued...it is not that "a" universe exists, it is that "this" universe exists.

Think about this for a minute or two - and then name for me one thing that is "tuned" without a sentient agent "tuning" it.

This is just what the idea is called. It is kind of like "death panels", it was a crappy name that stuck. I would welcome another term that conveyed the same idea but didn't assume a tuner.

Which is why I think the only rational response is "I don't know." In a nutshell - the origins of the cosmos tells me nothing about the presence or absence of a god. I cannot use the existence of the cosmos as an argument for god without falling into a "god of the gaps" position. I cannot use the existence of the cosmos to prove there is not a god without making wild and unsupportable assumptions. The best I can do is create a thought experiment about origins and ask myself, "is there anything about this that is necessarily impossible?" If not - then it is possible. However, as best I can tell, both the atheist and theist can do this without internal contradiction, so we are left at "either is possible."

I think that this is the fundamental difference in questions..

My water boiling in a kettle is an example. You can explain why the water is boiling using physics and you can also explain it because I wanted some tea. Both of these explanations are correct and they are answering the same question but in different ways...for lack of a better word.

[carpedm9587]

One example could be the beginning of the universe. IF I assumed that the universe had to have a beginning in order for there to be even a possibility of a God existing, I could use that science of the Big Bang supports this premise. It isn't 100% proof but it supports my idea that it is necessary for the universe to have a beginning if there is a God.

(I am just using this as an example not claiming I think this way)

I'm glad of that last parenthetical, or we'd be right back into a "god of the gaps" discussion.

But your lottery argument issues arise only if you modify the argument to include more than one pick which was not part of Glenn's argument if I remember correctly.

Yes, I noted that one problem with Glenn's argument is his implicit assumption that there IS only one "pick." We do not know that to be true.

But even if there are multiple picks, the odds of me winning are still the same since I only have one pick. This is analogous of what is being argued...it is not that "a" universe exists, it is that "this" universe exists.

I think something is getting lost here. Your probability experiment is that there are X number of tickets, and X number of pickers, and each picks 1 ticket. You have narrowly defined "success" as "you picking the winning ticket." If you think about it - you don't need the other pickers. This experiment is identical if you are the only picker and picking randomly of the 1,000 tickets. But then that assumes "one pick."

Putting it in terms of universes, you are suggesting that there are 1,000 possible universes, only one of which sustains life. ONE universe gets created randomly, what is the probability it is the life-sustaining one. As with the tickets, it is 1/1000. But this necessarily assumes one universe. If, in reality, this is only one of 1,000 universes, simultaneously existing in different dimensions or sequentially existing in one dimension, a life-sustaining universe has a very high probability (in this scenario).

This is just what the idea is called. It is kind of like "death panels", it was a crappy name that stuck. I would welcome another term that conveyed the same idea but didn't assume a tuner.

And that was basically my point. We see the same thing when folks refer to the universe as "all creation." Little wonder they conclude there is a creator.

I think that this is the fundamental difference in questions..

My water boiling in a kettle is an example. You can explain why the water is boiling using physics and you can also explain it because I wanted some tea. Both of these explanations are correct and they are answering the same question but in different ways...for lack of a better word.

Yes, they are. One is explaining mechanics - the other explains purpose. And there is another of those marvelous words - as soon as the universe (or some of it's elements) have a "purpose," there must be a "purposer." I prefer "function" or "nature." For me, there is no answer to the question, "what is the purpose of the universe." The universe is - and we can describe it. It operates according to laws we can describe. It does not serve a "purpose."

[element771]

I'm glad of that last parenthetical, or we'd be right back into a "god of the gaps" discussion.

I think that you are using "god of the gaps" too broadly. God of the gaps to me is that we can't figure out why it rains so it must be that God makes it rain. Simply using prevailing science to support the idea that God exists doesn't use God as the explanation for anything. You aren't evoking God to explain any of the science.

Yes, I noted that one problem with Glenn's argument is his implicit assumption that there IS only one "pick." We do not know that to be true.

Sure but I don't think that this indicates a misuse of probabilities given the parameters outlined.

I think something is getting lost here. Your probability experiment is that there are X number of tickets, and X number of pickers, and each picks 1 ticket. You have narrowly defined "success" as "you picking the winning ticket." If you think about it - you don't need the other pickers. This experiment is identical if you are the only picker and picking randomly of the 1,000 tickets. But then that assumes "one pick."

Putting it in terms of universes, you are suggesting that there are 1,000 possible universes, only one of which sustains life. ONE universe gets created randomly, what is the probability it is the life-sustaining one. As with the tickets, it is 1/1000. But this necessarily assumes one universe. If, in reality, this is only one of 1,000 universes, simultaneously existing in different dimensions or sequentially existing in one dimension, a life-sustaining universe has a very high probability (in this scenario).

I think it depends...

I am assuming one pick because I do not see any evidence for there being more than one pick but that is a boring assumption so lets consider the multiverse:

Lets assume there are 1000 universes. It also depends on how the picking occurs. For example lets use 1000 numbers of which 1 (X) supports life and it is a guessing game.

If X remains the same after each guess and I get 1000 guesses, I will get it with a probability of 1.

If 1000 people all get one guess that is made simultaneously with no knowledge of the other guesses, that is a different scenario.

If X remains the same after each guess but I pick a number at random for each of my 1000 guesses (assuming duplicates are allowed), that is another scenario.

If X varies, that opens up a whole new set of possibilities.

And that was basically my point. We see the same thing when folks refer to the universe as "all creation." Little wonder they conclude there is a creator.

Sure but the name of the argument does not invalidate it because it may invite the notion of a tuner.

[carpedm9587]

I think that you are using "god of the gaps" too broadly. God of the gaps to me is that we can't figure out why it rains so it must be that God makes it rain. Simply using prevailing science to support the idea that God exists doesn't use God as the explanation for anything. You aren't evoking God to explain any of the science.

So I am not seeing a difference here. Since the best we can say about the origins of the universe is "I don't know," to then affirm "it must be god" is exactly that, a "god of the gaps."

Sure but I don't think that this indicates a misuse of probabilities given the parameters outlined.

The misuse comes from taking a very low probability that actually did manifest, and assuming it says something in a sample space of one. The problem with the other approach is the assumption that there is but one universe.

I think it depends...

I am assuming one pick because I do not see any evidence for there being more than one pick but that is a boring assumption so lets consider the multiverse:

Lets assume there are 1000 universes. It also depends on how the picking occurs. For example lets use 1000 numbers of which 1 (X) supports life and it is a guessing game.

If X remains the same after each guess and I get 1000 guesses, I will get it with a probability of 1.

Mathematically, the probability is about 62%

If 1000 people all get one guess that is made simultaneously with no knowledge of the other guesses, that is a different scenario.

Not as far as I know, as long as they can all freely guess from the 1,000 options. The probability that someone will get the right one remains the same. The only thing that changes the probability is if the choice of one precludes that choice by another (selection with replacement vs. selection without).

If X remains the same after each guess but I pick a number at random for each of my 1000 guesses (assuming duplicates are allowed), that is another scenario.

If X varies, that opens up a whole new set of possibilities.

Yes

Sure but the name of the argument does not invalidate it because it may invite the notion of a tuner.

No - the name merely invites a conclusion the argument does not support.

[Tassman]

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

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.

By definition an omniscient, omnipotent god can do everything, that's the claim, isn't it?

You on the other hand need eternal energy to keep a divine foot out of the door.

There is no good reason to thing that there's a supernatural "divine foot" in 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.

[Tassman]

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

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

[JonathanL]

Again, those words are organized in properly structured English sentences, but they mean nothing to me. I cannot even have "awareness" without time. I must necessarily be inert in every respect. I do not see how god is an exception to this except by simply declaring, "it is so," and leaving it at that.

I mean, claiming that you cannot have "awareness" without time is just as much "declaring 'it is so'" as claiming that you can have awareness without time. This is a claim you're going to have to defend, because it doesn't strike me as self-evidential in any way.

Again, it seems to me that theists are trying to have it both ways: god is timeless/eternal - an infinite "now" - but then god acts - which is an event - in this timeless now. Except how could there be a "moment of action" in timeless existence? If the "moment" is eternal, then what is within that "moment" is likewise eternal, except now we have time and the moment is not timeless anymore. It just seems to keep going in circles.

But I'm not saying that God acts in eternity so that there's suddenly a "moment of action" in timeless existence. I'm saying that God acted from a state of timeless existence. I actually agree with you that the "moment" ceased being timeless (as in, it became the first moment in the series of moments which we call the passing of time) when God acted.

This analogy doesn't seem to work. If that state of timeless being is like a single image - then there isn't a movie. Just an image. But theists seem to want there to be both all of existence in a single image AND a movie that unfolds. It's kind of a "resolve the conflict by simply declaring opposing things are not opposing for god," approach.

Good thing I'm not declaring "opposing things are not opposing for God" then. I'm not saying that eternity encompasses all of existence in a single image and that there's also a movie which unfolds the totality of existence, I'm saying that "in the beginning" (to borrow a phrase from the Bible) God existed in a state of timeless being which could be compared to a single frame/image. God's first act then resulted in a sequence of moments of which this first beginningless moment became the first.

And there we will probably disagree. When the claims appear to be oxymoronic, it seems to me that is exactly where we are.

My claims would probably seem less oxymoronic if you stopped trying to force what you think is the general theistic viewpoint onto my statements.

Or it could simply be that my philosophical roots are not deep enough. But I have the distinct impression of an argument that is akin to the ones I was warned about by an old professor of mine. He noted that we should always be wary of the philosopher who spent an hour lecturing on the insubstantiality of the walls, but then left the classroom by way of the door.

In this case it's more like I'm frantically pointing at the door while you're absentmindedly staring right at the wall while denying that the door even exists.

[JonathanL]

I think you are reading more into the Dawkins statements than was put there. He is expressing a fairly common definition of time (and space) and this relates to our other discussion. I read "Time is the measure of change" as being a slightly different way of saying, "time is the relationship between events." In other words, time is about how events relate to one another, using words like before, during, after, and we even have a metric for measuring these intervals comparatively. The corresponding statement is that "space is the relationship between objects."

If time is the relationship between events (which is fairly widely accepted as true), then someone who suggests an absence of time is also implying an absence of event. "Duration" has no meaning. "Activity" has no meaning. Dawkins is using the word "change" because any event involves something changing. Where I think he got sloppy was in his use of the definite article. He should have said, "time is a measurement of change," or perhaps, "time is a way of measuring change," (there are other ways). Personally, I prefer, "time is the relationship between events."

You might be right that I could be reading more into Dawkins statement than what is warranted. I personally don't feel much of a need to harp on about what Dawkins thinks about the relationship between time and change, so let's leave that discussion for something more interesting.

Thought IS a form of action. For humans, we can "see" human thought in an MRI - and have even noted the temporal distinction between the activation of our thought organ (the brain) and the experience of thought/awareness. Of course, you (and most theists) presumably believe that "thought" and "awareness" can exist as a purely immaterial thing, but even in that context, I cannot fathom a "thought" without time. I cannot fathom a "decision" without time.

You being unable to fathom a consciousness or awareness without time is just an argument from incredulity, it doesn't tell us anything about whether consciousness/awareness/thought without time is actually possible or not.

It seems to me like thought itself is not inherently sequential in nature, that's just a characteristic of our own limited awareness. We can only think one thought at a time because where only able to focus our minds at one thing at a time, but I'm not aware of anything that would prevent a being from existing that would be "multi-aware" so to speak. And if we can imagine a being that is able to think multiple thoughts simultaneously there's nothing stopping us from going all the way and positing a Being who is "omni-aware", with all of it's thoughts and knowledge fully actualized in it's consciousness simultaneously, or every part it's thoughts and knowledge actualized simultaneously.

I was using "inertia" in the colloquial sense (no movement), not the physics sense (resistance to change). Eternity in the sense of "endless time" has no obstacles to change. "Eternity" as in "timelessness" does indeed mean no change. It would appear to me that the theist has the same problem with this timeless god that the atheist has with the "Big Bang:" what made it start? I'm sure the claim will be "self-starting," but I just do not know how a thing can go from an inert state to an active state. It means you have to posit thought/awareness without time, and I don't even know how a being can be "god" and be inert. I am reminded of the quote from Aladdin: "Phenomenal cosmic power...itty bitty living space!"

God's decision to act is what "made it start". Kind of like my decision to stand up from my chair right now is what caused me to go from a state of inertia (sitting) to an active state (standing up).