An infinite series of finite causes.

[JonathanL]

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.

You're halfway correct. I'm arguing that eternity was timeless, but it ceased being timeless when God acted and brought change into existence.

[carpedm9587]

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.

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.

Umm... no. Sorry Chrawnus, but I cannot fathom an effect without a cause either - or something arising from nothing. Without the passage of time, there is no possibility of discrete events. Thoughts, decisions, ideas, awareness, hope, are all discrete events. What I am saying is not merely "I'm incredulous," it is an observation that you are positing a "reality" that simply does not confirm to any other part of reality. You are proposing that something can have event without time.

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.

You seem to be redefining "event" so it can fit into your timeless model. You can do that - but then you aren't using words the way the rest of us are, and conversation is a bit hard to have. However, I have to concede that when you are in the realm of "supernatural," anything that is not a logical contradiction is fair game. I see nothing logically contradictory about your suggestion, so...

I have to admit, though, it sure as heck seems that you're making things up as you go along.

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).

A decision is an event in time. Again...I don't see how that can happen when there is no time.

[JonathanL]

Umm... no. Sorry Chrawnus, but I cannot fathom an effect without a cause either - or something arising from nothing. Without the passage of time, there is no possibility of discrete events. Thoughts, decisions, ideas, awareness, hope, are all discrete events. What I am saying is not merely "I'm incredulous," it is an observation that you are positing a "reality" that simply does not confirm to any other part of reality. You are proposing that something can have event without time.

No that's not what I'm proposing at all. I haven't even come close to suggesting anything of the sort. I'm proposing that despite your wild protests there's actually nothing inherent about timelessness that prevents action/events, with the caveat that as soon as an event happens this state of timeless existence ceases to be timeless. It's not that timelessness makes events impossible, it's that events make timelessness impossible.

As to your notion that Thoughts, ideas and so forth are events is simply false. Me thinking is an event, my thought itself is not. Likewise, me having an idea is an event, the idea itself is not.

If I was, for example, to think "I see a red ball", the act of me thinking "I see a red ball" would be an event, but the thought "I see a red ball" is itself not an event at all. It's information, and information is not an event.

You seem to be redefining "event" so it can fit into your timeless model. You can do that - but then you aren't using words the way the rest of us are, and conversation is a bit hard to have. However, I have to concede that when you are in the realm of "supernatural," anything that is not a logical contradiction is fair game. I see nothing logically contradictory about your suggestion, so...

I'm not redefining "event" at all, I'm simply disagreeing with your notion as to what counts as events. Most notably your idiosyncratic notion that things such as thoughts, ideas and hope should be counted as events.

I have to admit, though, it sure as heck seems that you're making things up as you go along.

A decision is an event in time. Again...I don't see how that can happen when there is no time.

Simple. The decision itself brings time into existence.

You're claiming with no good justification what so ever that there can be no events without time. But there doesn't seem to be anything about a state of timeless existence that prevents events from occurring at all. If an event happens in a state of timeless existence that state of existence simply ceases to be timeless. But there is nothing intrinsically about timelessness that prevents events from occurring, unless you believe that it's impossible for a state of timeless existence to change into a state of existence in time.

[seer]

But you can not know if science can figure everything out - you have faith that it can.

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

Not quite, but close, so?


That doesn't change that Hawking made a claim he can not back up. It was biased...

[carpedm9587]

No that's not what I'm proposing at all. I haven't even come close to suggesting anything of the sort. I'm proposing that despite your wild protests there's actually nothing inherent about timelessness that prevents action/events, with the caveat that as soon as an event happens this state of timeless existence ceases to be timeless. It's not that timelessness makes events impossible, it's that events make timelessness impossible.

As to your notion that Thoughts, ideas and so forth are events is simply false. Me thinking is an event, my thought itself is not. Likewise, me having an idea is an event, the idea itself is not.

If I was, for example, to think "I see a red ball", the act of me thinking "I see a red ball" would be an event, but the thought "I see a red ball" is itself not an event at all. It's information, and information is not an event.

So you're proposing god is capable of having a thought without thinking? That simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'm not redefining "event" at all, I'm simply disagreeing with your notion as to what counts as events. Most notably your idiosyncratic notion that things such as thoughts, ideas and hope should be counted as events.

I am incapable of having a thought, and idea, or even a hope without "thinking." Your separation of these from "thinking" simply does not seem substantiated.

Simple. The decision itself brings time into existence.

You're claiming with no good justification what so ever that there can be no events without time. But there doesn't seem to be anything about a state of timeless existence that prevents events from occurring at all. If an event happens in a state of timeless existence that state of existence simply ceases to be timeless. But there is nothing intrinsically about timelessness that prevents events from occurring, unless you believe that it's impossible for a state of timeless existence to change into a state of existence in time.

Actually, not "with no justification whatsoever." Frankly, the idea that timelessness would spontaneously become time - and an inert being would spontaneously become active - simply don't make sense to me. And trying to wrap my mind around an eternally inert supreme being that only becomes active by the act of creation is proving to be impossible. It simply doesn't fit with any idea of a supreme being I have ever encountered.

If it works for you, so be it. It's filled with too many imaginative stretches to be satisfactory to me. I realize my "making it up as you go along" earned an eye roll, but I find this happens in theologies a lot. We start hairsplitting between two natures and one person to answer how a being can simultaneously be fully man and fully god. We have three distinct persons, but one god to explain how we have have father, son, and spirit - without drifting into polytheism. Now we have an inert supreme being to explain how god can be eternal but choose a particular moment to create. All in all, it's odd.

[JimL]

You're halfway correct. I'm arguing that eternity was timeless, but it ceased being timeless when God acted and brought change into existence.

So a timeless god ceased being a timeless god at some point in time within timeless eternity? Do you see the error there. You are arguing that time passes between a state of eternal timelessness to a state where time emerges. It's a contradiction, as no time can be said to pass within a state of timeless. If it is argued that time begins in a timeless eternity, then time would itself need be eternal. We would define time in just the same way that we define eternity, there was no time before it.

[element771]

You are conflating the scientific method and scientific findings. It is not a misuse of science. There is nothing really more to say other than that it is wrong for you to claim what scientific findings can and cannot be used for. I have really never heard anyone say this before.



That is why natural theology uses scientific data in its arguments.

[element771]

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."

Not at all. As I said before, I think that everything occurring in the natural universe will have a natural explanation. So I do not go from I don't know to it must be God.

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.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. You are critical of me using the probability space of one and then you say I assume there is only one universe. I do not agree with either one of these. There is only one lottery winner but the probability of me winning is exceedingly small. Again, you can't conflate some winner and a specific winner.

Also, all of the data that we have so far suggests one universe. When I see empirical evidence for more than one universe, I will take that into consideration. The science is not anywhere close to where it needs to be in order to start seriously contemplating more than one universe.

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).

That was my point.

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

I think that this is a pretty shallow critique. The argument could be called the "no God to tune" argument and the least important part of that argument is what it is referred to. Just like Death Panels...the name in of itself had little bearing on the reality.

[carpedm9587]

Not at all. As I said before, I think that everything occurring in the natural universe will have a natural explanation. So I do not go from I don't know to it must be God.

First, I wasn't speaking about you individually. I was observing about the argument. But I think you are conflating two things. You can think that everything in the natural universe has a natural explanation, and still resort to a "god of the gaps" argument for the ORIGIN of the universe. Science, right now, can't tell us anything about that origin, and may well never be able to. So far, it is limited to observations of what is within the Universe. Since the best we can say about the origin of the universe is to say, "I don't know," to replace "I don't know" (about the origin of the universe) is to engage in a god-of-the-gaps argument.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. You are critical of me using the probability space of one and then you say I assume there is only one universe. I do not agree with either one of these. There is only one lottery winner but the probability of me winning is exceedingly small. Again, you can't conflate some winner and a specific winner.

Also, all of the data that we have so far suggests one universe. When I see empirical evidence for more than one universe, I will take that into consideration. The science is not anywhere close to where it needs to be in order to start seriously contemplating more than one universe.

OK - I think we're off the rails here a bit. There are two distinct lottery arguments (from my perspective).

Argument 1: The "pick a winning lottery ticket" argument (also the swimming pool analogy). This one points out that with a huge number of possible variant universes, the probability that the life-sustaining one would be randomly created is infinitessimal. This suffers from the weakness that it assumes there is only one universe. If the reality is that there are many, possibly an infinite number of universes, this lottery argument fails, for reasons I pointed out in previous threads. I don't know what evidence you point to that suggests there is "only one universe," because all of our observations are from within this universe. So this claim sounds like a man sitting in a car with all sound muffled and all windows painted black claiming, "the evidence suggests this is the only car."

Argument 2: This is about the fine tuning. It suggests that there are so many variables, and each has to have such a precisely accurate value to result in a life-sustaining universe, the odds are infinitesimal. This approach suffers from a couple of short-comings. First, there is no basis I can think of for claiming that these values can be any other value than the ones that are. To make this claim would require showing that the various governing values of our universe actually CAN be different than what they are. I know of know research that shows this, but I cannot claim to know all research. But the second problem is the "sample-space of one" problem. As you note, the only universe we know of is this one, so a probability statement is being attempted on a sample space of one. That is simply not how probability works.

That was my point.

Oh...

Never mind then....

I think that this is a pretty shallow critique. The argument could be called the "no God to tune" argument and the least important part of that argument is what it is referred to. Just like Death Panels...the name in of itself had little bearing on the reality.

Don't get me wrong, Elem. I'm not saying that the proposal is wrong because the name is bad. I am saying that this is another of the many things that have been named in such a way as to lead many people to a desired conclusion. Death Panels. Creation. Fine Tuning. Death Tax. The list goes on. I think the fine-tuned hypothesis is flawed for the reasons I stated above.

[element771]

First, I wasn't speaking about you individually. I was observing about the argument. But I think you are conflating two things. You can think that everything in the natural universe has a natural explanation, and still resort to a "god of the gaps" argument for the ORIGIN of the universe. Science, right now, can't tell us anything about that origin, and may well never be able to. So far, it is limited to observations of what is within the Universe. Since the best we can say about the origin of the universe is to say, "I don't know," to replace "I don't know" (about the origin of the universe) is to engage in a god-of-the-gaps argument.

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

OK - I think we're off the rails here a bit. There are two distinct lottery arguments (from my perspective).

Argument 1: The "pick a winning lottery ticket" argument (also the swimming pool analogy). This one points out that with a huge number of possible variant universes, the probability that the life-sustaining one would be randomly created is infinitessimal. This suffers from the weakness that it assumes there is only one universe. If the reality is that there are many, possibly an infinite number of universes, this lottery argument fails, for reasons I pointed out in previous threads. I don't know what evidence you point to that suggests there is "only one universe," because all of our observations are from within this universe. So this claim sounds like a man sitting in a car with all sound muffled and all windows painted black claiming, "the evidence suggests this is the only car."

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.

Argument 2: This is about the fine tuning. It suggests that there are so many variables, and each has to have such a precisely accurate value to result in a life-sustaining universe, the odds are infinitesimal. This approach suffers from a couple of short-comings. First, there is no basis I can think of for claiming that these values can be any other value than the ones that are. To make this claim would require showing that the various governing values of our universe actually CAN be different than what they are. I know of know research that shows this, but I cannot claim to know all research. But the second problem is the "sample-space of one" problem. As you note, the only universe we know of is this one, so a probability statement is being attempted on a sample space of one. That is simply not how probability works.

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.

Don't get me wrong, Elem. I'm not saying that the proposal is wrong because the name is bad. I am saying that this is another of the many things that have been named in such a way as to lead many people to a desired conclusion. Death Panels. Creation. Fine Tuning. Death Tax. The list goes on. I think the fine-tuned hypothesis is flawed for the reasons I stated above.

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.

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

[JonathanL]

So a timeless god ceased being a timeless god at some point in time within timeless eternity?

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

Do you see the error there. You are arguing that time passes between a state of eternal timelessness to a state where time emerges.

Nope.

It's a contradiction, as no time can be said to pass within a state of timeless.

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.

If it is argued that time begins in a timeless eternity, then time would itself need be eternal. We would define time in just the same way that we define eternity, there was no time before it.

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.

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.

[JonathanL]

So you're proposing god is capable of having a thought without thinking? That simply makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If by "thinking" you mean the process by which thoughts are brought to the forefront of our consciousness so we are aware of them, then yes, I believe God is capable of having "thoughts" without "thinking". Since all of His thoughts already are(or rather, was, since I believe changes started occurring in God's awareness with the change from the very first eternal moment to the subsequent moment) at the "forefront" of His consciousness there is(was) no need for such a process within God's mind.

I am incapable of having a thought, and idea, or even a hope without "thinking." Your separation of these from "thinking" simply does not seem substantiated.

We are incapable of having thoughts, ideas and hope without "thinking" simply because our thoughts have a beginning somewhere (whether you believe they start as synapses firing in the brain, or as some sort of movement in the soul). God's thoughts however, would be beginningless and always with him, and so there would be no need for the process of "thinking".

Actually, not "with no justification whatsoever." Frankly, the idea that timelessness would spontaneously become time - and an inert being would spontaneously become active - simply don't make sense to me. And trying to wrap my mind around an eternally inert supreme being that only becomes active by the act of creation is proving to be impossible. It simply doesn't fit with any idea of a supreme being I have ever encountered.

I'll simply refer to my previous post #536 to JimL, since I don't feel like repeating myself and it looks as you have the same assumption about the relationship between timelessness and time as he does. I don't share those assumptions, so that might possibly be why we're talking past each other.

[Tassman]

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.

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.

Name one property/quality of "existence" that does not require/proceed in time...gods included.

[JonathanL]

Name one property/quality of "existence" that does not require/proceed in time...gods included.

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

[Tassman]

You are conflating the scientific method and scientific findings. It is not a misuse of science. There is nothing really more to say other than that it is wrong for you to claim what scientific findings can and cannot be used for. I have really never heard anyone say this before.

That is why natural theology uses scientific data in its arguments.