An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

I wouldn't doubt that. Not a reason to believe in its reality though.

I agree with you but that wasn't the question.

[element771]

Yes, scientific answers can

Can 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.

Membership of any loving, supportive community, one that provides a 'sense of belonging', is beneficial to mental health.

Do you have a study to back that up?

[element771]

First, 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.

Second, "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.

John 1:1 is my favorite passage as I believe it predicts the next revolution in physics.

[carpedm9587]

You mean the same Dawkins who contradicts himself when he claims that "time is the measure of change" and "if there is no time, there is no change"? Because the statement "time is the measure of change" implies that change precedes time in the logical order, while "if there is no time, there is no change" implies the complete opposite.

These 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.

Likewise, 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. Sentience implies thought and self-awareness. But thought and self-awareness suggests action (granted, immaterial action) and action implies time. Therein lies the problem. A "timeless" state suggests complete inertia. So what brought such a being out of this inert state?

[carpedm9587]

John 1:1 is my favorite passage as I believe it predicts the next revolution in physics.

Really? What revolution is that?

P.S. I assume that your are familiar with the "prophecy" illusion, right?

[element771]

Really? What revolution is that?

I believe that there will be a time when "information" (or something akin to this) is discovered to be a fundamental property of nature similar to energy. There are already hints of this in the literature and a lot of atheist philosophers think that this may hold the key to understanding consciousness (see David Chalmers)

I think that this would be a cool parallel to John 1:1 which states In the beginning was the word...

P.S. I assume that your are familiar with the "prophecy" illusion, right?

Is this something along the lines of pattern recognition when looking for something someone wants to be true?

[seer]

I believe that there will be a time when "information" (or something akin to this) is discovered to be a fundamental property of nature similar to energy. There are already hints of this in the literature and a lot of atheist philosophers think that this may hold the key to understanding consciousness (see David Chalmers)

Chalmers actually suggests that consciousness may be a fundamental property of the universe. That would open a can of worms!

[element771]

Chalmers actually suggests that consciousness may be a fundamental property of the universe. That would open a can of worms!

Right...

Consciousness / Information / etc... I was using these terms interchangeably for the sake of brevity.

[carpedm9587]

I believe that there will be a time when "information" (or something akin to this) is discovered to be a fundamental property of nature similar to energy. There are already hints of this in the literature and a lot of atheist philosophers think that this may hold the key to understanding consciousness (see David Chalmers)

We already see elements of that in biology. What is DNA other than a complex informational code for constructing a life-form?

I think that this would be a cool parallel to John 1:1 which states In the beginning was the word...

Cool? Yes. Meaningful? Doubtful.

Is this something along the lines of pattern recognition when looking for something someone wants to be true?

Basically. We have a tendency to impose meaning post factum on statements and make associations on nothing more than pattern-matching. Most prophecies take this form. Make a vague enough statement, wait a long enough period of time, and eventually something will surface that "matches" well enough to say, "see - it was predicted!"

The biblical genesis story has god "speaking" things into existence (god said - "let there be...."), and words have long been believed to have power. Indeed, the idea that knowing the name of a thing gives one power over that things goes back millenia, and is the basis for the Judaic tradition of not speaking the name of god, and not even writing the entire name out. So making reference to "word" as what was at the beginning, and calling Jesus the "word of God" are well in line with this tradition. Assuming that they were anticipating the observation of an informational basis to the universe? Not so much. One definition of "information" is "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things." So we see DNA as such a sequence. One can argue that molecular and atomic structure are such a sequence. The temptation, of course, will be to say, "where there is information, there must be an informer," just as people say, "where there is design, there must be a designer." I think that is an unwarranted leap.

Certainly a designer can produce a design - but designs also occur without a sentient force at work. The same is true of information. Information is the pattern we see - it does not necessarily imply a "patterner."

[element771]

We already see elements of that in biology. What is DNA other than a complex informational code for constructing a life-form?

Right but to think that information is an actual tangible "thing" that follows laws... that is cool

Cool? Yes. Meaningful? Doubtful.

That is an opinion that I don't share.

I have always said that something is eternal. That something is either Energy / Matter or Mind. Atheists are of the opinion that energy / matter is eternal, theists are of the opinion that something akin to mind is eternal.

Basically. We have a tendency to impose meaning post factum on statements and make associations on nothing more than pattern-matching. Most prophecies take this form. Make a vague enough statement, wait a long enough period of time, and eventually something will surface that "matches" well enough to say, "see - it was predicted!"

While I agree that this happens on occasion (and probably most of the time), I don't think that this always has to be the case.

Assuming that they were anticipating the observation of an informational basis to the universe? Not so much. One definition of "information" is "what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."

I didn't mean to imply that the Bible was predicting this as a prophecy or something like that. Sorry about that..

Certainly a designer can produce a design - but designs also occur without a sentient force at work. The same is true of information. Information is the pattern we see - it does not necessarily imply a "patterner."

Sure but I would argue that the "word" and "information" are one in the same. God speaking the universe into existence can be seen as a sort of information becoming a physical reality. If physics shows that information is actually a part of nature that follows laws, then I think that there is a connection here.

This is totally an intuitive thing that I think is really interesting. I completely understand that others may not feel this way.

[carpedm9587]

Right but to think that information is an actual tangible "thing" that follows laws... that is cool

That is an opinion that I don't share.

I have always said that something is eternal. That something is either Energy / Matter or Mind. Atheists are of the opinion that energy / matter is eternal, theists are of the opinion that something akin to mind is eternal.

I think that might be an over-simplification. THIS atheist does not say "Energy/Matter" is eternal, unless we narrowly define "eternity" to be "the entire age of our time/space universe." I know that the Energy/Matter of our universe can only be traced back to the moment of the "Big Bang." What came "before" or lies "outside" this universe we do not know. Indeed, we don't even know if "before" (time-based) or "outside" (space-based) are meaningful terms when speaking of anything that is not this universe. I do not believe a thing can arise from purely nothing, but I have to acknowledge that this belief is based on my experiences within this universe, so when speaking of anything that is NOT this universe, I am reduced to a helpless shrug and "I don't know." As I have said numerous times, I do not replace "I don't know" with "god did it." History tells me that is folly, because when it comes to describing "how stuff works," we have regularly replaced "god did it" with a scientific explanation. How the universe came to be is a scientific question. History tells me I would be foolish to answer that question with "god did it."

While I agree that this happens on occasion (and probably most of the time), I don't think that this always has to be the case.

It doesn't HAVE to be (as in philosophical necessity), but it certainly appears to me to always be (as in practical observation).

I didn't mean to imply that the Bible was predicting this as a prophecy or something like that. Sorry about that..

Sure but I would argue that the "word" and "information" are one in the same. God speaking the universe into existence can be seen as a sort of information becoming a physical reality. If physics shows that information is actually a part of nature that follows laws, then I think that there is a connection here.

This is totally an intuitive thing that I think is really interesting. I completely understand that others may not feel this way.

From the outside of Christianity (now) looking in, I see a linguistic connection, not a prophetical one.

[element771]

[QUOTE=carpedm9587;534900]I think that might be an over-simplification. THIS atheist does not say "Energy/Matter" is eternal, unless we narrowly define "eternity" to be "the entire age of our time/space universe." I know that the Energy/Matter of our universe can only be traced back to the moment of the "Big Bang." What came "before" or lies "outside" this universe we do not know. Indeed, we don't even know if "before" (time-based) or "outside" (space-based) are meaningful terms when speaking of anything that is not this universe. I do not believe a thing can arise from purely nothing, but I have to acknowledge that this belief is based on my experiences within this universe, so when speaking of anything that is NOT this universe, I am reduced to a helpless shrug and "I don't know." As I have said numerous times, I do not replace "I don't know" with "god did it." History tells me that is folly, because when it comes to describing "how stuff works," we have regularly replaced "god did it" with a scientific explanation. How the universe came to be is a scientific question. History tells me I would be foolish to answer that question with "god did it."


I understand that it is an over-simplification of sorts but my point still stands. I too do not believe a thing can arise from purely nothing. That is why I say that "something" has to be eternal with the two options being energy/matter and mind/information (in this case).

I also do not feel that this is a case of "God of the Gaps". Again, I do not insert God when science says that it doesn't know yet. However, I do think that this is a fundamentally different question in the sense that one is left with only two options as indicated before. Also, this is a fundamentally different question because we are not talking about anything necessarily "being done". God doesn't do anything according to my idea of what we are describing or asking. If we assume that one thing has to be eternal (as we both agree about something from nothing), then we are asking about the fundamental nature of what is eternal. That is a much different question than how something happened such as evolution, abiogenesis, etc.

For me, God could be the mind or information that is eternal. This would not be a full blown proof of God's existence but it would certainly fit the definition. A "mind" or "information" is a lot more compatible with the idea of a God than matter / energy is.

From the outside of Christianity (now) looking in, I see a linguistic connection, not a prophetical one.

Again, when I said that it predicted the next revolution in physics...I didn't mean this literally. I meant more that I always found this passage fascinating. It basically says that existence was called into being through God's word ...again, information becoming reality. What I should have said is that this passage would parallel the newest discoveries in information theory if information is actually something that is fundamental existence.

[carpedm9587]

I understand that it is an over-simplification of sorts but my point still stands. I too do not believe a thing can arise from purely nothing. That is why I say that "something" has to be eternal with the two options being energy/matter and mind/information (in this case).

I was with you up to "something." Then we part company. Matter/energy are constructs within this universe. We only know they are "eternal" or "infinite" within the context of this universe (i.e., from the start to the end of this universe). You believe (I think) that god is the infinite/eternal - and gave rise to matter/energy. I believe that "something" is infinite/eternal and gave rise to matter/energy. I do not know what that something is.

I also do not feel that this is a case of "God of the Gaps".

I know you do not think this is a "god of the gaps" situation, but that is exactly what I think it is. Every other instance of "how did this come to be" is a scientific question. Why would I put the universe itself in a different category? The fact is, we do not yet know how to peer "outside" or "before" the universe, or even if those terms have meaning in that context. So positing "god did it" is, to me, a "god of the gaps" approach.

Again, I do not insert God when science says that it doesn't know yet. However, I do think that this is a fundamentally different question in the sense that one is left with only two options as indicated before.

I think you have created a false dichotomy. Mind and Matter/Energy are constructs within this universe. We have no way of knowing if they have meaning outside/before this universe, or of knowing is there is "something else" that can give rise to both energy/matter AND mind. It is clear to me that energy/matter CAN give rise to mind. We see it all around us - and within us. But I have ZERO experience of mind giving rise to energy/matter. So this leap seems, to me, unwarranted.

Also, this is a fundamentally different question because we are not talking about anything necessarily "being done". God doesn't do anything according to my idea of what we are describing or asking. If we assume that one thing has to be eternal (as we both agree about something from nothing), then we are asking about the fundamental nature of what is eternal. That is a much different question than how something happened such as evolution, abiogenesis, etc.

For me, God could be the mind or information that is eternal. This would not be a full blown proof of God's existence but it would certainly fit the definition. A "mind" or "information" is a lot more compatible with the idea of a God than matter / energy is.

You appear to be heading in the direction I thought this might go. When we begin to use the term "information," we are dealing with a concept associated with sentient minds. We humans produce, organize, distribute, and use information. The information fed into a modern lathe can produce the legs for a coffee table. Once we begin to use "information" to describe how the universe operates, many will jump quickly to the need for there to be a sentient mind to derive that "information." We are back to humanity superimposing patterns on (or seeing patterns in) nature, and then attributing those patterns to "mind." Yes - those patterns ARE attributed to "mind." They are attributed to our minds. We don't create them - but we recognize the patterns, call it "information," and then leap to the connection that, since humans create information and humans are sentient, there must be a sentient mind that created the universe.

Not a valid connection, says I. We are essentially anthropomorphizing the origins of the universe. We are not very far from early man who sees that he can grab a rock and make it shake, so when he experiences an earthquake, and realizes he is nowhere near powerful enough to shake everything being shook, there must be a sentient mind out there that can do that. So suddenly we have a god of sorts, arising to explain how things get "shook" on a massive scale.

Again, when I said that it predicted the next revolution in physics...I didn't mean this literally. I meant more that I always found this passage fascinating. It basically says that existence was called into being through God's word ...again, information becoming reality. What I should have said is that this passage would parallel the newest discoveries in information theory if information is actually something that is fundamental existence.

Fair enough. I can agree with that. And I too find these kinds of connections "fun" and "interesting." Likewise, I find it "fun" and "interesting" when two people in a room of 30 people have the same birthday. But I know enough about probability to know that the odds of that occurring are actually fairly high. It doesn't suggest some cosmic mind at work.

I have a friend who's belief in god is rooted in an experience he had in his life. He was on a sailboat during a particularly nasty storm. One surprisingly large swell rocked the boat so badly that he was thrown overboard. As he was plunging away from the deck of the boat, his arm/hand made contact with the starboard stay. His hand closed reflexively around it, and he was strong enough to maintain that grip, so his body arced in a sweet circle and came to rest standing on the deck of the boat. Had he not caught that stay, he would have been overboard in a major storm and would almost certainly have drowned. In his mind, this event was so unbelievable as to be the intervention of a god, and he fell to his knees shortly thereafter and "gave his life to Christ."

I look at the situation and say, "you are misapplying probabilities." If we were to canvas the entire world and find all of the people who had been in a similar situation (on the deck of a sailboat, bad storm, rogue wave substantially rocks boat, thrown overboard), we would likely find that 99.99% of them* went to a watery grave. If true, that means there is a 0.01% probability of survival. If you have enough people, someone will survive - and that person will undoubtedly experience the event as "miraculous." It's not. It's just statistics. My chance of winning the lottery is also 1/175M. But the chance of SOMEONE winning the lottery is substantially higher.

*Did you know that 93.458% of statistics quoted on a website are made up on the spot?

[element771]

I was with you up to "something." Then we part company. Matter/energy are constructs within this universe. We only know they are "eternal" or "infinite" within the context of this universe (i.e., from the start to the end of this universe). You believe (I think) that god is the infinite/eternal - and gave rise to matter/energy. I believe that "something" is infinite/eternal and gave rise to matter/energy. I do not know what that something is.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. Admittedly, I am making an assumption that matter / energy and information / mind are more than constructs in this universe. Moreover, whatever existed "before" would be similar to what we have in this universe. This is just speculation on my part but given the constraints of what we observe in our universe...I think that it is a decent speculation.

I know you do not think this is a "god of the gaps" situation, but that is exactly what I think it is. Every other instance of "how did this come to be" is a scientific question. Why would I put the universe itself in a different category? The fact is, we do not yet know how to peer "outside" or "before" the universe, or even if those terms have meaning in that context. So positing "god did it" is, to me, a "god of the gaps" approach.

Because we are not asking "how did this come to be". We are asking what is the ultimate source of what came to be. See the difference... Also, the answer could be information which is what I have talking about. This would not be "God" so to speak. Information could still be just a natural part of the universe, mother universe, etc. However, I think that this would fit into a theistic paradigm better than eternal matter would.

I think you have created a false dichotomy. Mind and Matter/Energy are constructs within this universe. We have no way of knowing if they have meaning outside/before this universe, or of knowing is there is "something else" that can give rise to both energy/matter AND mind. It is clear to me that energy/matter CAN give rise to mind. We see it all around us - and within us. But I have ZERO experience of mind giving rise to energy/matter. So this leap seems, to me, unwarranted.

I think that this is a fair point. However, we don't understand consciousness / information / mind as much as we do matter / energy. I can give you several laws that concern the temporal nature of matter. Given what we know now...matter and energy cannot be eternal plain and simple. While it is correct that they will never be destroyed, they will be so diffuse that they will effectively become non-existent. At some point every smallest constituent of matter will be a Hubble length away from its nearest neighbor.

You appear to be heading in the direction I thought this might go. When we begin to use the term "information," we are dealing with a concept associated with sentient minds. We humans produce, organize, distribute, and use information. The information fed into a modern lathe can produce the legs for a coffee table. Once we begin to use "information" to describe how the universe operates, many will jump quickly to the need for there to be a sentient mind to derive that "information." We are back to humanity superimposing patterns on (or seeing patterns in) nature, and then attributing those patterns to "mind." Yes - those patterns ARE attributed to "mind." They are attributed to our minds. We don't create them - but we recognize the patterns, call it "information," and then leap to the connection that, since humans create information and humans are sentient, there must be a sentient mind that created the universe.

I don't necessarily agree with this. This has nothing to do with patterns in nature or recognizing patterns in nature. It is not about information like creating a table leg but many scientists think that information may be a fundamental aspect of nature. David Chalmers thinks that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature and he is an atheist. IMO, if an atheist and I can come to similar conclusions...I don't think that this is a case of looking for pattern recognition.

Not a valid connection, says I. We are essentially anthropomorphizing the origins of the universe. We are not very far from early man who sees that he can grab a rock and make it shake, so when he experiences an earthquake, and realizes he is nowhere near powerful enough to shake everything being shook, there must be a sentient mind out there that can do that. So suddenly we have a god of sorts, arising to explain how things get "shook" on a massive scale.

I do not agree since we are not referring to the origins of the universe but what the "source" of the universe is ultimately. I don't understand how I am anthropomorphizing this source. Just to be clear...Information theory is a really cool new area in physics. They actually have shown that information itself is subject to entropy. I thought this was wickedly cool.

Fair enough. I can agree with that. And I too find these kinds of connections "fun" and "interesting." Likewise, I find it "fun" and "interesting" when two people in a room of 30 people have the same birthday. But I know enough about probability to know that the odds of that occurring are actually fairly high. It doesn't suggest some cosmic mind at work.

I think that this is a false equivalency. We can calculate the probability of people having the same birthday. Probability theory doesn't apply here.

I have a friend who's belief in god is rooted in an experience he had in his life. He was on a sailboat during a particularly nasty storm. One surprisingly large swell rocked the boat so badly that he was thrown overboard. As he was plunging away from the deck of the boat, his arm/hand made contact with the starboard stay. His hand closed reflexively around it, and he was strong enough to maintain that grip, so his body arced in a sweet circle and came to rest standing on the deck of the boat. Had he not caught that stay, he would have been overboard in a major storm and would almost certainly have drowned. In his mind, this event was so unbelievable as to be the intervention of a god, and he fell to his knees shortly thereafter and "gave his life to Christ."

I look at the situation and say, "you are misapplying probabilities." If we were to canvas the entire world and find all of the people who had been in a similar situation (on the deck of a sailboat, bad storm, rogue wave substantially rocks boat, thrown overboard), we would likely find that 99.99% of them* went to a watery grave. If true, that means there is a 0.01% probability of survival. If you have enough people, someone will survive - and that person will undoubtedly experience the event as "miraculous." It's not. It's just statistics. My chance of winning the lottery is also 1/175M. But the chance of SOMEONE winning the lottery is substantially higher.

*Did you know that 93.458% of statistics quoted on a website are made up on the spot?

In the case of your friend, I would agree. IMO...I don't think you could distinguish an according to Hoyle miracle from a highly improbably event. Maybe God did save your friend...if he feels this way, who am I to say anything.

Be careful that you don't stumble into the inverse gamblers fallacy fallacy with the lottery analogy.

[carpedm9587]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. Admittedly, I am making an assumption that matter / energy and information / mind are more than constructs in this universe. Moreover, whatever existed "before" would be similar to what we have in this universe. This is just speculation on my part but given the constraints of what we observe in our universe...I think that it is a decent speculation.

Yes, 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."

Because we are not asking "how did this come to be". We are asking what is the ultimate source of what came to be. See the difference... Also, the answer could be information which is what I have talking about. This would not be "God" so to speak. Information could still be just a natural part of the universe, mother universe, etc. However, I think that this would fit into a theistic paradigm better than eternal matter would.

Look 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.

I think that this is a fair point. However, we don't understand consciousness / information / mind as much as we do matter / energy. I can give you several laws that concern the temporal nature of matter. Given what we know now...matter and energy cannot be eternal plain and simple. While it is correct that they will never be destroyed, they will be so diffuse that they will effectively become non-existent. At some point every smallest constituent of matter will be a Hubble length away from its nearest neighbor.

Absolutely. 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?

I don't necessarily agree with this. This has nothing to do with patterns in nature or recognizing patterns in nature. It is not about information like creating a table leg but many scientists think that information may be a fundamental aspect of nature. David Chalmers thinks that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature and he is an atheist. IMO, if an atheist and I can come to similar conclusions...I don't think that this is a case of looking for pattern recognition.

You seem to be arguing for a pantheism - not a monotheism.

I do not agree since we are not referring to the origins of the universe but what the "source" of the universe is ultimately. I don't understand how I am anthropomorphizing this source. Just to be clear...Information theory is a really cool new area in physics. They actually have shown that information itself is subject to entropy. I thought this was wickedly cool.

Reread 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."

I think that this is a false equivalency. We can calculate the probability of people having the same birthday. Probability theory doesn't apply here.

My general point was that people often find a need to worship what is simply "amazing" or 'unbelievable." I am awed by the universe. I distinguish between my sense of awe and a need to worship.

In the case of your friend, I would agree. IMO...I don't think you could distinguish an according to Hoyle miracle from a highly improbably event. Maybe God did save your friend...if he feels this way, who am I to say anything.

You 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."

Be careful that you don't stumble into the inverse gamblers fallacy fallacy with the lottery analogy.

OK...now you have me intrigued. Explain!


ETA: 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!