Its just basic math:

number of stars in universe / number of years universe is old = number of stars God must search a year
2*10^23 / 1.4*10^10 = 1.4*10^13

So God must search 1.4*10^13 stars a year in order to find us. That is plain not possible.

The being just initiated the Big Bang rather than hand creating the universe.

The universe has only been around for 14 billion years - you cannot search 2*10^23 star systems in 14 billion years - no where near enough time - so there is no way God could have found us.

The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir

I'm on your side in this debate but you can't argue that something exists just because the concept exists. Pink elephants exist as a concept in my mind, but not in reality for example...

You are suggesting a God who could create the planet Earth, the other planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the 300+ billions of other galaxies we know of...

...and it cannot do something as simple as contact us???? — Frank Apisa

I'm saying I cannot think how. For starters, how would God ever find us amongst the 2*10^23 stars in the observable universe?

If you can think how, please tell...

..why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa

God has no way of communicating his existence to us - the universe is billions of light years in size - how could we expect God to possibly communicate to us?

Can you think of a way that God could communicate to us (assuming non-omnipresence)?

- Messages in the sky look different from different angles, would be destroyed in the BB in any case
- Messages encoded in the standard model might upset a delicate balance

God is aware that life exists in the universe but not aware of our presence on earth in any specific sense IMO.

Time always flows from low to high entropy — Possibility

But the rate at which entropy changes from low to high varies from place to place yet the speed of time stays constant?

Similarly god is defined as a sentient being with omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (usually) so whether or not such an entity exists is a yes or no question. — khaled

But it can be argued it is weighted towards 'no' because the 3Os seem unlikely (so inductive evidence against the proposition is built into the proposition).

Contrast that to the question 'was the universe created?' - this is a true 50/50 proposition. The less demands you place on God, the more likely his existence is I think.

And is made of spaghetti. — S

There is no prove of that yet (that was a joke proof I gave you on the other thread).

I guess it would come down to how long hell was, versus his life expectancy and how painful hell is versus the genie enhanced life style. I hell was not so bad or did not last so long, then buying the genie at a low price might make sense.

On Thursday the prisoner can only deduce 'if I make it to Friday, I will not be executed'. He has not made it to Friday yet...

We all work for gain, but not all of us can work for personal profit maximization or the system doesn't work? This is what I understand from your statement. — boethius

The system does not work on many levels:

The effective utility of a 10 million and 1 billion bucks is similar, yet people still earn these huge salaries, to the detriment of everyone else. There should be a global personal earnings cap enforced via progressive taxation. 100% tax for anything over 10 million.

There is huge duplication:

- There is too much competition within sectors. As far as product choice and competition goes, we need a choice between a small number of high quality products. Capitalism gives us a large number of also-ran products that are essentially wasted efforts.

- Each company has its own payroll department, human resources, legal, etc... Every function is duplicated in every company. It is only the product/R&D department that adds any value; the rest is just duplicated effort and inefficiency

Again what ethic should they base this oversight roll on? Why can't the citizenry also seek to maximize gain, why is it only the capitalists and mobsters that can have this ethic depending on what system they find themselves in? — boethius

Citizens police the system via democracy, corrupt governments get the boot. Citizens may well have maximise gain as their primary motive, but Capitalism allows them to express that in a positive way.

A followup question, given that we agree capitalists do not have a personal ethic that is compatible with public service, it is only accidental that they produce value in your description due to a government system and culture, shouldn't the citizens strive to keep capitalists away from influencing governing processes? — boethius

I agree. Contributions by business to political parties I see as a threat to democracy. Lobbying in general actually.

What you refute as a ‘state of nothingness’ is more accurately a state of zero entropy - which is also the ‘start’ of time as we are aware of it - but not necessarily the start of spacetime (ie. the Big Bang) — Possibility

It seems either:

1) Time causes entropy
2) Entropy causes time

I am of the first persuasion. Time appears to pass the same in low and high entropy environments so I deduce that entropy cannot be the cause of time.

Outside of this sense of time is indeterminacy, potentiality - a timeless, formless existence that is frequently dismissed as ‘nothingness’, yet is the underlying ‘cause’ - the origination - of everything that can and does occur in time. — Possibility

Yes. It remains somewhat of a mystery though. The first cause has to be timeless yet capable of effecting change. The only other option is full on future real eternalism (in which case change is just an illusion). Without that, it seemingly that leaves a circle to square. The timeless nature of the photon is the only precedent I can think of and I'm not sure they could be said to 'change' exactly.

You have changed the personal system from greed to gain, are these different motivations or the same? — boethius

'Greed' is probably more appropriate to the private sector individuals earning disgustingly high amounts. We all work for personal 'gain' in this system.

For instance, if a civil servant is offered a bribe, and they are confident it is reasonable risk/reward, should they take the bribe? If not, what moral grounds should they have to refusing the bribe? — boethius

No they should not. Corrupt governments do get found out in the end. So do corrupt individuals. I think in the west, the civil service is relatively free from corruption. Politics is a different question though.

I think you have to be very specific - any deduction requires you to specify when the deduction takes place, because what is known about the situation is changing with time.

So we must accompany ‘Unable to deduce the time of hanging’ with a statement of when he will be unable to deduce the time of hanging. Returning to the original definition of the paradox:

‘A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox

So we have to conclude that the meaning is that the execution is not deducible just before the execution takes place. That leads to:

‘A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will not be deducible just before the execution takes place’

So on Friday, the prisoner can deduce he will be executed, so he can’t be executed.

On Thursday, the prisoner cannot tell if he will be executed on Thursday or Friday so he can be executed.

How so? Anyone from any culture can join a gang and work their way up to become a mobster; in some cases, given their skill set, it's an economically rational decision. — boethius

In both the examples you give, the person changes (business man<->mobster) but the respective systems (Capitalism, Organised Crime) do not change.

I agree that a successful business man could make it as a mobster and vice-versa.

If so, shouldn't the credit, the "God's work" be attributed to the government and whoever is involved in maintaining the government? — boethius

I agree that capitalists do not deserve credit for doing God's work. Despite that, I still maintain that they are doing God's work even though they are often unaware of that. In general, capitalists do the right think (produce goods and services) for the wrong reasons (personal greed) so they do not deserve any credit. Of course there are exceptions. Philanthropism is very noble.

ost critical of my questions, concerning the actions that go towards this government/culture/system maintenance that are required for things to not be mob and corruption based, do these maintenance actions follow from a ethic of personal greed too? If so, can you describe how so? — boethius

Yes, civil servants work for personal gain, but produce common good. They are part of the capitalist system too.

Not a rational transaction though obviously. Long term in hell > Short term in the genie's care. A quick poll in my immediate environment indicates that people don't want to sell their soul to the devil. You know people dumb enough to buy it for 1¢? Maybe people in desperate short-term situations?

I guess if the genie will "fulfill your every desire", your desire to sell the bottle could be for-filled... I am not sure I tightly worded the paradox enough...

This is making my head spin. Probably good exercise for the mind then.

Surprise may mean:

1. Unable to deduce the time of hanging
2. Was able to deduce when he would not be hanged, so was surprised when hanged anyway

I think the first definition is most in spirit with the intent of the paradox. Because of the vagueness of the original, I think it is better to focus on the paradox with the first definition.

I think the problem with the 'prisoner will not be able to deduce the time of hanging' version is the timing of deductions:

On Thursday evening the prisoner can deduce that he will be hanged on Friday (so he cannot be hanged), but he can’t make that deduction on Wednesday evening because ‘can’t be hanged on Friday’ is only true if it is Thursday evening.

On Wednesday evening, there is the possibility of being hung on Thursday. The prisoner can only deduce that he will not be hung on Friday On Thursday evening, so on Wednesday evening, the prisoner cannot deduce between being hung on Thursday or Friday?

I think they are both greedy but the system/culture is different. Our governments maintains the system. We all operate under the same system.

Capitalism allows specialisation of labour. A specialist could be 50 times more productive than a generalist. Capitalism allows for economies of scale. Cheaper to produce a million than just one. Without these two factors we'd still be living in the dark ages. Capitalism is not the only system to allow specialisation and economies of scale, but the way it leverages personal greed to do so has made it a success.

The mob also runs on a system of personal greed, likewise the system is inefficient but certainly more efficient than anarchy, are the mobsters also doing God's work?

If they aren't doing God's work, what is the difference in the internal ethos of of personal greed that you would argue is different? — boethius

Both the mob and capitalists are greedy, but they are operating under different systems:

- Mobsters kill people and distribute dangerous drugs that harm society
- Capitalists do not kill people. They create goods and services that on balance, help society.

So if you put bad people in a good system, you can still get good results, as long as you satisfy their personal greed and give them the impression they are working for themselves, even the worst psychopath can make a positive contribution to society.

There sure isn't anything contradictory in saying that time could be everlasting. You couldn't have time if at some point there was no time. You would have to go from no change to change, how could that be possible? You couldn't get a universe from a completely static state. — Sam26

Matter can't be eternal. Time cannot be everlasting. There are lots of ways to prove this. One is in the OP. Here is another:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5704/poincare-reoccurrence-theorem-and-time

The only way to avoid an infinite regress of time is to have a start of time with a timeless first cause. As you say, this implies that change takes place timelessly. It is possible to move in spacetime without moving in the time direction, so some types of change without time seem possible.

There is basically a choice here of how the universe could start. There are two options:

1. Everlasting time. This is ruled out because we can prove its impossible
2. A start of time + timeless change. This has not been ruled out

I think because [1] is impossible, it has to be [2], even though it's not exactly clear how timelessness works.

Truth is of mutual benefit. IMO the truth lies somewhere between the two positions (I am deist). Understanding from both sides is required. Blinding people with science is not helpful for getting at the truth.

1 Do not say what you believe to be false. — fdrake

Accepting devil's advocate which is sometimes required.

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. — fdrake

Room for speculative discussions is required, other than that, sound advise. Not everyone on the forum follows it though... some posts can be very verbose for example.

Therefore, intelligence from both sides is the key to effective communications and common sense is the medium. — akourios

Richard Dawkins is especially vicious with theists. He uses his intelligence to torment less intelligent people IMO.

On the other side, theists use their intelligence to convert people. Not as obnoxious IMO... still misguided.

What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa

I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress.

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.

Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant

Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.

I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist...

"Who created your God?" — TheSageOfMainStreet

The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS.

Actually it could make sense in terms of if pantheism holds initially - God is everything at the start - in order to make the universe he needs to take a part of himself and use that as the material for the universe. Rather than dismembering himself, using excrement might make sense (I am trying to put myself in the place of the ancients and imagine what they were thinking).

I see! No offence taken.

I had not thought of it like that... a first movement... the prime mover... not awfully respectful!

I believe that certain ancient religions associated creation with the bodily fluids of certain gods (Egypt), pretty sure none of them posits God taking a crap as the birth of the universe though!

Though obviously when life is getting you down, maybe you could imagine...

I'm not sure what are you implying?

Everything is moving apart from everything else so everything must have once been one. We have evidence of this from the redshifts of galaxies and the CMB radiation.

Even the leading multiple universe theory (eternal inflation) posits a first movement.

I concur that is a possible solution to the original paradox.

With the more specific definition: 'prisoner will not be able to deduce the time of hanging' though, I think the prisoner cannot deduce the time of hanging:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/282788

On Thursday evening the prisoner can deduce that he will be hanged on Friday (so he cannot be hanged)

On Wednesday evening though, the prisoner cannot deduce that he will be hanged on Friday (so he could be hanged on Thursday or Friday).

Sorry I must of missed that, can you give me a link?

One problem with this is that "surprise" seems to be used in two rather incompatible ways — Terrapin Station

Yes, it is a poor choice of word.
Rather than:
'the hanging will be a surprise to the prisoner'
Better to say:
'prisoner will not be able to deduce the time of hanging'

Capitalism is a system that turns personal greed into common good through specialisation and economies of scale. It's hugely inefficient but better than anarchy. So even though they may not be aware of it, capitalists are doing God's work (in an inefficient sort of way).

There are no arguments and no counter arguments concerning something that is impossible to determine — whollyrolling

The question 'was the universe created or not?' is imminently determinable.

There is no evidence of what you call first cause — whollyrolling

I gave you a load of evidence and you have not rebutted it. Put it this way, can you construct a model of the universe that does not have a first cause?

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. — whollyrolling

The Big Bang?
Eternal Inflation?
These are first cause based models.

All motion can be traced back to the Big Bang. Animate things are put in in motion by other animate things which are ultimately put in motion by inanimate things (the creation of life)... its all one big inverted hierarchy with the primer mover at the bottom. If there was no first movement, then there would be no 2nd. If no 2nd, then no 3rd movement. And so on to the conclusion that there is no movement. But we have movement.

Are you suggesting two simultaneous 'first' movements?

The only axiom used generally is cause and effect (and not even that for some of the proofs).

Those all have promises with their premises, such as "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another" — Terrapin Station

That is only the prime mover argument - 1 of 10 and anyway, that seems a good axiom to me. Everything is put in motion by something else. It looks like everything was put in motion by the Big Bang so he was right.

There are absolutely NO PROOFS that a first cause exists. — Frank Apisa

There are 10 given here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I hear you continually claim that there are many "Proofs" for god and none against it. — whollyrolling

What I'm claiming is:

- there are many proofs that a first cause exists
- there are some things we can deduce about the first cause

You could try to come up with some specific counter arguments.

The only proof of God I know that starts with God exists is French philosopher Jean Buridan's(c. 1300 – 1358):

- God exists.
- None of the sentences in this pair is true.

You have to assign true/false value to the above pair so that you don not get a contradiction.