And so with your creature. But the real problem with all of your posts - most of them, anyway - is that you fail to acknowledge your real problem, that of origins. Let's for the sake of argument suppose there really is a fourteen headed dragon who created the universe and all and everything in it, and that the dragon has any power you care to allow it. There's still the question of where it came from, & etc. — tim wood
Man and a cornstalk? Similar kind of intelligence. — Shamshir
Then you're saying God was the first species and it moderates the later species; since when did the child not have greater potential? This is improbable. It's likely there was the first event, and it came in multiples, or multiple species were born, perhaps of the forces which govern afterlife. — Schzophr
Omnipotence and omniscience aren't supernatural concepts. If x can create a universe then surely, even if only in a relative sense, x must be in possession of vast knowledge and power. — TheMadFool
Also, if mere humans can imagine utopia/heaven and work towards it despite severe constraints then how is it that God, able to create entire universes, can't do it? What limits God, makes him incapable of creating a paradise? — TheMadFool
If you believe God in the realistic sense, please throw away the bible and unname God so that we can define creator scientifically, or try. — Schzophr
I imagine there was the original species or species selection; this is the only realistic God I believe in. — Schzophr
Yes there may be systems like heaven and hell - it seems logical - but God is outweighed by science! — Schzophr
Would you agree with me that the average person in 2019 CE is living a better life than one in 2019 BCE? You would right? This is because humans have this vision of utopia/heaven if you will. It was, is, and will be a guide to all human planning. Its success is debatable but in very general terms it is being achieved — TheMadFool
A better design is possible. We can think of heaven can't we? Yoi'd have to prove that heaven is impossible. Can you do that? I'd like to know. Thanks. — TheMadFool
I suppose there's a lot of mystery in the world. So I try to be open-minded to different beliefs and receptive to criticism. I just find my interpretation of pantheism appealing for the reasons I've mentioned above. — Michael McMahon
I don't know how "independent" they are. Seem to be very closely related in geography and in time and in culture — Izat So
All I'm saying is that the idea of monotheistic God is an accident of a very brief period of recent human history, which itself is extremely brief in the context of geologic history, and although the idea of God is meaningful to some of us, it has no sense without us — Izat So
False. You are simply redefining the cosmological model I defined. Here's an article by a physicists that explains why the world must be fundamentally quantum mechanical: — Relativist
For sake of discussion, let's assume the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true. This means that each eigenstate of that superposition can actually change independently of each other. An eigenstate of high energy has low entropy and results in inflation (a "big bang"). But the overall quantum system is still at zero point energy (i.e. the quantum system remains at "equilibrium") because there is a complementary eigenstate of high negative energy that balances it out. — Relativist
There exists something that is permanent: the overall system of quantum fields at zero point energy, but a universe occurs WITHIN this state of "equilibrium" — Relativist
You can be skeptical of this cosmological model, but you have to acknowledge it is logically consistent. And if it is logically consistent, then it is false to claim it is logically impossible - as you have been doing. — Relativist
No. Please consider my description of SOA0: it exists uncaused (because SOMETHING must exist uncaused at the head of the causal chain), and time ensues BECAUSE SOA0 changes to SOA1. Time and change go hand in hand. — Relativist
Consider this an axiom of my model: Time is possible if and only if change is possible. — Relativist
1) SOAx is a point in time for all x >= 0 (my definition). OR
2) SOAx is a point in time for all x > 0 — Relativist
One can use God to explain why there's a universe, but this just shifts the question over to God. — Relativist
Your contention flies in the face of your Fine Tuning Argument. That FTA depends on the assumption the fundamental constants could have been different, and the observation of physicists that most alternative values would have made life (as we know it) impossible. Regardless of whether or not those constants could have differed, if there are other universes that are indeed caused by the same factors that cause ours - there's no reason to think they would be identical in every way, and that makes no sense. Consider that if they were strictly identical, WE would be duplicated and all these universes would be just so many mirrors of our universe. — Relativist
Your adding another ad hoc assumption: that there can be atemporal thoughts. What happened to Occam's Razor? I get that you may feel forced to assume this, to explain how God could atemporally plan - but it is a strike against the plausibility (and epistemic probability) that there exists a timeless, intelligent first cause. — Relativist
Do you accept the implication of your assumption? It implies God is not omniscient (if he knows everything, there's no need to figure things out), and he's not immutable (his knowledge changes in the course of drawing conclusions). — Relativist
Finally, if God can have atemporal thoughts - this entails an infinite regress. Since there's no temporal constraint to a sequence of thoughts, there's an infinite series of prior thoughts. — Relativist
There's no example of an intelligence existing independently of something physical. A plant is physical. — Relativist
How can there have been countless eons for God to evolve if time is finite to the past? — Relativist
SOA0 causes SOA1, so I wouldn't call it "beyond causality", I'd just call it uncaused. — Relativist
No it doesn't. Why should we expect nothing rather than something? Here's a paper that discusses this topic — Relativist
#2 entails an enormously more complex entity than #1, and thus it seems enormously less likely. — Relativist
I defined a "moment of time" as a state of affairs that evolves to a temporally subsequent state of affairs. This is consistent with an initial state, SOA0 existing at t0. It is not "something from nothing" because there is no prior state of nothingness; no prior moments. SOA0 didn't "pop into existence" because such a "popping" implies there is something existing to pop INTO. Look at it this way, let's assume time is contingent - it needn't have occurred. So there could have been a reality that consisted of an unchanging SOA0: no elapse of time. This seems to be the sort of thing you refer to as "equilbrium." Why couldn't this have been a logical possibility (though counter to what actually occurred)? — Relativist
Plants are not intelligent (by my definition), but they behave (grow) in ways that are consistent with intelligent behavior, but due entirely to physical, biological activity. Even if you label this "intelligence" of a sort, it is entirely a physical phenomenon. You depend on an intelligence just existing unphysically, and that's not justified. — Relativist
In my model, SOA0 is unique in being uncaused, just as in your model you have a unique, uncaused state (or entity) that exists uncaused. — Relativist
This is the pivotal point: both options are problematic. It seems one of them must be true, but there's no objective basis for picking one. You only point to the problems with the option you don't like, while ignoring the problem with your choice. Be open minded! If you want to pick #2 because it's the more optimistic choice, you are free to do so - but admit you're choosing it for that reason, not because it's logically entailed by an argument. — Relativist
So your issue is specifically the high energy/low entropy state at the big bang. i.e.: you're pointing to the need to explain the big bang. I've pointed out that Cosmologists have developed hypotheses that explain it. We should be able to agree that: 1) there is an explanation; 2) that explanation goes beyond accepted physics. — Relativist
Cosmologists haven't thrown in the towel - they have proposed extensions to accepted physics that provide an explanation. Your excuse for dismissing these is that it's not consistent with experience, but ALL explanations that are beyond existing science are beyond experience but you don't apply that consistently since your metaphysical assumptions are all beyond experience. — Relativist
False, as worded. Current KNOWN physics does not have an established answer. To proclaim "therefore it must be (or is probably) God is argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps) reasoning. — Relativist
If a first moment cannot exist uncaused then there must be an infinite series of past moments. We are both assuming the past is finite, so it logically follows there was an initial state. — Relativist
Depends on the unsupported assumption a timeless entity can cause something, so you just contradicted your claim that you don't depend on this assumption. — Relativist
Which depends on the assumption that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain. Why do you deny that you depend on this assumption? — Relativist
One can work out a model that is consistent with either of these. Option I entails an uncaused, initial state that has a property (I call it "unstable") that necessitates change (and change entails time). This is logically coherent and consistent. — Relativist
You can falsify Option I only by identifying an internal contradiction. You have not. — Relativist
That everyday experience is entropy. What's the problem? My model is consistent with it. I noted that the initial state was unstable, consequently it is moving toward stability. — Relativist
The macro world is composed of micro components (atoms, which are composed of quarks and electrons). The universe began as a micro entity: the Planck Epoch is the period during which diameter of the universe was less than a Planck unit: "macro"physics could not apply and quantum effects were clearly present and applied to the universe as a whole. Your argument concerns the origin of the universe; if you're going to deny accepted physics to make your case, you've lost the debate. — Relativist
Those axioms depend on unsupported assumptions, including:
-that it is possible to exist before the first moment of time (t0)
- that a timeless entity can cause something
- that "intelligence" can exist independent of something like a brain
-that something can exist that is not part of the natural world — Relativist
OK, but if you're going to claim A is more probable than B, you have to analyze both A and B. You didn't; you hastily dismissed the contrary possibilities solely on the basis that they are contrary to YOUR assumption. Stating that you subjectively "feel" the system reaches equilibrium is just another unsupported assertion. — Relativist
Repeating the same unsupported assertion that I've refuted doesn't make it possible. You have yet to even comment on the role of quantum uncertainty, which is an certainty if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. That the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical is a near certainty - so this is a sterp mountain you must climb if you're going to claim your position is more probable. — Relativist
Each metaphysical argument depends on convenient metaphysical assumptions that you cannot show are probable. If no argument for God makes God's existence probable, than it is at least equally probable naturalism is true. — Relativist
This is is good time to tell you my actual position. I label myself an "agnostic deist." I cannot rule out the possibility one or more of these arguments are sound, so I cannot rule out the possibility of some sort of creator. That said, I note that none of these arguments make a case of a God of religion or for the existence of an afterlife. — Relativist
You ignored my response: 1) moving toward higher entropy is irrelevant. This view of "equilibrium" is a future state, and consistent with my model. 2) "equilibrium" in a quantum system is a superposition of eigenstates whose values (e.g. energy) varies per quantum uncertainty) - this is the fact that makes virtually anything possible. The system as a whole is always in "equilibrium" but individual eigenstates evolve without violating the balance. — Relativist
You have to accept that my model is POSSIBLY true, unless you can prove it false. The relevance: you're claiming to "prove" God, an ld "prove" = necessarily true, not just possibly true. — Relativist
Each of these arguments is only possibly true. I could develop 100 arguments for naturalism being possibly true. — Relativist
"Equilibrium" entails zero net energy, but manifested as a superposition of eigenstates of different energies consistent with quantum uncertainty. I mentioned this before. — Relativist
It is logically impossible for something to come before t0. I've stated this numerous times, yet you continue to make unsupported assertions to the contrary. SOA0 exists uncaused, and you have the burden to show this impossible - which requires more than merely making unsupported assertions. — Relativist
Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case. — Relativist
Quantum fields exist at every point of spacetime. Nothing seems to exist that is not composed of quanta of quantum fields. Conceptually, it leaves nothing out - so it is reasonable to say that spacetime itself is the quantum fields. To claim "spacetime created the quantum fields" is absurd if spacetime IS the quantum fields. — Relativist
Stick to my model, the one you're supposed to be falsifying. Remember time is a causal relation between states, not some external dependency. The SOA at t0 necessitates the SOA at t1. t0 and t1 don't exist; they are just abstract markers we use to distinguish between the two SOAs, and to depict their relation. To say that time has elapsed is just to indicate change. — Relativist
The foundation of reality (e.g. the quantum fields) exist permanently. They exist by brute fact. They did not come into existence (which would entail a prior state at which they didn't exist) they exist at all times — Relativist
If history is any guide, it is likely that our current explanations about the universe & reality will - at a minimum - be proven partially wrong - i.e., only correct under certain conditions.
Or for all we know, all our current knowledge may be completely wrong. The entire observable universe could be a pimple on a much larger reality. — EricH
Is there any way for change to come about? Does change need to be created? — Terrapin Station
Rather, the first cause is the state of affairs that exists at t0 — Relativist
It depends on what motion we're focusing on. In the scenario you're describing, we usually focus on the watch faces and what they read. We're talking about our measurement of time relative to our concerns there. — Terrapin Station
What I wrote was "This is false when we consider them relative to other things, so that we're considering the motion. " — Terrapin Station
Just taking it one step at a time, it starts to go off track with that first premise, if it's saying that there can't be nothing and then suddenly something appears. If it's saying that, there's no good reason to believe that. — Terrapin Station
With the "empty space" only as our frame of reference, correct, time does not pass. If we're broadening the frame of reference to include other things, like the clock, then time would pass. — Terrapin Station
They're misled by the mathematical conventions they're using, where they're basically "worshipping" the mathematics per se, and they see the mathematics as ontologically primary. — Terrapin Station
Nope. B time is incoherent. — Terrapin Station
This is wrong. Time is identical to change/motion. — Terrapin Station
It's not possible to move timelessless, because motion is identical to time. — Terrapin Station
Re at any rate, so why would we need to posit something that can't move or change in order to say that then something moves/changes? — Terrapin Station
Any motion, any change would BE (identical to) time. You can't have motion/change without time, because motion/change is what time is. — Terrapin Station
It is logically impossible for there to be a moment of time prior to the first moment of time — Relativist
The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.[/quote]Unsupported assertion. I gave a scenario that is internally consistent. You have to show ot's impossible. You're just restating your own unproven assumptions.
[QuoteIf you exist 'always' in time then you have no coming into being; so you can't exist. — Relativist
At any rate, any motion, any change would be time, so you couldn't "start time" from outside of time. — Terrapin Station
How is something permanent in your sense of that term supposed to start time? Isn't that something it would have to do? — Terrapin Station
Unsupported assertion. Meet you burden to show a start of time requires B-theory. — Relativist
The first cause is, by definition, uncaused. You know, like God. — Relativist
I don't think that the idea of a fourth spatial dimension is coherent aside from it being a sort of "game" we can play with the way we've constructed mathematics. — Terrapin Station
But okay. So "permanence" isn't referring to a state in your usage. It's a name for a type of object? — Terrapin Station