To summarize, the harder problem is that human phenomenal concepts do not reveal whether our material makeup or the functional role our neurobiology plays is responsible for consciousness. As such, we have no philosophical justification for saying whether a functional isomorph made up of different material such as the android Data from Star Trek is conscious. Even more confusing, we have no way of telling whether a "mere" functional isomorph is conscious, where "mere" means functional in terms of human folk psychology only, and not in the actual neural functions. — Marchesk

IMO, the difficulty is due to the vagueness of the term "consciousness". Broadly speaking, we can consider Data, my cat, and myself to each possess a sort of functional capability that are analogous to one another - and we could label this functional capability as "consciousness." Or we could adopt a narrow view of consciousness that could only possibly apply to humans (and possibly not even all HUMANS!).

Conscious thoughts do not arise in isolation, they arise in a complex context. The context includes sensory perceptions (consider the processing of the visual cortex, which automagically produces a conscious "visual image" by processing reflected light), subconscious "knowledge" (consider reflex reactions that are triggered by past experience), preconscious hard-wiring (consider the physical aspects of sexual stimulation), and bodily functions (feelings of pain, hunger, etc). Also consider pattern recognition - perceiving sameness in a variety of objects, this depends on hard-wiring in the brain, unconscious learning, and conscious learning (think through the mental processes involved with reading and interpreting the words on your computer screen right now).

My cat and Data each comprise very different contexts, and therefore their respective "consciousnesses" (broadly defined) will necessarily be very different from my own. My cat's consciousness will be closer to mine in some ways (those relating to bodily functions, perhaps), while Data's consciousness will be closer to mine with regard to intellectual processing (rational thought). I see or smell desirable food, and my body reacts (my mouth waters, I suddenly become conscious of hunger) - and it appears to me that my cat has some pretty similar reactions. Data does not, because he's not wired that way. On the other hand, I see a reference to Pi (3.14159...) and this triggers my learned concept of circle - and I'll assume Data has a similar thought.

It's clear that neither my cat nor Data can be said to have a human consciousness - the contexts are too different. And yet they each have some functional similarities to human consciousness. On the other hand, I can't accept Block's Chinese brain as having anything analogous - the context is too different.

Your scenario seems possible as an ontology, but I don't see how scientific investigation of fundamental physics could uncover it.

So, what's the difference between the ToE and God? — TheMadFool

If it is ever acheived, a ToE will be a theory that describes the most fundamental structure of material reality and how higher levels of structure (e.g. the standard model of particle physics) emerge from that fundamental level.

The "God hypothesis" simply asserts that God is the most fundamental level, but provides no insight into how physical structures emerge at ANY level.

Premise 4: If a being exists, its explanation must exist.
If this were not true, science would be impossible. If things "just happened," the observations would not be underlying dynamics, and could neither confirm nor falsify hypotheses. Note that “explanation” has two senses: (1) the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is. (We may or may not know these.) This is the sense I am using. (2) Our attempt to articulate our understanding of (1). This is not the sense I am using here. — Dfpolis

I object to your claim that "explanation must exist". First, I'll note that this contradicts your definition of existence (" Existence adds a new note of comprehension: that the thing we are talking about can act in reality"): an "explanation" cannot act, and therefore explanations don't exist. Explanations "exist" (in a broadened sense of "exist") in minds, but only after theory has advanced to do so, and theory depends on the prior existence of minds that are capable of articulating it. The universe operated without existing explanations for quite a long time (and we obviously don't understand every aspect of material reality even now). I expect you're actually referring to the fact that mind-independent laws of nature exist, rather than semantic/mathematical descriptions of these laws. However, this can't suit your argument: laws of nature exist, but this provides no grounds for extrapolating beyond the universe (i.e. the totality of material reality) as you're trying to do. Everything within the universe is causally connected to everything else; it is these causal connections that constitute the laws of nature. But the existence of these intra-universe causal connections does not imply there is a causal connection to something external to the universe - there's no basis for assuming that to be the case.

.

That's a how answer masquerading as a why answer. — Unseen

It is presumptuous to assume there's a reason for consciousness BESIDES the how. Why think that? Are you looking for an excuse to believe it "had to be" a product of design?

I'm not going to insist it CAN'T be design, but you need to make a case for it and not merely ask a leading question.

Whenever we discuss the meaning of words, I do not think we are trying to figure out the objective meaning of those words. After all, words do not seem to have objective meaning. — TheHedoMinimalist

Words refer to concepts, most of which are fuzzy, but still have a core of agreed meaning. You noted the biological definition of life - and I see nothing wrong with that, and no reason to change it. Indeed "living" sets certain things apart (you said, "above" - but that's a subjective judgment, so it seems moot).

You're setting apart a different set of things, overlapping somewhat between the living and unliving. That's a fine analysis, albeit that it's also fuzzy. But I just see no need to redefine words to draw the distinction.

It seems simply biased and short-sighted to assume that only organisms should be associated with the process of life. — TheHedoMinimalist

It's not bias, per se, - it's trying to keep the fuzzy concept "life" from getting any fuzzier. You're right that it's conceivable that there could exist something akin to biological life that is vastly different from what we call "life", and that would challenge the fuzzy boundaries of the concept. If we cross that bridge, we can create new terminology based on whatever draws the least fuzzy boundaries.

Drilling down on the story a bit more the consensus is that Trump didn't have, and couldn't get, anywhere near the trillions of dollars that he had been talking about for infrastructure, that was the purported subject of the meeting. Journalists noted that, affixed to the Rose Garden podium, was a nicely printed No Collusion No Obstruction poster for when Trump stormed out of the meeting and started to kvetch. So the whole walk-out was staged as a smokescreen for the inability to deliver the infrastructure funding, which was itself a smokescreen. — Wayfarer

So, since there was no point in having a meeting, Trump decided to make a show of it. Sounds Trumpian.

And he’s been lying ever since. The Mueller Report showed he was lying, but as soon as it came out, what was the first thing he did? He lied about it. — Wayfarer

But he wasn't under oath, so that's OK....that seems to be the way Trumpists view it. Even if no crime is ever charged, and no impeachment ever proceeds, Mueller unequivocally shows what a liar Trump is, and that he's engendered a culture of duplicity throughout his administration.

it's not determinate anyways because the chain of causation which supports hard-determinism is broken in the quantum substratum of reality and all things come into being from the micro to the macrocosm...similarly, all causal chains act from the mirco to the macro too...so its a mute point. — TheGreatArcanum

It's not moot, because the fundamental components of the world are particles that do not behave as we'd expect from our experience in the macro world. The world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Your metaphysics doesn't predict this, and it's not even compatible with it. Therefore your metaphysics is moot.

if the universe must end by means of "heat death" and the law of entropy, it necessarily has an end, and if the universe is deterministic, that end was predetermined, so in saying that the universe will die eventually and that it is also deterministic, you are saying that it has a first cause; final causes are deterministic you know...determinism and intentionality are synonyms. — TheGreatArcanum

Determined does not equate to intended.

Although it may be reasonable to assume the past is finite, the future is potentially infinite - so even this heat death is not actually a "final" state. An analysis like this is rooted in obsolete classical physics rather than quantum physics, so what the infinite future may bring is impossible to know.

in order to make the world "real" and "concrete" the physicalist begins his philosophy with the absurd notion that objects are not contained within subjects. In understanding that all objects are contained within the mind, all the answers fall into place. — TheGreatArcanum

You're attacking a poorly constructed strawman. Physicalism does not entail objects being contained in the mind. [

to solve the unsolved questions about the nature of existence, one must first ascertain the essence of the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, that is, the set of all contingent things. to do this, one must relate ontology and set theory, or rather, the notion of precedence and set containment or non-containment — TheGreatArcanum

"Solve the unresolved questions..."? At best, solutions can be proposed - they cannot be verified. Proposing a mereology is reasonable metaphysics, but you're mistaken if you think you can determine metaphysical truth. Nothing more than coherence is attainable.

so physicalism cannot be true. In fact, it’s beyond absurd. — TheGreatArcanum

You"re going to need more than this:

1. If Physicalism then not(teleology)
2. Teleology
3. Therefore not(physicalism)

Physicalism needn't even be true. If the universe evolves deterministically (which seems likely)
there is no "final cause". You're left with accounting for mental activity this way. But mental activity can be accounted for in other ways, so you don't really have a case at all. All you can do is to propose your view as a metaphysical system that is possibly true. Is that all you're after? Anything more is futile.

Will has a final cause and therefore a first cause; when each person is born, their potential to die is contained within themselves as well; and also, one’s potential to live is contained within their potential to die; so life itself involves a first and final cause. — TheGreatArcanum

Two problems with this:
1) You are assuming there exist final causes, and then accounting for "will" with that paradigm. This does not establish it.
2) Physicalism is possibly true. If so, then the matter composing the body is just temporarily in the form of a body - so there is no "final" configuration of this matter.

if you are to say that our coming into being does not involve a first cause; you must say that our existence is a result of a set of material causes that extend backwards into indefinitely into time,
and that that set of causes end with our death and that an infinite number of material causes happened only so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity.

I haven't said that the universe's existence implies no first cause. If the past is finite, it implies there was an initial state. The past existence of an initial state does not entail intentionality. Your assertion, " so that one person could be a live for just a blink of the eye of eternity" assumes intentionality.

Are you just asserting that this Aristotelian 4-cause paradigm is coherent, or are you claiming there's a compelling case to believe its true? I believe it may be coherent, but it's far from compelling.

Have you never considered religions before? A lack of objective support is normal and expected. — Pattern-chaser

LOL! Indeed I have, and I agree completely.

Because it prima facie violates the law of non-contradiction. Justification of belief in the Trinity requires ad hoc metaphysical assumptions that lack objective support: Christians derived their metaphysics from their beliefs, rather than vice versa.

I somewhat agree that "final cause" connotes teleology, and teleology connotes intentionality. However, I see no reason to think there is any reason to believe there are final causes. The forms that exist in our universe are products of entropy: the evolution from low to high entropy is uneven, and this causes complexity to form. No form is actually in a final state. Is the heat death of the universe the end state (final cause)?

Intentionality is an aspect of consciousness. We indeed engage in intentional behavior, but the presence of this aspect of conscious creatures does not imply all physical activity in the universe is a product of intentionality.

I believe original sin was a Christian invention, a narrative to rationalize the execution of Jesus - making it a "sacrifice", just like sacrificing a lamb ("lamb of God").

The ostensible existence of a "trinity" is a good reason to doubt the truth of Christianity. I agree that the doctrine derived from the need to reconcile Jesus' divinity within the context of monotheism. (And although Judaism emerged from polytheism - probably Babylonian, by the 1st century, monotheistic Judaism became dominant).

That said, Christian's can rationalize it, avoiding logical contradiction. They do this by defining the 3 "persons" as being of one essence. One approach is to consider "person" as a rational faculty. Another is to treat it as hylemorphism (form/substance dichotomy: one divine substance with 3 forms).

So, while this doctrine is a good reason to doubt Christianity, the problems are not going to convince any Christian's they're wrong.

I'm simply calling attention to, and expressing my deep frustration with, the bipartisan decades-long legacy of bad decision making and bad policy that's resulted in a terribly inhumane and indecent situation. And if ALL you can see is "Trump separated families," I can only repeat that I find that kind of thinking ignorant (if you simply don't know anything about US immigration policy), disingenuous (if you do, but pretend not to for partisan purposes); and in any event, childish. Yes Trump's border policy sucks. But both parties are to blame for how the situation got to this point. So ignorance doesn't help here. Nor does it convince me that you are trying to make a serious point about immigration. — fishfry

My views are rooted in the failure to pass the Immigration Bill of 2013. It wasn't perfect, but it was a good start. It passed the Senate (14 of 46 Republicans voted for it, while all 54 Democrats did) (see this). The only reason it didn't become law was because the Tea-Party dominated House failed to pass it. This no-compromise, right-wing group are home to some of Trump's most ardent supporters (see this). What they mostly didn't like was that it granted "amnesty" to illegals. They spoke of deporting all 11 million of them. Trump the candidate even spoke of doing this.

So no, it's not just about family separations - but it IS about the intractable position of Trump and his ardent supporters - a position that is a giant step backward. Trump the candidate embraced their position from the beginning, even saying he wanted to deport all illegals. Trump stoked that Tea-Party fire with his rhetoric, rhetoric that was so extreme that Trump earned strong support from White Nationalists.

Trump's prime focus has been that wall. Had Trump been the sort of negotiator he claimed to be as a candidate, he could have gotten a lot of wall built. Dems were willing to fund the wall in 2018 in exchange for permanently taking care of the "dreamers." (See this). Trump only offered a temporary reprieve for them. He was playing to his Tea-Party+White Nationalist base.

There is no perfect solution to the Immigration issues, but positive steps could be taken if compromise were possible.

Biological determinism is dependent on what is known to biology, — Metaphysician Undercover

News to me, and sounds like an odd definition. Determinism, as typically used, is ontological or metaphysical. You're defining it epistemologically. Is this your personal definition, or is this a standard I've never heard of?

Be sure to contact Alexander Vilenken and let him know he's wasting his time.

Thanks for the discussion.

To be responsible for all the matter/energy of the Big Bang, the system must be huge; IE a classical system first and a quantum system second. — Devans99

False. You are simply redefining the cosmological model I defined.

Here's a paper in which Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin discusses the general program of Quantum Cosmology:
Quantum Cosmology and Eternal Inflation

Here's an article by astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, that explains why the world must be fundamentally quantum waves:

This Is Why Quantum Field Theory Is More Fundamental Than Quantum Mechanics

I could find many more references if you need them, but if you are simply going to naively dismiss these, there's no point in continuing the discussion.

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


So SOA0 is timeless and permanent? SOA0 must have permanent existence else it's something from nothing. Then the first change (SOA0->SOA1) causes time? — Devans99

It is false to claim "SOA0 must have permanent existence else its something from nothing." I've demonstrated it multiple times, but you just continue repeating this claim without proving it. I'll try to help you understand why this may be false by giving a hypothetical example of what the SOA0 might consist of, and how a big bang might occur:

SOA0 consists of the fundamental basis of reality (which never ceases to be the fundamental basis of reality), but in an initial state. For example: assume reality is fundamentally quantum fields (everything that exists is composed of some components of these quantum fields). These exist in an initial state - which is a quantum state, and therefore consists of a superposition of many eigenstates. A single eigenstate can be thought of a discrete (classical) state, but they all exist simultaneously.

This initial state is in "equilibrium" - where equilibrium is "zero point energy", which is the the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. Because a quantum state consists of a superposition of eigenstates, there are some eigenstates that are high energy - but these are offset in the quantum system by eigenstates that are of negative energy.

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.

This cosmological model meets your requirement that an initial state be at equilibrium, but it demonstrates how a universe can nevertheless emerge. 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". You can think of the overall system as analogous to a photon (which does not experience time despite the universe through which it travels experiencing time), while an individual eigenstate/universe experiences time. Since the overall system is not experiencing time, it is (in a sense) timeless and unchanging, and yet - an individual eigenstate experiences time and change. While this seems paradoxical, it is exactly what a photon experiences in a changing universe - so it is not actually a paradox. Time is relative.

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.

But that's just invoking magic, claiming unobservable causes. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's argument from ignorance to insist there are no causes just because we're ignorant of them.

This is not a good example of unobservable causes, because these causes are observable, to the person acting. They are not properly unobservable. And when they are properly observed these things are understood to influence actions (affect them) but not cause them. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're focusing too much on the unobservable. I also said they can just be unobserved. You were claiming determinism is falsified by observing a behavioral pattern to be broken. You're wrong, because we may simply be unaware of all the factors that collectively cause the behavior, some of which are less frequent.

I'm not claiming these possibilities prove determinism, just pointing out that determinism may still be true- therefore it's not falsified.

If a creature is observed to act in a certain way, due to habit, then we might make a rule concerning that activity. One might call this "biological determinism". But when the creature displays the capacity to break the habit, then the claim of "determinism" is falsified — Metaphysician Undercover

No it doesn't. The behavior may be due to a complex set of factors that are unobserved or unobservable. As an extreme example, consider a deterministic account of a human choice: it is determined by the prior beliefs (short and long term), desires, dispositions, transient urges ....

God may or may not be physical; to cause and evade the Big Bang would seem to need an extra-dimensional or non-material quality. We have no examples of the non-physical (excluding concepts) at all so we cannot speculate whether non-physical things can be intelligent. God is from beyond spacetime so may be physical in a different manner than we are used to. He may be physical but not made from the standard model particles. — Devans99

OK, I can accept the possibility of such an intelligence being metaphysically possible.

To create time requires a change so change must be possible without time. — Devans99

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.

Consider this an axiom of my model: Time is possible if and only if change is possible.

IMO, this is true even if there is a God. That's why I can't accept the notion of something existing BEFORE time that causes time. That is, unless you're simply defining temporal points differently. In particular, you could claim SOA0 is "before" time because it is not caused by prior states. So if SOA0 is the initial state (with or without God), we could define the temporal points in either of 2 ways:
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

Are you arguing for def 2? That's fine, but it's not really different because both still show a continuous causal chain. It's just a definitional thing as to whether or not SOA0 is defined as a point of time.

I will have a look at the paper, but from my perspective it is simple: nothing requires no explanation. That there is something seems to require explanation at first. Once it is realised that the 'something' in 'why is there something rather than nothing? — Devans99

The thesis of the paper is the simple observation that your perspective, which derives from Leibniz Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is based on the unsupported assumption: we ought to expect nothingness in the absence of a reason for "somethingness". Why not expect that there must exist SOMETHING? If nothingness should be expected, then why is there a God rather than nothingness? One can use God to explain why there's a universe, but this just shifts the question over to God.

Further more, as a point of fact: there is something. We therefore know that somethingness is possible, and we have no basis for considering nothingness impossible.

If a multiverse exists then I would contend that all universes in the multiverse will be life supporting (because they are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density. I'm aware there are theories to the contrary; I hold them in low regard; they seem to flaunt common sense). If all the universes are life supporting, then the chances are heavily in favour of a fine tuner being involved (else we'd need a billion to one shot to come off). — Devans99

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.

I agree that if all universes are life supporting, that would be a point in favor of God's existence. However, this is only a hypothetical and does not constitute actual evidence.

The plan for the universe must have taken a lot of thought - everything from how to get atoms, elements and compounds to form, through formation of stars and planets, nuclear fusion to provide an energy source for life, the expansion of the universe to avoid a gravitational collapse. I believe thinking would be possible without time (the other possibility is God creates time with his first act, has a think, then creates the universe) — Devans99

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.

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).

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.

Things do not 'exist' in their own right , they are functional focal experiences (or potential experiences) which have been labelled — fresco

That sounds like a confusion of ontology and epistemology. Things exist irrespective of whether anyone has experienced, and labelled, them. Things have their intrinsic properties irrespective of whether minds have identified those properties and irrespective of their subjective experiences of those things.

OK but that makes SOA0 in a state that sounds like what I call timelessness. Also, the need for SOA0 not to arise ex nihilo suggests that it has permanent existence. So from the above explanation, your SOA0 sounds like a dumb version of my timeless first cause. — Devans99

It is indeed something like a dumb version of your first cause.

Intelligence could come in many forms. Perhaps God starts out very dumb but through countless eons develops intelligence - a self-evolving being of some form. — Devans99

There's no example of an intelligence existing independently of something physical. A plant is physical.

How can there have been countless eons for God to evolve if time is finite to the past?

If SOA0 if uncaused then its beyond causality, IE what I'm calling timeless. — Devans99

SOA0 causes SOA1, so I wouldn't call it "beyond causality", I'd just call it uncaused.

If we make SOA0 timeless then the two models seem to be different only in whether there is intelligence present initially. I favour intelligence because:

- To cause the first effect without in itself being effected seems to require intelligence
- The fact that we are in the polar opposite of equilibrium seems to require intelligence
- The fine tuning for life appears to point to intelligence
- The creation of a dimension (time) seems unlikely to of happened naturally — Devans99

Recall that I showed that the fine-tuning argument doesn't increase the epistemic probability of God's existence. Everything else you said just seems to be (biased) unsupported assertion.

The fact that there is something rather than nothing is already extraordinary - the existence of anything at all defies logic (nothing existing would be much neater - nothing requires no explanation).

No it doesn't. Why should we expect nothing rather than something? Here's a paper that discusses this topic: link.

I admit that making the something intelligent makes it even more extraordinary but that appears to be the explanation that fits best with the facts.

Here's why I disagree. The 2 possibilities imply either:

1) A multiverse just happens to exist, and one of more universes within the multiverse happened to evolve life.
2) An intelligent mind just happened to exist whose mind included a plan to create a universe (or multiverse) that would necessarily evolve life. This plan was not the product of careful thought and deliberation, no thinking through consequences and selecting from among a set of choices. No, this plan had to exist timelessly in that mind because there was no time to formulate a plan, and so that it could be implemented as time commences. The plan had to be the best possible plan, which means that the mind timelessly knew all other possible plans were lesser.

#2 entails an enormously more complex entity than #1, and thus it seems enormously less likely.

I can't consider existence a property, because that would imply there are objects that don't happen to have the property "existence". But there are no existing objects that lack the property "existence" (that's self-contradictory).

So conceptually, there is a set of all ontic objects (E). Existence = being a member of E.

Of all the objects we can conceive, some belong to E and all the others are fictions.

There are also unconceived objects that belong to E. (knowledge of existence is not a prerequisite for belonging to the set. This is ontology, no epistemology)

There are no unconceived fictions. (i.e. fictions are things that have been or will be conceived).

Dinosaurs do not exist today; are they fictions? No. The set E is cross temporal. Anything that has ever existed and ever will exist belongs to E, but there are tensed facts about them.

The Big Bang was a singleton; natural events always come in pluralities. Even given finite time, if the Big Bang was natural, we should expect similar (maybe smaller) events to be occurring... but there is no evidence of this. So it is highly likely the Big Bang is non-natural (it looks it too). — Devans99

All cosmological theories that explain the big bang agree that there would be multiple big bangs. Is there evidence? Maybe, maybe not. Here's an example of possible evidence. Regardless, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In some Cosmological models, it is physically impossible for there to be direct evidence of another universe, but it is inferred that they exist (or existed) because (as you say) there should be "pluralities".

Even if things are beyond experience/science, they should still be subject to common sense/logic. These explanations that dismiss causality, equilibrium and probability are running counter to common sense/logic. I am happier with common sense rather than speculative physics. — Devans99

In no case is causality, equilibrium or probability being denied. Speculative physics is not in conflict with reason. If your "common sense" is in conflict with reasonable extrapolations of science, then the problem is yours.

Some of the cosmologists solutions are way of the mark. Eternal inflation; which posits a first cause, is the only main stream pre-Big Bang cosmology and it is God compatible. — Devans99

Not everyone agrees with you and I that the past is necessarily finite (our opinions are due to metaphysical analysis, at least mine is) - and that's because physics itself doesn't show that this is the case. Regardless, if we treat our finite-past as an assumption, we still have plenty of cosmological models that are consistent with it.

But we can use are common sense. That amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place should in gravitational equilibrium - one big black hole. The fact that it did not result in a black hole is quite remarkable. — Devans99

Think like a scientist: it just means that an explanation is called for. That's what the cosmological hypotheses DO. You're dismissing them too hastily.

All naturalistic solutions result in equilibrium... so there must be a non-natural solution... that ties in very nicely with the non-natural circumstances of the Big Bang.

What needs explaining is the conditions in the early universe, and you dismiss all proposed naturalistic solutions and conclude there can't be one. Classic argument from ignorance (God of the Gaps).

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


A moment cannot exist without something prior to it that determines it. That could be another moment or it could be the start of time. I don't see how in your model you can have this free standing t0 moment that was not caused by anything. That would be a magic moment, a something from nothing. Contrast that to the timeless model; then the cause of t0 has always existed - no magic required. — Devans99

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)?

Magic? I admitted that SOA0 at t0 exists by brute fact (exists for no reason). There's no reason for it because there's no cause. This really isn't much different from God - there's no reason for his existence; he wasn't caused. So do we treat anything that exists without explanation as "magic", including God?

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

It's not an assumption; it's a logical necessity. — Devans99

If it's a logical necessity, you should be able to prove it. Do so, without making controversial assumptions.

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


Plants demonstrate intelligence and they have no brain. AI will be completely different from us yet have intelligence. Intelligence could come in a variety of different forms. Intelligence is required to keep us out of equilibrium. — Devans99

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.

There is a choice between:

1. An uncaused initial state
2. A timeless state that causes t0

I see 1 as logically unacceptable; nothing in time/causality can be uncaused; that would imply it existed for ever and things can't exist forever in time. Whereas 2 makes sense for multiple reasons. — Devans99

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.

You assert there's a logical problem with 1, but the only actual contradiction is:
(SOA0 is uncaused) AND (everything has a cause)

The second clause (everything has a cause) is clearly an assumption - a common sense assumption, I admit. But it's equally common sensical to point out that timeless things don't cause anything. The only things in experience that exist timelessly are things like mathematical or logical theorems, or universals (like "4") and these timeless things are abstractions, and certainly causally inert.

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.

I should be able to define life of human in three parts(of body, of soul, of spirit). I am trying. — Vipin

I see, you are defining it from the perspective of a theist. Personally, I don't believe there exists a soul or spirit.

I don't see how something can evolve towards stability and cause the big bang at the same time - thats surely a contradiction. — Devans99

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.

I've charged you with argument from ignorance (god of the gaps) reasoning: we don't know the cause, therefore it must be (or is probably) God. That is fallacious. 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.

That is our understanding; but physics cannot see before the Planck Epoch. For the massive amount of matter/energy concentrated in one place, there must be some sort of macro explanation. — Devans99

You seem to be claiming the micro world is explained by the macro world, which is the opposite of the case. The building blocks of the macro world are micro - the particles described in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. At the lowest level of known mereology, the objects of existence are quantum mechanical: quarks do not behave like little billiard balls, they do not have both a precise location and momentum. Quantum systems are 100% describable through the quantum mechanical Scroedinger equation. During the Planck Epoch, it is physically impossible for there to have been macro factors that somehow affect it - UNLESS, of course, you simply assume God did it - and this would make your argument circular (assume God in order to prove God).

Something must have caused that concentration of matter/energy and physics cannot tell us what.

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.

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


The arguments I gave to not depend on unsupported assumptions. — Devans99

OK, then falsify my model without using the unsupported assumptions I listed.

- You are assuming that it possible for the first moment to exist uncaused which makes no sense. — Devans99

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.

- Logic demands a timeless entity to start cause and effect off. Its the only way causality could exist

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.

- Logic demands a permanent intelligent entity to keep us from equilibrium.

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?

It's very simple. There are two overarching possibilities:
I. Naturalism is true (i.e. what occurs is a product of blind nature, following natural laws)
II. Naturalism is false (something exists that does not blindly follow natural law)

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.

Option II is your model. It may be logically coherent and consistent (I see some problems with it, but I'm setting that aside for now).

Your mistake is to judge Option 1 based on assumptions or implications of Option II. You can falsify Option I only by identifying an internal contradiction. You have not.

My first question is do you believe that the illusion of free will was a necessary evil for the advancement and survival of the human race? — jamesfive

The results of evolution are not the product of necessity, but regardless, free will is not an illusion- it just isn't what you think it is. Free will means that we can make choices, do what we want. We do what we are disposed to do, and these dispositions include beliefs, desires, bodily urges, and short term impulses. All of these are consistent with determinism.

Amoeba have life, but I see no reason to think they have a free will.

Are you actually seeking the definition of an individual human life (a person)?

Our everyday experience and knowledge of science tells us that systems tend to equilibrium naturally. I did not feel it was necessary to justify something so fundamental. — Devans99

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.

everything is in equilibrium except where life is involved. — Devans99

No, everything is not in equilibrium. It is slowly evolving toward it (heterogeneously).

I believe the uncertainty principle only applies to the micro world. I don't see it applies to the macro world. I — Devans99

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.

The 5 arguments I gave only use these axioms: causality, conservation of energy and systems tend to equilibrium naturally — Devans99

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

Each of of these assumptions is "beyond everyday experience", so it seems you only use that criterion to dismiss alternatives other than your preferred.


I'll defer commenting on your argument for an afterlife for now.

At least we know Kavanaugh will be in favour of abortion in case of rape because presumably a rapist like him doesn't want illegitimate children to walk around as proof. — Benkei

Not at all. Striking down Roe v Wade does not outlaw abortion, it just permits individual states to do so. Trump and Kavanaugh can fly their Alabama girlfriends to New York to destroy the evidence of their indiscretions.

This is just vindictive. No abortion even in case of invest and rape. — Benkei

This was passed for one reason: to make its way to the Supreme Court, to give them an opportunity to strike down Roe v Wade.

Pat Robertson thinks this is not the best approach, because it goes SO far, it's easy to strike down without having to wrestle with the nuances. Even so, if it's struck down - it will show the current SCOTUS supports SOME abortion rights. We'll see.

I suggest D.M. Armstrong's Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics.

Armstrong was an influential materialist philosopher who developed a comprehensive materialist metaphysics, that included treatment of universals, numbers, laws of nature, and theory of mind. This book is an introduction to his metaphysics. It's only a little over 100 pages. A great place to start. I think he writes well, but you can see for yourself by clicking the preview at Amazon.com.

Virtually anything is possible but you have to ask whats probable. Would the system reach equilibrium before generating a Big Bang. I feel that is highly probable — Devans99

OK, but if you're going to claim A is more probable than B, you have to analyze both A and B - seriously entertain both possibilities. 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.

Its a classical system as well and classical systems evolve towards equilibrium - thermal/gravitational/mechanical. Any naturalist solution will evolve towards classical equilibrium unless there is a self-driven agent to keep it out of equilibrium. — Devans99

Repeating the same unsupported assertion that I've refuted doesn't make it probable.

You have yet to even comment on the role of quantum uncertainty. Uncertainty certainly plays a role if the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical. That the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical is a near certainty (in that it is accepted physics that the building blocks of matter are quanta that behave according to QM)- so you can't avoid this if you're going to claim your position is more probable.

There are strong metaphysical arguments for God; I gave 5. There are no strong arguments against God that I'm aware of. — Devans99

There are strong metaphysical arguments for God; I gave 5. There are no strong arguments against God that I'm aware of. — Devans99

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.

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.

Equilibrium is the state that all isolated system head towards. Most likely it is gravitational equilibrium with all matter/energy in one big black hole. You have to demonstrate how your solution avoids equilibrium - it would have to behave in quite an unnatural manner. — Devans99

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.

Then t0 must be timeless. — Devans99

You're just repeating your unsupported assertion, which I've previously called out. Give up. You have not falsified my model.

I do not see why I should by your model when all the metaphysical arguments point to an timeless intelligent first cause: — Devans99

You have to accept that my model is POSSIBLY true, unless you can prove it false. The relevance: you're claiming to "prove" God, and "prove" = necessarily true, not just possibly true.

That is 5 good logical arguments for a first cause. That is more than enough for me. — Devans99

Each of these arguments is only possibly true. I could develop 100 arguments for naturalism being possibly true.

Arguments for God do nothing more than rationalize one's prior belief: they show God's existence is consistent with what we confidently know about the world. But that's quite different from proving God's existence from agreed, neutral premises (from the perspective of a hypothetical open minded agnostic).