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).

Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case.
— Relativist

All isolated systems head towards equilibrium; that is about as fundamental principle as we have discovered in science and your proposed model is flaunting it. An active agent is required to keep the system out of equilibrium. — Devans99

Are you referring to entropy? How is that a problem? Are you overlooking that the total energy of the universe and/or multiverse is zero? Overlooking Quantum uncertainty?

Gravity dominates the 4 forces and is attractive; I see no mechanism in your model that would cause the expansion of space that is keeping us out of equilibrium. — Devans99

"Equilibrium" entails zero net energy, but manifested as a superposition of eigenstates of different energies consistent with quantum uncertainty. I mentioned this before. Why are yoy ignoring this? Do you need me to explain what this means?

But spacetime is not everything; beyond the boundaries of the universe where there is no time; there maybe are no quantum fields; there is no time for anything to fluctuate so there can be no fields. — Devans99

"Maybe" there are no quantum fields? So "maybe" I'm wrong? Your burden is to show that I'm necessarily wrong. I never claimed to prove some particular model (I don't even insist quantum fields are actually the fundamental basis; I just say that there IS some fundamental, natural basis). You're the one claiming to prove God exists; I haven't disputed the POSSIBILITY of an unnatural creator.

Quantum fields are irrelevant anyway; there are 10^51 kgs of matter in the universe - the origin of the universe is a macro question. Our best theory is the Big Bang and it is a macro level theory. Macro problems need macro answers; some poxy quantum fluctuation could not shift 10^51 kgs of matter and it certainly could not cause space to expand. — Devans99

This is wrong in so many ways! To name a few: 1. matter (including its mass) and energy are interchangeable. 2. I've referred to cosmological models that explain the big bang: 3. I do not have a burden to show any particular model is true - you have the burden to show that all proposed models are false, and that no natural answer is even possible. Otherwise you are engaging in argument frim ignorance (god of the gaps).

There must be something permanent about the universe and your SOA at t0 is not permanent - it is a fleeting moment - — Devans99

The "something" that is permanent is the lowest level foundation of reality (which may be quantum fields), and the fact that reality comprises a closed, pure state quantum system. That is sufficient. These facts do not change.

what came before it? There must be something causally before it because it is not a permanent feature of the universe.

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.

Hume's beliefs about causation are antiquated. He didn't consider that there might actually exist natural law. Modern physicalist philosophers (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, and Sosa) are "law-realists". They suggest it is reasonable to believe there actually are inviolable laws of nature.

The existence of natural law does not imply uncaused, contingent things can't exist. Adolf Grünbaum makes the case here.

In short, in my opinion in Trump we have not just a very bad man and a very bad president, but also an enemy. Or a conduit for enemy input. If anyone can think of anything that makes more sense, please post it — tim wood

IMO, Trump is the apotheosis of narcissism. He wants to "win", and will cheat to do so. This alone doesn't imply he will harm the U.S. The bigger danger is that he's uninformed, lazy, and always things his uninformed opinions are right.

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

I think your model leads to equilibrium. — Devans99

Stating "I think your model leads to equilibrium" is worthless unless you can make a case for that necessarily being the case.

also cannot see how a field would be responsible for time and the Big Bang. There is an assumption that quantum fields could exist without spacetime; that may not apply; creation of spacetime may have created the quantum fields -

Every cosmological hypothesis I've encountered assume reality is fundamentally a quantum system. Specifics aren't relevant except to demonstrate with an example. The key issue is that there is something that is fundamental, of which everything is made. Quantum field theory is incomplete, but to a large degree it provides exactly that basis. 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.

all quantum fields we know about require time.

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.

That is logically impossible. t0 cannot exist unless there is something causally before it to define it. That has to be the start of time. — Devans99

You are still making the unsupported assertion that everything that exists has a cause of its existence. That is an assumption that cannot be shown to be necessarily true.

There is also a requirement that something must exist permanently — Devans99

My account allows for something existing permanently: it just means there is a physical foundation of reality. For example, the quantum fields of which all matter/energy are components of. These exist at all times. Everything that exists is composed of portions of the quantum fields (atoms are made of quarks and electrons; quarks are disturbances in the quark field, electrons are disturbances in the electromagnetic field).

A. Can’t get something from nothing
B. So something must have existed ‘always’. — Devans99

Something exists at all times in my account; it just changes state.

D. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality). — Devans99

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.

Your argument therefore fails.

It's not a moment of time prior to the first moment of time; it is something timeless that is causally before the first moment of time. — Devans99

You are supposed to be finding a logical flaw in my account, but you are again just reasserting your own assumptions.

You seem to accept that there is no time prior to the first moment of time. In my account, there is no causally efficacious timeless entity. Rather, the first cause is the state of affairs that exists at t0. You have to show this is logically impossible, and not just by making unsupported assumptions that conflict with it.

Time cannot start itself. — Devans99

That statement bears no relationship to my account. The initial state of affairs (SOA0) causes the next (SOA1). The relation between SOA0 and SOA1 is a temporal relation. That's what time is in my account: a relation between states of affairs; specifically: the states of affairs that constitute the present state of reality.

I'm afraid 'brute fact' does not qualify as an explanation

It "qualifies" as a logically coherent account. Your personal opinion about what is "qualified" beyond that do not serve to falsify my account.

I think a timeless first cause that starts time is a more enlightening explanation. — Devans99

Of course you do: you are rationalizing your belief. You are NOT showing that you have an objective case for your belief. To do that, you would have to identify logical inconsistency in my account. Failing to do so means you must acknowledge that your argument fails: it depends on debatable premises that can rationally be rejected

Something permanent has to preexist time to cause time. — Devans99

It is logically impossible for there to be a moment of time prior to the first moment of time.

. The only way to exist permanently and uncaused is outside of time. — Devans99

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. [/quote]
The state of affairs at t0 did not "come into being". It exists by brute fact.

The A theory of time is impossible with a start of time: if only now exists and that is taken away, then there is nothing left at all to create time. A start of time requires the B theory: something must timelessly preexist time to create it. — Devans99

Unsupported assertion. Meet you burden to show a start of time requires B-theory.

Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next.
— Relativist

What causes the initial moment? It has to be the start of time. It has to be something in the world causing something else in the real world, so time seems real. — Devans99

The first cause is, by definition, uncaused. You know, like God.

Devans99 - To keep the posts from becoming too long and unwieldy, l'm going to focus on one key issue. I want to be sure we understand what each other is saying on this matter before we get into the other issues.

Time can't just start on its own. It can't emerge from anything unless there is something pre-existing it causally. Time cannot start without something causally before it. — Devans99

What do you think time is? What does it mean to you to say that "time starts"?

IMO, Time isn't a thing. Time refers to the temporal ordering of events/ moments/ states of affairs. In my opinion, the A-theory of time is correct: only the present has actual existence, and the present has been reached in a sequential series of past moments. These moments are causally connected, and they move in one direction: to the future. This means the current present moment was caused by the most recent prior moment, and the present moment causes the next. What exists at a point in time (a moment) is the state of affairs of material reality at that moment.

With this description in mind, there's no logical problem with the assumption that there is a first point of time (I'll call it t0). This simply means there was an initial state of affairs that was "the present moment", and like every subsequent moment - it caused the next. You suggest this is impossible. Why? Every present moment causes the next, so it's reasonable to expect the initial moment would cause the next. Indeed the initial state of affairs (at t0) was not caused by a prior moment. That makes the initial state of affairs the "first cause".

You don't have to believe it, but if you want to claim to prove God existence, it is your burden to find a logical flaw in my account. If there's no logical flaw, you will have to concede that my account is possible.

It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation. — Relativist

Something logically must exist before time - I proved that using Aquinas's 2nd way and you have past it by without comment. — Devans99

On the contrary, I refuted it. You had said:
Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being supports this view:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (always leads to an infinite regress; but they have no start so cannot not be), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

and I responded:

"Always existed" just means there is no point in time at which it didn't exist.

To be clear: if time is past finite (as we both assume), something "always exists" if there is never a time when it did NOT exist. (I agree that something cannot come from "nothing." Nothing is not a state of existence; it cannot have been a prior state, because it doesn't even constitute a state).

So I'll reiterate: It's impossible to exist "before" time: "before" is a temporal relation.

It would be logically coherent to claim God exists at the first instant of time, but that is not BEFORE time. Let me be clear on what I am regarding as an "instant of time: it is a state of affairs that directly evolves (causes) a temporally subsequent state of affairs. Analogy: consider material reality like an endless reel of a movie, with the initial point in time being the first frame on the film. Actions occurs in the temporal flow from frame 1 to frame 2 (and so on). The analogy breaks down when considering causation, because each instant causes the next, whereas on a film it's just an illusion that the actions of one frame cause the next, but it does illustrate the temporal connection from one frame to the next. There is no prior temporal connection to frame 1. If God caused anything, he has to be in frame 1 (or at least extend into frame 1); if there were a prior frame, THAT would be frame 1.

Alternatively: an infinite regress of time is impossible, so there is no other solution - a timeless first cause is the only possibility. — Devans99

I accept your premise that the the past is probably finite, but I already refuted your conclusion:
1) I showed your assertion "a timeless first cause is the only possibility" is false: an initial state is a possibility.
2) a timeless "first cause" is not even a possibility: causation is temporal and change requires time. i.e. God must be in (or extend into) Frame 1.

Further, there are good reasons for rejecting the possibility that a a timeless entity can act:the only timeless entities of which we're aware are abstractions (like the law of non-contradiction: it doesn't begin to exist; it's existence transcends time).

There cannot be another time dimension - that leads to an infinite regress of times nested one within the other. — Devans99

Agreed. That was my point.

The only way to avoid an infinite regress is a timeless first cause.

See my above refutation.

"Somehow" is not an explanation. "Somehow" the big bang occurred, and "somehow" the early universe was in a state of low entropy. "Somehow" the universe is expanding. Neither of us can explain it, but concluding this gap in knowledge implies "therefore Goddidit" is a fallacious argument from ignorance. — Relativist


For example, eternal inflation posits a first cause of some negative gravity particles in a high energy environment that result in a chain reaction of eternal inflation, giving birth to a multiverse. This cannot have happened by accident. — Devans99

Wrong. Inflation entails a prior existing state of affairs that temporally (and causally) preceded it. This does not imply that prior state was "first". It may, or may not be. We agree the past is probably finite, but the mere fact that it is finite does not tell us the nature of the initial state. We also don't really know the nature of time, so all we can do is speculate. Sean Carroll's hypothesis that time emerges from a ground state is as reasonable and coherent as any other. It may or may not be true, but it's false to claim that it (and by extension, all natural possibilities) can't be true. Find a logical problem with it, or admit it's a possibility.

I am open-minded enough to acknowledge that the creation by a deity is possible; the existence of natural possibilities does not rule this out. You should try to be equally open-minded and recognize that natural possibilities cannot be ruled out. If you insist they should be ruled out, you have the burden to show them to be logically impossible (based on agreed assumptions, not merely on convenient controversial assumptions).

This is just the sort of thing a benevolent God would do; create a multiverse from nothing. If God was able, he would not be able to resist it. — Devans99

Are you making a positive case, or just showing that reality is consistent with the possibility of a God?
Reality is also consistent with an absence of any sort of intelligence behind it and it's consistent with an intelligence that desires to experience a complex world but is indifferent to its contents.

When precisely? At the end of the Planck epoch? At the beginning of it? If there is a God, he could have created the universe 10 minutes ago, inserting false memories in each of us, and starlight in flight. — Relativist

I don't believe in magic. God engineered the Big Bang through conventional means. — Devans99

You're missing the point: you have pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge as reason to assume it's due to something unnatural. You have the same burden as a naturalist at explaining exactly where nature leaves off and the unnatural (e.g. God) begins. That was why I asked you to identify specifically where his fingerprint is. I realize that as a theist, you believe God is behind it all, and I don't have a problem with claiming this theistic view is consistent with reality. I just have a problem with an assertion that God's existence is entailed by what we know.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, as many cosmologist think, then it IS in equilibrium. If it isn't, it may be that the total energy of the multiverse is zero. — Relativist

The universe should be gravitational or thermodynamic equilibrium. That it is not is due to an active agent (God). The Big Bang is the complete opposite of equilibrium. It is that unnatural expansion of space that is keeping us from equilibrium. — Devans99

I agree that the Big Bang is suggestive of something prior, and a lot of theoretical physicists are investigating possibilities. I gave you Sean Carroll's hypotheses: it covers these issues. There are others (e.g. Vilenkin, Krauss, Hawking,...). Perhaps each is wrong, but even this doesn't imply there's not a natural basis. I've refuted all the claims you've made that support your claims, and you can't show my general observations to be impossible, in particular: a finite past that begins with an initial state of a quantum system. That initial state exists by brute fact, and as a quantum system - it is necessarily the case that there is quantum "uncertainty," which accounts for the emergence of one or more universes.

What is your fucking problem?

I have never expressed dissatisfaction with people who use other terminology — Frank Apisa

Then why bring it up at all? As to what my problem is: I don't like getting trolled. To avoid a discussion on the semantics of "troll", read this: Internet Troll. FYI, I've been called on this myself, in other forums. Accept that it is a perception even if it was not your intent.

You post a lot of things I agree with, so I don't want to get on bad terms with you. Let's just move on. I'm not going to respond to you again in this thread, nor to future comments you make about semantics unless that is the topic of the thread.

I never said or intimated that a "belief" has to be certainty.

In fact, I said that in some cases, it is nothing more than blind guessing being disguised.

We can discuss it if you like...but I do not want my position to be distorted. — Frank Apisa

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Sorry if I misinterpreted, but bear in mind that the only response you gave to my original post was a tangential comment about my terminology, and your repeat of your position that the word "guess" should be used. That was actually off-topic, and pointless since we've been through this before. If you want to understand my point within my own terminology then ask. If you want to make a case for using your terminology, start a new thread. Otherwise, please stop interjecting your dissatisfaction that everyone doesn't use your preferred terminology.

Some people guess mindreading is possible; some guess it is not possible.

Both are guessing.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

As previously discussed. I use the terminology different than you. Note how I worded my belief: "mindreading is probably physically impossible".

My beliefs are not certainties, but they are justified- based on other beliefs. Happy to discuss, if you're willing to discuss in my terms or you can provide a lexicon for yours.

Gotta wonder why they don't just call it guessing...rather than calling it a "belief." — Frank Apisa

Pick up a good book on epistemology, and see if there's something that can't be covered using the common words. Or just ask what I mean in a given instance.

The issue is that our evaluations are colored by our background beliefs. Established beliefs are not easily overturned. This is largely because our beliefs tend ti be interrelated. It is not just that I hold the belief "mindreading is probably physically impossible", as an isolated proposition. Rather, in mycase, my belief in that proposition relates to my beliefs about the nature of minds. For example, memories seem to be patterns in the neural networks of the brain. Even if the potentials of neurons in another's brain could be measured, these would not carry meaning.

Others may believe mindreading is impossible because 1. they can't do it. & 2. it has never been confirmed that anyone can do it. & 3. When it has been investigated, it has been shown to be a trick.
Therefore a single instance of a person with this alleged power is insufficient to negate the prior belief. However, I would suggest that if the alleged mindreader were to read my mind, that would be entirely different. That could be convincing.

I don't know if this was your intent, but this is similar to discussions I've had with Christians about miracles. I believe it highly unlikely that miracles (violations of the laws of nature) occur. No allegged miracle has been objectively confirmed, and many have been shown to be false, and many believers have been shown to have been duped. On the other hand, if I were to personally experience an unequivocal miracle, I could change my mind.