In that case, you must believe that this entire conversation--along with everything else that ever has happened and ever will happen--could not have played out any differently. In fact, you believe that it has happened infinitely many times in the past, and will happen again infinitely many times in the future, as the universe continues its endless (and meaningless) cycles. We are all mere cogs in a vast machine. Nothing that we observe demands an explanation; everything is just a brute fact.No random variation in my view. No stochastic processes. Its all cause and effect. — Devans99
I see no reason why this should be problematic for the One who created the soul and the body (and put them together) in the first place, especially if we understand Him to be omniscient and omnipotent. Immense complexity does not entail logical impossibility.How exactly do you implement transmigration of the soul? — Devans99
In fact, you believe that it has happened infinitely many times in the past, and will happen again infinitely many times in the future — aletheist
I see no reason why this should be problematic for the One who created the soul and the body — aletheist
What would qualify as "empirical evidence" that the universe is cyclical, repeating the exact same sequence of events over and over? Why would we expect to find any such evidence at all?Science needs to provide more empirical evidence. — Devans99
Because science is causally determined not to take it seriously. In any case, a cyclical and causally determinate universe does not call for an explanation of anything, scientific or otherwise; everything is a brute fact.Why then does science not take it seriously? — Devans99
Then why worry about finding a place for God in the picture?I am a materialist. I see no evidence of the non-material whatsoever. — Devans99
What would qualify as "empirical evidence" that the universe is cyclical, repeating the exact same sequence of events over and over? Why would we expect to find any such evidence at all? — aletheist
Then why worry about finding a place for God in the picture? — aletheist
Design implies intention and choice from among multiple viable options, but causal determinism rules both of those out. Somehow excluding God from causal determinism would be just as "inconsistent" (according to your own assessment) as excluding an unmoved mover from being an effect. In other words, your updated axiom that all events are caused by other events entails that there is no God.So we need a God to explain the evidence of design away. — Devans99
There are a finite number of total events on a circle of time: say a circle with 4 events A,B,C,D. Event A you could say 'occurs again', but it's the same event A as before. In the 4D spacetime view, events don't really occur, they just exist perpetually in spacetime at a particular co-ordinate. — Devans99
Is singularity any more a proven scientific theory than God ?? — Rank Amateur
Prior to the big bang, the common argument against the CA was " who created the creator" or said another way, an infinite regression. Post big bang this argument became outside scientific consensus. — Rank Amateur
A finite universe supports CA - happy to agree is does not support CA to the exclusion of all other arguments - but it most clearly supports CA. — Rank Amateur
Repeating your as yet unsupported assertion in stronger language does not really achieve anything. Go ahead and back it up, otherwise it can just be dismissed. — S
Lolwut? God doesn't really have a place in this discussion. There is more of scientific basis in support of an initial singularity than God. There is zero scientific basis for God. — S
Then that's an infinite regress. It regresses from an event to a prior event infinitely. — S
No because these are the same points. A circle only has one set of points. Try not to think of time as flowing... think of it as like a spacial dimension. So in a 4d spacetime view our universe forms a torus shape with time being the loop shape. Nothing flows, everything is completely still in the 4d spacetime view of the universe. Just one set of events. — Devans99
But I don't understand. — S
Everything is completely still? That's perhaps stumped me the most in what you just typed. — S
An infinite regress that looks like a circle and in which the points reoccur is still an infinite regress. — S
A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99
"I think cause and effect only applying to things in time makes sense.
— Devans99
In that case, your previous objections to the unmoved mover dissolve, since it is outside of time and therefore not subject to cause and effect. — aletheist
What we can draw on paper is a representation of a circle, and we can mark as many points on it as we like--up to any finite number. However, a real circle--note, not an actual circle, since there is no such thing--does not consist of any number of discrete points, finite or infinite; it is a continuous curve, infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller arcs.Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99
There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all.just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points. — Rank Amateur
Any classical theist who embraces unmoved mover arguments would "locate" God outside of time, since time would be an aspect of the universe that He created.As I recall the church was somewhat split on the issue of whether God was inside or outside of time. — Devans99
What we can draw on paper is a representation of a circle, and we can mark as many points on it as we like--up to any finite number. However, a real circle--note, not an actual circle, since there is no such thing--does not consist of any number of discrete points, finite or infinite; it is a continuous curve, infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller arcs — aletheist
There are potential points beyond all multitude between any two actual points that we mark, but a truly continuous circle or line does not consist of points at all. — aletheist
just for some mathematical clarity - between any two points- whether it is on a circle or a line are an infinite number of points. — Rank Amateur
A circle is not an infinite regress. Draw a circle. There are a finite number of points on the paper as a result. There is nothing infinite about it. — Devans99
If the last event is before the first event, the Big Crunch before the Big Bang it all adds up nicely. — Devans99
I would dispute that. I mathematical point is defined to have length=0. How many points in an interval length 1? 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED. — Devans99
And it would regress in that way infinitely. — S
a point is a specific place in space, it has no size — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.