I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them. — Frank Apisa

Thank you Frank and I like you too! Appreciate you listening and engaging with my 'ideas'.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others." — Frank Apisa

It's important we keep the discussions going. We will not reach the truth if we do not. It can get a bit heated at times but that seems to me to be healthy.

I do believe the truth is possible to reach even for questions like 'is there a God'. I think you on the other hand have less faith in human ingenuity?

Devans99
1.3k

I like Devans...I read every one of his "ideas"...and I comment on them. — Frank Apisa


Thank you Frank and I like you too! Appreciate you listening and engaging with my 'ideas'.

I'm NOT trying to shut discussion down...I am merely pointing out the futility of thinking "my take is the logical take...to the exclusion of the take of others." — Frank Apisa


It's important we keep the discussions going. We will not reach the truth if we do not. It can get a bit heated at times but that seems to me to be healthy. — Devans99

No problemo!

I do believe the truth is possible to reach even for questions like 'is there a God'. — Devans

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods.

And since we do not know for certain there are gods yet...my blind guess would be that we will never know that either.

But I appreciate you sharing your guess.

I think you on the other hand have less faith in human ingenuity?

I think I am more realistic than people who suppose what you suppose.

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please. — Devans99

If a model of infinite reality consists of infinitely larger- and smaller-scale "universes" all subject to time and space in proportion to their position on the infinite scale. What seems like an eternity in this universe is just a brief moment in another, and so on.

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods. — Frank Apisa

I think you can disprove the existence of THE GOD by showing the universe was not created. Or by showing it was not fine-tuned for life. That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those.

by showing it was not fine-tuned for life — Devans99

Considering the number of extinctions we're aware of, including our own, I'd say it's not fine-tuned for life.

That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those. — Devans99

Just keep on moving the imaginary goal posts.

If a model of infinite reality consists of infinitely larger- and smaller-scale "universes" all subject to time and space in proportion to their position on the infinite scale. What seems like an eternity in this universe is just a brief moment in another, and so on. — whollyrolling

Interesting. I would have thought there would be a 'top level' / base reality time and a top level first cause who is responsible for everything.

Or do you see realities extending to infinity both up and down? If that is the case, there is nothing to anchor reality - nothing equivalent of base reality - so logically there would be nothing (no start or end so how can there be?)

Considering the number of extinctions we're aware of, including our own, I'd say it's not fine-tuned for life. — whollyrolling

Life is very resilient. There are occasional asteroid strikes but they diminish with time and any half developed civilisation can develop counter measures against them. I think it is unrealistic to expect a perfect universe. God had to start with the Big Bang; its not like he could hand craft the whole universe; it is a remarkably habitable place considering what it could of been - most randomly configured universes consist of just particles bouncing off each other endlessly - no adhesion - no complex matter at all - never mind stars (energy sources for life) and planets (living surfaces for live).

If that is the case, there is nothing to anchor reality — Devans99

Its anchor is its infinity.

I think it is unrealistic to expect a perfect universe. God had to start with the Big Bang; its not like he could hand craft the whole universe; it is a remarkably habitable place considering what it could of been — Devans99

So then God is a bit dumb?

Its anchor is its infinity. — whollyrolling

You can't anchor anything at infinity it has no start:

{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 }

No start as indicated by the ...

The start determines all the rest. With no start there is nothing. Take this finite regress example from Pool:

{ 'cue hits white ball', 'white ball hits black', 'black goes in pocket' }

If you remove the first element of the sequence, then the sequence ceases to exist in its entirety. So it is not possible to anchor anything at infinity because its has no start.

So then God is a bit dumb? — whollyrolling

Not omniscient. Fine-tuned the standard model to support life. Must be pretty smart but not infallible.

I didn't say it was anchored "at infinity", I said its anchor "is its infinity".

Another possibility without "first cause" or "first mover" is a complex algorithm, a simulation. Maybe we're a computer program and there's an argument outside this universe as to whether we "exist" or are "sentient" at all. Or maybe whoever coded the simulation didn't even notice that some of the code started perceiving itself as conscious. We're a blip in a vast loop of calculations, we're accidental artificial intelligence. In this case, we don't exist except as symbolism and require no creator, at least not in the sense that everyone wants so desperately to believe.

I didn't say it was anchored "at infinity", I said its anchor "is its infinity". — whollyrolling

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Past eternity is not possible - it can have no substance because it has no start.

Another possibility without "first cause" or "first mover" is a complex algorithm, a simulation. Maybe we're a computer program and there's an argument outside this universe as to whether we "exist" or are "sentient" at all. Or maybe whoever coded the simulation didn't even notice that some of the code started perceiving itself as conscious. We're a blip in a vast loop of calculations, we're accidental artificial intelligence. In this case, we don't exist except as symbolism and require no creator, at least not in the sense that everyone wants so desperately to believe. — whollyrolling

If we are in a simulation, then there is base reality outside and a base reality time. An infinite regress will not be possible out there either - a first cause in base reality is still required.

It is very probable that God is not aware of our existence in a specific sense. He is aware of the existence of life in a general sense. I was thinking of doing a post on the Simulation Hypothesis some time. With the Simulation Hypothesis, it is interesting to note that we maybe the non-material ones and God is material - the other way around to usual.

Devans99
1.4k

It is absolutely impossible to ever be certain there are no gods. — Frank Apisa


I think you can disprove the existence of THE GOD by showing the universe was not created. Or by showing it was not fine-tuned for life. That might still leave room for 'minor gods' of some sort I suppose. I am not sure you could ever disprove the existence of those. — Devans99

I stand by my comment that it is absolutely impossible to ever be certain that there are no gods.

In the model I presented, it's possible that everything is happening presently, no past or future. The movement of time and space is perceived by organisms but never moves overall in an infinite reality.

So then God is a bit dumb? — whollyrolling

Or cruel. Or not so powerful. Or a combination. Potentially dumb, cruel and not so powerful.

But none of this matters, because there's no good reason to believe that God exists.

there's no good reason to believe that God exists — S

That reasons are reaching an expiry date doesn't mean they were never "good reasons" or didn't serve a purpose.

That reasons are reaching an expiry date doesn't mean they were never "good reasons" or didn't serve a purpose. — whollyrolling

I didn't say that the reasons were never good reasons, nor did I say that they didn't serve a purpose. That's a different statement that I didn't make. I didn't use past-tense for a reason. You should pay closer attention to my wording in future.

And nor was my meaning of "good reasons" that it serves a purpose. Of course it serves a purpose. It's a crutch for those of feeble mind and character. That's nothing to write home about.

I paid close attention to your comment and to my response. I guess I didn't realize you had the meaning of life in your back pocket, you could have made that known sooner. Us feeble minds have to really have things spelled out for us, perhaps some tutoring, or a cheat sheet for the final exam you've invented.

I paid close attention to your comment and to my response. I guess I didn't realize you had the meaning of life in your back pocket, you could have made that known sooner. — whollyrolling

Sure you did. Anyway, now you know. I never leave the house without 42 on me.

Now I know that I was correct in the first place, but I knew that while it was happening.

Now I know that I was correct in the first place, but I knew that while it was happening. — whollyrolling

Hey. Comments like that are my thing. This town ain't big enough for the both of us.

Us feeble minds have to really have things spelled out for us, perhaps some tutoring, or a cheat sheet for the final exam you've invented. — whollyrolling

You still wouldn't pass it.

Or cruel. Or not so powerful. Or a combination. Potentially dumb, cruel and not so powerful. — S

Is God Cruel? Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:
- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.
The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be a good god.

God must be powerful and intelligent enough to create the universe. That would need a lot of power and thinking.

But none of this matters, because there's no good reason to believe that God exists. — S

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please

I'm not sure an idea has independent existence as in Plato's theory of forms — Devans99

:up: An idea is dependent for its existence on the minds which contain it.

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause!

The thing is we don't understand this stuff. We're trading theories, none of which can be substantiated. There is no evidence. No proof; no disproof. Just guesswork and wishful thinking. That's life! :smile:

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause! — Pattern-chaser

I, with obviously lots of help from Thomas Aquinas, have done that here:

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

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one. I would draw a cast iron conclusion from that - there must be a first cause.

Pattern-chaser
939

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99


Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause!

The thing is we don't understand this stuff. We're trading theories, none of which can be substantiated. There is no evidence. No proof; no disproof. Just guesswork and wishful thinking. That's life! :smile: — Pattern-chaser

BINGO

Devans99
1.4k

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause! — Pattern-chaser


I, with obviously lots of help from Thomas Aquinas, have done that here:

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

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one. I would draw a cast iron conclusion from that - there must be a first cause. — Devans99

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE.

When are you going to finally grok that?

Your argument disproves ITSELF.

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE — Frank Apisa

Eh? Showing something can exist without a first cause (which is impossible BTW) is not a prerequisite for showing there is a first cause. You are confusing me.

Devans99
1.4k

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE — Frank Apisa


Eh? Showing something can exist without a first cause (which is impossible BTW) is not a prerequisite for showing there is a first cause. You are confusing me. — Devans99

If you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause.

You are not confused, Devans...you are unwilling to acknowledge that your argument is a nothing-burger.

f you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause. — Frank Apisa

The question I posed was:

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please

The first cause does not exist in time so is not subject to causality so does not need a previous cause. IE I'm asking how anything else but the first cause could exist (if the first cause did not).

Devans99
1.4k

f you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause. — Frank Apisa


The question I posed was:

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99

This is what I read up above:

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one.

The first cause does not exist in time so is not subject to causality so does not need a previous cause. IE I'm asking how anything else but the first cause could exist (if the first cause did not).

Devans...what your are doing is pontificating...and you are not doing an especially good job of it.

If there is a "first cause"....whatever it is...it EXISTS.

If it had no cause...then it EXISTS without a prior cause.

If you are acknowledging that a thing can EXIST without a cause...

...you have defeated your own argument.

People have dealt with that "in time" nonsense. Get rid of it.

A suggestion, if I may...the Nixon solution. Nixon declared victory in Vietnam...and got out.

Declare victory on this...and move on to something else.

Properly done...you can claim to have solved all the problems of the world.