So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses — Frank Apisa
What is your view (biocentric/ecocentric)? Cosmologically, do you have a theory about what was happening before the Big Bang ( a timeless first-cause)? — 3017amen
If so, what is your theory about how self-awareness evolved from a piece of wood? — 3017amen
Meaning, I believe you have the burden of precluding conscious existence from the human condition/equation, no? — 3017amen
The inflation field must have a start. — Devans99
Supernovas and pulsars are a result of gravity which is a absolute requirement form life. — Devans99
How would you (imagine yourself as God) go about creating life? Design or brute force? — Devans99
So God had no choice but to evolve rather than design us. So we are not perfect beings... we are the product of evolution ... which was God's doing. — Devans99
The astronomers can't even agree on the speed of the expansion of the universe, and the speed has changed in the past - so it could change - contract - in future. — Devans99
Why? If it is infinite and expanding, then in the past it was still infinite and expanding. No start required. — Kenosha Kid
Gravity is a requirement for life, true. However this value of gravity is not essential to pulsars and supernovas. Is it your feeling that pulsars are perhaps an incidental symptom of the laws of physics, and that the universe was not created for them? That is good, because it means you get the idea that just because something exists in nature, it does not mean the universe had it in mind. — Kenosha Kid
Good question! I actually do this sort of thing for a living. I would create an optimisation algorithm, one that would reward features that minimise some kind of cost function in their environment and punish ones that maximise it. You can solve the Schrodinger equation this way, or find the minimum of a curve. Let me think it through a little more... — Kenosha Kid
The past can't be infinite - do you believe the past is longer than a finite number of days long? — Devans99
Pulsars and supernovas are side effects of gravity — Devans99
But surely you would wish to maximise the informational content (=interest) of the universe? Else it would be sort of dull? — Devans99
Actually even without inflationary theory that's fine. Good old-fashioned "where did that come from?" Big Bang gives you an infinite past, from a point of view. (An older, simpler BB model is just a black hole in reverse. When you fall into a black hole, from an outside perspective you approach the event horizon and vanish. But from your point of view you freefall forever. Except for the dying bit anyway. This is because gravity warps space-time so much. Chuck a minus sign on that, and you've got a BB that's both finite in time from our perspective and infinite from the perspective of something emerging from it.) — Kenosha Kid
Awesome. So you're happy in principle with the idea that a feature of the universe does not necessitate a purpose. Just keep applying that and you're golden. — Kenosha Kid
I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac
So if the assumption that cause and effect holds universally is correct, we have the result that there must be a first cause and that the first cause itself must be uncaused — Devans99
Well, even a universal law of causality exists it doesnt exclude the "self-causing" — Benj96
You can't have something timeless going about doing stuff. It's nonsense. Start over. — jorndoe
Instead of such creative special pleading, shouldn't you try something a bit more defensible? — jorndoe
is a fallacy that I can reject a silly theory only if I have a good one. It isn't true. I can reject a silly theory — Kenosha Kid
what science is all about. — Kenosha Kid
theory is that self-awareness did not evolve from a piece of wood. For a start, a piece of wood cannot procreate. — Kenosha Kid
If you do not believe in God, you must disbelieve in conscious existence!" That's the gist of it, right — Kenosha Kid
Devans is certain that god exists, but not so sure that the argument works - hence the faltering use of "almost..."it is almost certainly correct. — Devans99
I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible. — Devans99
So an 'uncaused cause' would clearly have to be external to time. For an uncaused cause, there is no 'before' or 'after', there is just IS - it is external to time. Something that exists permanently - outside of time - and so was never caused. — Devans99
You are a moron! — Devans99
The coincidence of so many features - parameters that are fine tuned for life in the universe - that all effect a single purpose - the support of life - is noteworthy — Devans99
No; you clearly seem to be saying you don't believe in causation and therefore causation doesn't exist. — 3017amen
The universe doesn't care that you exist. — Kenosha Kid
That's a variant of the same fallacious argument: "God caused everything, you don't believe in God, therefore you don't believe in causation." — Kenosha Kid
"God caused everything.., — Kenosha Kid
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.