but it carries no more logic or reason or basis that Aquinas - actually less - since it also requires you to disregard today's best science — Rank Amateur

But don't you see the original prime mover is self-contradictory - it posits that we can use the axiom 'all effects have causes' to trace backwards in time and then denies that the very same axiom applies to God (the uncaused cause).

My version at least applies the axiom 'all effects have causes' consistently.

All I can suggest at this point is looking into the standard mathematics of infinity. — aletheist

I've looked at it; its rubbish. They declare in the axiom of infinity that actual infinity exists and prove absolutely nothing. They then move on to patch up all the paradoxes that creates with further illogical axioms.

Between any two points that we mark on a line, there is an inexhaustible continuum of other potential points; — aletheist

A point has length 0. How many points on a line segment length 1? 1/0=UNDEFINED.

I think my reply to Rank Amateur above covers your points.

Basically you are still saying - Augustine's argument is logical, I just don't like his answer, so in that case it is not logical. — Rank Amateur

I'm saying the original prime mover argument is basically logical until it reaches the point of the 'unmoved mover' which is not a logical concept. So my axiom is to the effect 'all effects have causes'.

The opposite position is 'some effects do not have causes' undermines the rest of the prime mover argument anyway because it is all based on a premise that effects have causes.

And you still have not acknowledged or answered my point that Augustine's argument is consistent with today's best science and yours is not - can you bridge that point for me ? — Rank Amateur

Science points to a start of time (the Big Bang) and explains little else to my satisfaction. My argument needs a first cause (the Big Bang) so it is just as consistent with Science as other interpretations. But my argument also has the logical advantage of explaining the infinite regress / chicken and egg problem.

That definition is incorrect, according to the standard mathematics of infinity; mainly because it begs the question by presupposing the discreteness of quantity — aletheist

How I am 'presupposing the discreteness of quantity'?

X in my proof could be real or natural; I made no assumptions. That is a fair proof that actual infinity is not a quantity IMO.

In any case, I am advocating the reality of continua, not the actuality of infinity — aletheist

But a continuum requires actual infinity. If you look at the mathematical models for continua, they use actual infinity (gunky or otherwise). Think about a real-life line segment, say the distance between your eyes and the screen; that HAS to be an actual infinity of points/line segments by the very definition of continuous.

Think about the second that just past; by the definition of continuous; its has to include an actually infinite number of moments/periods of time. They just all happened. All 'cardinality of the set of natural numbers' moments just happened if you can make sense of that.

ou are just missing stating the first proposition in your logic chain - your first proposition is " it is not God, because I don't believe there is a God" so it has to be something else — Rank Amateur

Well I do actually believe in God but I'm currently unsure how he fits in.

All of which is fair - I just want to point out to you that your answer to the un-moved mover has no philosophic difference than mine ( and Aquinas's') answer - Other than, my answer is consistent with the best consensus scientific explanation of the universe - while yours requires you to leave science all together and is baded solely on faith — Rank Amateur

- I do not believe the concept of an unmoved mover is logically sound.
- An infinite regress of movers in time is not logically sound.
- Something from nothing is impossible
- That leaves circular time as the only possible explanation for the start of the universe

Which is fine, except one would have to leave the realm of the best consensus scientific theory of the the universe, that it is finite — Rank Amateur

Everything is finite in my view: time is a single, finite circle. Thats the only way out of the chicken and egg problem.

It cannot be a series of different Big crunch / Big bangs in a linear arrangement because what then causes the first Big Bang? So time has to circle around, Big Bang and Big Crunch have to meet.

Which is also fine - but just to be clear this is just as faith based a answer as "God". — Rank Amateur

I'm proposing circular time as a way out of the infinite regress problem at the start of the universe. I proposing it on the basis of logic rather than faith. It seems to be the only possible solution.

In what specific sense do you hold that the hypothesis of a real continuum is "logically unsound" — aletheist

How on earth could you construct a continuum? It requires us to construct an actual infinity of possible positions for particles to occupy. Thats impossible. So the fact we could never construct a continuum goes a long way to arguing against its existence.

A bare assertion is also not persuasive — aletheist

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Now you could define:

∞ + 1 = ∞
But that implies:
1 = 0

The universe doesn't seem to be heading for a big crunch at this point. It seems more likely (at our current understanding) that the expanding universe will expand forever and keep getting colder. — Bitter Crank

It is not a done deal. The astronomers can't even agree on how fast the universe is expanding:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/12/06/scientists-cant-agree-on-the-expanding-universe/#194fc3e75e2c

Also, the rate of expansion has slowed drastically in the past (end of the period of inflation); so it could slow again and maybe reverse (gravity wins in the end)?

Because space-time is a true continuum, — aletheist

Your continuum is just magic - how can 1 light year be structurally the same as 1 millimetre? I don't believe in magic so I have to take a different view - no continuums in nature; they are logically unsound and nature does not do unsound.

Also it can't be a continuum because actual infinity does not exist.

This is the Big Bounce hypothesis. — Michael

Yes but its the one where there is only one Big Bang and one Big Crunch with time being a loop.

Just curious what definition of "information" you're using. — Terrapin Station

My own I admit. If you imagine a particle in an interval, the position of the particle relative to the beginning of the interval can be regarded as information. In a continuum, that piece of information (particle position) has infinite precision so infinity many bits of information.

That leads to the paradox of the continuum; all sizes of continuum contain the same amount of information.

Obviously discreteness is the only way out of the paradox.

The analogy is with a mathematical line, which does not consist of individual dimensionless points or tiny finite segments, but instead can always be divided infinitely into shorter and shorter lines. — aletheist

That's paradoxical. It works ok in the mind but not in reality: If I have a real line length 1 mile, it contains more information than a real line length 1 centimetre. But if they are both continuums then they both contain the same amount of information. Which is impossible. Which is proof by contradiction that continuums do not exist in the real world.

Just a series of events without any smallest units — Mr Bee

Problem is that means a second and a year would have the same information content which does not seem right. Clearly more information in a year - the continuum seems paradoxical. Maybe it's one of those concepts that we can conceive of in our minds but never occurs in reality? Reality seems deeply logical and free of paradoxes.

Who says the temporal continuum needs to contain instants? Likewise who says that the spatial continuum needs to be pointy? Perhaps the continuum has no fundamental level at all, no unit with which all other quantities are multiples of — Mr Bee

What structure does time have if it's not a series of instants?

events simply come and go continuously without any fundamental duration. — Mr Bee

But if an event has no duration it would not exist. 'Now' could not exist if it had zero duration. Think about filming someone for zero seconds - you'd have no film right?

How many zero duration 'nows' in a second? 1/0=UNDEFINED. Thats not right.

The concept of 'now' presupposes that time exists; and now separates the past from the future - two more meaningless concepts without that of time itself. — Tim3003

Because time has a start (see for example https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4702/argument-from-first-motion), it must be real.

We can also tell the difference between past, present and future so there must be something special about 'now' so the concepts of past and future have meaning. Some sort of positional cursor that regular eternalism/relativity does not incorporate must exist.

So surely time must exist, but what it's made of must be similar to what space is made of. — Tim3003

Yes as I mentioned the same arguments work for space too.


One more argument. Consider actual infinity. Aristotle who defined it did not believe in actual infinity. It's a mad concept so I don't believe in it either. Consider a second in the past. The definition of continuous time implies that a second must contain an actual completed infinity of ‘nows’. So all those 'nows' actually existed; thats a funny money number of 'nows' (the cardinality of the set of natural numbers).

Maybe I'm getting confused, but:

E = mc² ∕ √ (1 - v² ∕ c²)
So
m = E × √ (1 - v² ∕ c²) / c²

So time (in the v term) determines mass. So something in the universe must be aware of time else it could not assign a mass. That suggests time is real?

I need to read up on relativity. Thanks.

If mass increases with speed, then the universe must be speed-aware? In some sense the universe must know how fast an object is going to allocate the appropriate mass.

Speed = distance / time so the universe must be time-aware?

The effects on mass (basically a kind of "pulling" on the mass in both cases) is a counteracting force that make changes/motions relatively slower. — Terrapin Station

But the force of gravity is attractive, why should it slow motion?

Anyhow, there are no massive objects involved in the case of an object is travelling near the speed of light. Speed = distance / time so the universe must be time-aware to enforce the speed limit.

time is just change/motion — Terrapin Station

If time is just change/motion, why does it run slower when an object travels near the speed of light or is near an intense gravity field?

If time is just change/motion, what mechanism enforces the speed of light speed limit?

Or

Let length of now = L, then:

L/second > L/year
->
L x year > L x second

Equality not satisfied with L=0 or L=1/∞

L must be finite and > 0

IE time is discrete

This universe is by far, theistically describable as not the best God could create, and in theistic theory, God would have in his supposed omnipotency, created far better, far more valuable things. — VoidDetector

I wondered if the OP is still around, could he describe his perfect universe?

If praying helps, then pray. Fuck the philosophers who think it is inconsistent. — Bitter Crank

I guess its inline with Pascal's Wager. God may exist so prayer is a worthwhile activity from the standpoint of a non-zero probability someone is listening. I sometimes pray on this basis.

Someone mentioned our God is probably like Crom from Conan the Barbarian! Not too sure about this; I imagine our God as benevolent but impotent, whereas I thought Crom came over as more neutral and potent.

the notion of god is absurd. — Banno

The traditional notion of God is absurd. I wonder why we spend so long discussing the traditional notion of God as defined in ancient religious texts. The older something is, the farther it is from the truth.

Anyhow, I think the concept of a changeless God is workable if you take the eternalist viewpoint. If we make God eternal outside of time and make time part of God then God never changes (from a 4d space time perspective God is completely static).

Measurements so far have density equal to the critical density(mass needed to stop the expansion) which should eventually slow the expansion down gradually to a flat, infinite universe — Happenstance

The expansion rate of the universe has slowed in the past (end of inflation), it could slow again and maybe reverse. I think the astronomers are not too sure on the actual expansion rate:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/03/scientists-still-dont-know-how-fast-the-universe-is-expanding/

I did read somewhere that astronomers had recently reported that the universes expansion rate maybe oscillating rather than accelerating, but I can't find the link at the moment.

Also I'm an eternalist and finitist so I find it hard to accept solutions positing a future eternity.

Anyway, did you know that the smart money is on being a big freeze due to dark matter being a constant? If we get a decrease in dark matter then a big crunch is likely and an increase would mean a big rip is more likely! — Happenstance

But the Big Rip does not explain the Big Bang in a neat and tidy way like the Big Crunch does.

Plus if you consider it from a metaphysical angle, each moment of time must have a prior moment else it would not exist. The only topology that fits this requirement is a closed loop - circular time.

Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension?

Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?

We know if we make small changes to the standard model and a number of other parameters that life is no longer possible. These are the alternative universes to which I refer - hypothetical possible universes with different configurations that are not life supporting. There are many more non-life supporting configurations than there are life supporting configurations. So we have to question if it was just luck that our universe was life supporting or whether it was designed to be live supporting. The weak anthropic principle explains that the universe must be live supporting but it does not explain whether it was luck or design. Design is much more probable.

Reason should be guiding us not to win the God debate, but to escape it, transcend it, make it irrelevant. — Jake

How can we escape this debate though? Our prime directive is survival and that directive extends beyond the grave and into the realm of a potential God. I'm not sure it's possible to stop talking about it until we have some answers; that would be going against a basic instinct.

Nope, still not getting it, given a billion pots, given that it is possible for one to be hole-less, why is it surprising to find that one is? — Ciaran

Maybe a slightly different analogy:

Assume there are a billion possible pot designs, only one of which had no holes. Then we find the only pot that exists in fact has no holes. It must have no holes to hold the water but Is it just luck that we got the one with no holes or is something else going on?

Or assume a billion possible universe designs, only one of which is life supporting. We must be in a live supporting universe but are we there just because we got lucky or was the universe designed to be life supporting? The chances we got lucky are a billion to 1 so the universe is almost certainly designed.

Put it this way, the statement 'the universe must be life supporting' (anthropic principle) in no way answers the question 'why is the universe life supporting?' if you see what I mean.

The situation is not that some people use faith while other people use reason. That's an entirely false division. Everybody uses faith — Jake

What I mean is I have no direct faith in God, I put my faith in scientific evidence and probability which lead me to believe that God may exist.

Without reason, atheism becomes just another kind of religious experience, and a very poor one at that — Jake

Good point. Surely the worst religious experience ever! Listen to Dawkins and Die. I'm amazed its so popular when there are scientific alternatives to atheism (I'm a deist myself).

Personally what I find most annoying is science's use of infinity. I am a finitist so I consider belief in actual infinity to be a supernatural belief. Science has been using infinity for 100 years unchallenged, they've built models of the universe on what is basically akin to magic.

If you look at the history of science, they have got it badly wrong in the past. For example they spent at least 100 years believing in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Right now they are probably wrong about infinity and probably wrong about the need for a creator too. It is high time that science was challenged to justify some of its irrational beliefs.

To me, God is a loving Presence, a Spirit akin to a Universal Consciousness that all of us can call upon for hope, peace, love, equanimity, patience, joy, and all of the loving virtues — Noah Te Stroete

I hope that is the case, but the existence of God should be inducible to a high degree and many people have trouble with the concept of faith and prefer evidence. If our universe was special, that goes someway towards arguing for God's existence. If on the other hand, there are billions of universes and we just got lucky to find one of the few that is life supporting, you would have to question whether there was any evidence for design and thus God in the multiverse.

In pot terms:

- It is not surprising that water is found in a pot with no hole
- But it is still surprising that the pot has no hole (when most pots have holes)

Or in universe terms:

- It is not surprising that life is found in a life supporting universe
- But it is still is surprising that the universe is life supporting (most universes are not life supporting)

These two are subtly different.

Of course it surprising that we have a pot with no hole; most pots have holes. We still have to ask why does the pot have no hole? We know it must have no hole, but why were we so fortunate to get a pot with no hole? It could just be that we were very lucky or something else is going on. Something else is much more likely.

No, we do not have to ask that. If our single universe were not life supporting we would not be in it to ask the question, so it's obvious that our universe is the life-supporting one (out of all the billions of non-life-supporting ones). It's like saying that a potter makes a billion pots, all but one of which has a hole in it. What's the chances that the only one with water in just happens to be the only one that is capable of containing water? — Ciaran

But if you were to pick a pot at random, you would likely get a pot with a hole. So you have to ask why you were so lucky to get the pot without a hole. There are two possible explanations why your pot has no hole:

1) You hit a billion to 1 chance and got the pot without a hole
2) Someone selected an pot without a hole for you

The first explanation is incredibly unlikely the second explanation is much more likely.

Its exactly the same for the universe:

1) We got lucky by a billion to 1 chance our universe was live supporting
2) Our universe is life supporting because it was designed to be

The 2nd explanation is much more probable than the first.

Let me ask you this: do you think if you physically damage a computer, like, break it or hit it with a hammer, or throw it in the water, that it suffers? — Wayfarer

Animals and humans are driven purely by physical/emotional pain/pleasure. We seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. It would be interesting if we could give a computer a nervous system and pain/pleasure drivers we have. As we saw in Bladerunner the result might be computers that are indistinguishable from us. — Devans99

So I think that a computer could be designed so that it suffers when it's injured. Obviously it's a long way off in technology terms but give a computer the same basic senses and drivers as a human and the result should be a humanlike computer?

Consider it further: imagine if science did create an actual being, something that was self-aware - so no longer just 'something' but a being. What kind of predicament do you think that being would feel itself to be in? If it began to ask the question 'what am I? How did I come to be? What is my place in the world?' — Wayfarer

I think all high intelligence beings would think in a similar manner. 'Great minds think alike' applies to computers, aliens, gods and humans all, I suspect. The synthetic being would think like us I think. It would worry first about survival in this world. Once that was assured, it would sign up on a philosophy forum and start worrying about survival in the next world.

1. If universes are generated via different mechanisms using different matter then they should come out different. So this applies when considering the weak anthropic principle and single universe models; it is very unlikely that a randomly configured universe would be life supporting, so we have to ask why our single universe is life supporting, IE it was probably designed to be live supporting.

2. If universes are generated via the same mechanism using the same matter, they should come out the same. This applies when considering the strong anthropic principle and multiple universe models. The claim that the presence of multiple universes would somehow lead to all such universes coming out with different configurations (of the standard model etc) seems at odds with common sense.

But as regards the question - computers are not intelligent at all. They’re not beings, they’re devices. But I know what you’ll say - what’s the difference? And it’s very hard to answer that question. The fact that it’s difficult, is the indication of a deep problem, in my view. — Wayfarer

Science has managed to synthesise DNA in the lab and replace the DNA of single celled animals with the synthetic DNA to produce a new type of single celled animal. If science advanced to the point where all the cell components could be replaced by synthetic equivalents, would the resulting organism be alive as well as 100% synthetic?

Eh? Are all the other universes going to lack cohesion or come out like ours? — Ciaran

I am trying to make two separate points here:

1. Hypothetical universes (generated by different mechanisms) that we can imagine in our mind nearly all lack cohesion. Take the standard model, makes a small change, and the resulting universe lacks cohesion. The strong nuclear force and electromagnetic forces have to be just right for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon/silicon so no life).

2. Multiple universes (generated by the same mechanism as for our universe) should come out like our universe

God exists as an independent dimension above all others. S/he/It encompasses all other dimensions, such as space and time — Wallows

Interesting answer, can you expand?

I think God is needed to explain the state of the universe but I have difficulties fitting him into any viable model of the universe. Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension? Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?

The thing about the big Crunch though is: would it necessarily be the same set of events going backwards in that the inhabitants from the rebound do the same things as us, or reverse-time as in the Red Dwarf story? — Happenstance

I think it depends if you are a finitist or not. I am so I believe there cannot have been an infinite number of big bang/big crunch pairs in the past nor will there be an infinite number of big bang/big crunch pairs in the future. So that leaves two options:

1. A finite number (but greater than one) of big bang/big crunch pairs arranged linearly in time
2. A single big bang/big crunch that repeats itself in a loop of time

The problem with 1 is what causes the first big bang? There is nothing before the first big bang to cause it. Also what happens with the last big crunch? What happens afterwards? There can't be just nothing.

With model 2, the single big bang / big crunch and circular time, the big bang is always preceded by the big crunch so it seems like a more consistent model.

So a retro-time traveller could travel forwards in time, around the loop of time and experience the past. It would be the same set of events. They only ever experience time flowing forward.