Thanks for the conversation too. One parting point:

Imagine an eternal god who has always been counting - what number would he be on? Forever has no start, so the god could not have even started counting - so the lack of an initial state invalidates all subsequent states - 'forever' is impossible.

The problem with this is that if you allow one brute face, one exception to the need for adequate dynamics, one thing with no intelligible explanation, then there is no reason not to allow others -- and once you do that, your entire line of reasoning breaks down. If one arbitrary finite being can have no explanation why can't any arbitrary finite being have none, be a brute fact? So I see your reasoning self-refuting. — Dfpolis

I do not see more than one brute fact as a problem; all that is required is a brute fact to act as the first cause for causality/time. It maybe that God and matter/energy are both brute facts and God injected the matter/energy into time with the BB. I cannot rule out the possibility of more than one timeless being - all I seek to justify is the cause of the universe - which I believe is the timeless being I refer to as God.

I see no reason to accept this definition. Information is the reduction of possibility, while every new existent makes more acts possible. I agree that finite beings have an intelligible/informative essence that specifies what they can do, but the essence of infinite being does not limit possibility, and so is utterly uninformative. (This is confirmed by trans-cultural reports of mystical experience -- see W. T. Stace's works.) — Dfpolis

I think we have a very different conception of what God is. I have a pseudo-materialist outlook on the world. God has to play by certain common sense axioms - he exists in reality (possibly an unfamiliar / non-material reality) and reality follows certain common sense axioms - so must God. I cannot imagine anything that is not composed of information.

I think we are not likely to agree on this or the remaining points.

But thanks for the discussion and peace to you also!

I don’t follow this. Are you suggesting that unique events cannot occur naturally? That because I am unique, for instance, I cannot claim to be natural? — Possibility

I would argue that you are a human and therefore not unique in the sense you are a class of human (your DNA maybe unique but you are still an instance of human). In the same way, a supernova is a natural event - they are all slightly different but fall under the same class and there are multiple instances of such events - so they have the signature of a natural event.

My argument is if an event is unique (the only representative of its class) then we cannot assume it is a natural event because every class of natural event that we know about comes in multiple instances.

So I agree that the unitary nature of the BB is not sufficient to prove it is unnatural, but it is different from all other natural events which is a reason to suspect it as unnatural.

If the BB was natural, I would expect many instances of it - galaxies all receding in different directions at different speeds instead of the uniform relationship between distance and redshift that is observed due to a single BB.

I happen to agree that ‘time’ is finite - I just don’t agree that this points to a non-natural creation of the universe. I also think that for something to exist ‘outside of time’ or ‘beyond causality’ does not make it ‘unnatural’. — Possibility

My opinion is that creation of a dimension is a discontinuous process so it looks unnatural. I find it hard to fathom a natural explanation for the creation of time. Again that is not evidence enough in itself for a creator, but it adds to the weight of evidence. Other considerations:

- Nature always tends to equilibrium if left alone. We are not in equilibrium. It suggest to me that some sort of intelligence must exist which is the reason why we are not in equilibrium.
- I believe the fine tuning argument is basically sound and points to an intelligent fine tuner.
- The classical cosmological arguments point to the first cause being a self-driven agent, which seems to me to require intelligence.

So I believe there is an intelligent agent as the creator of the universe - on weight of evidence.

I am not religious and the agent is not some sort of perfect being with the 3Os.

"Ex nihilo" = from nothing, implies a state of "nothingness" existed, a self-contradictory term ("nonexistence exists"). If x exists at all times, and the past is finite, then x did not "come into" existence - that would entail a prior existing state of affairs into which x appears, which is impossible because x exists at all times. Further, the scenario assumes x is fundamental to everything that exists - everything in existence is composed of x. — Relativist

Yes, sorry, I should have been more specific. The zero energy universe hypothesis (which I don't necessarily buy) has some sort of 'seed' causing a chain reaction that then generates the rest of the matter/energy in the universe in exchange for negative gravitational energy. So I agree something permanent must exist (at least a seed, maybe all matter/energy if the hypothesis does not hold). But permanent existence is only possible outside of time so whatever existed permanently has its origin outside of time.

What is your justification for believing something causally efficacious can exist outside of time, and can somehow reach into time and interact? — Relativist

There is no other option; the start of time need a timeless cause:

- I gave several justifications for the start of time above. You did not respond to my argument regarding gravitational equilibrium which I feel is particularly strong.
- A second instance of time causing our time leads to an infinite regress of nested times - which is impossible - there must be something timeless - a brute fact - as the root cause.

The fundamental stuff is necessary for all existence, since everything is composed of it. It therefore exists permanently. It can't have been caused, because all possible causal factors (like everything else in existence) are composed of this fundamental stuff. That's what it means to be fundamental. Your only optiob is to deny that there can exist some fubdamental stuff. — Relativist

I am saying that the fundamental stuff must of originated outside of time because of the requirement for things in time to have a start, IE: 'It can't be X if it never started X' - substitute any action for X and the statement is always true: counting, walking, sitting, spinning, vibrating (eg a string), existing.

The BB is consistent with this view of matter/energy coming into time at the start of time.

You have provided no justification for believing this. — Relativist

I feel I have justified that permanent existence within time is impossible. Here is another justification:

1. A system has a state (be it a particle or a universe)
2. The state is determined by the previous state
3. If it existed forever in time, there is no initial state
4. So all the states of the system are undetermined (because there is no initial state to make any of the other states 'real' - they form an endless chain of undetermined states)

An example using a pool analogy: Imagine a frictionless perfect pool table. The balls are all wizzing around. We know they cannot have been wizzing around eternally - we can infer an initial state of the white being set in motion by the player. If that initial state did not exist, then there would be no motion (and no balls either - the balls are part of the initial state within time).

Natural events come in pluralities. The BB is a singleton. Therefore you cannot claim it to be natural.

There are many argument that time has a start. One is that the existence of anything at all in the universe requires a brute fact - IE something uncaused. Brute facts can only exist outside of time (they exist without tense - they just 'ARE' - they have no cause because they are beyond time and thus beyond causality).

There are no valid arguments for time without a start - that would imply things exist 'forever' in time which is impossible - 'forever' has no start and if something has no start, it cannot exist.

It's bad logic. If the past is finite, then something existed without "coming into existence" because that would entail a state prior to its existence, and this is logically impossible. — Relativist

Things came into existence/time at the point time started - either by creation ex nilhilo (see zero energy universe hypothesis) or because these things existed timelessly already (and they entered time at the start of time). This explains how matter/energy came about - your explanation of things existing 'forever' is impossible - everything in the universe would be null and void.

If there is fundamental stuff, it is metaphysically impossible for it not to exist (i.e. its existence is metaphysically necessary). A finite past implies the fundamental stuff was in an initial state (configuration) and perhaps this state could have been different (i.e. the specific state is contingent), but why think that it impossible for an initial, uncaused, contingent state to be impossible? You need to provide a justification for this that is not based on the subsequent temporal states and the composition fallacy. — Relativist

I do not think an initial uncaused state is impossible - it is possible, but only possible outside of time. The justification is causality - everything must have a cause - unless it is beyond causality (IE beyond time).

I don't follow your argument. It appears you're treating particles as fundamental. What do you mean by "next to start"? An eternal particle doesn't start to exist (nor cease to exist) but it exists in contingent relations to other eternal particles that collectively configure into higher level objects. These higher level objects are what come into existence. — Relativist

By 'next to start', I mean if we label the temporal start as t=0, then next to start is t=1. The argument then continues with induction out to infinity to establish that the particle cannot exist without a start.

Everything, including fundamental stuff, must be accounted for. IE it must either be created or exist permanently. As I've pointed out, it is impossible to exist permanently/'forever' in time - you simply cannot have a brute fact within time because causality (which is a feature of time) requires everything to have a both a prior and ultimate cause. So only possible conclusion is that at a timeless brute fact exists and it is the ultimate cause of everything in time/causality.

Again, you just seem to be asserting (without support) that contingent things cannot exist uncaused. My response is the same: any initial state will necessarily have contingent properties. This is true even if there is a God. A God that exists in an initial state would have had had an uncaused plan for a universe in his mind - i.e., an intent to create THIS contingent universe rather than all other metaphysically possible universes. — Relativist

I have excellent support for 'things in time cannot exist uncaused' - it is causality - everything in time must have both a prior and ultimate cause. Things that exist outside of time however can clearly be uncaused.

I am not sure precisely how the state of timelessness works beyond the fact that it required. Without timelessness, there are no brute facts. Without brute facts, there is nothing. God may exist within what is referred to as the 'eternal now' - all is simultaneous - causes do not precede effects. God's plan is part of God (a brute fact) so it can exist uncaused.

You are assuming everything is natural with no justification whatsoever. Please read this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/304398

Nature cannot be created in nature - that is just contradictory.

Thats not what I said. And clearly you are unwilling/unable to engage with my arguments so this is indeed a pointless conversation.

The precise size of the universe at the point of the BB is a matter of debate amongst cosmologists. Anything from a point to infinite has been touted.

And by definition anything that happens in nature is natural. — god must be atheist

That is is idiotic - the BB created nature it did not happen in nature. You can't just define reality as 100% natural - you have to demonstrate that with logic or evidence - this is a philosophy forum.

I will give you a better definition. Something that is natural has a greater than 0% chance of occurring naturally - yes? Then if time is infinite and the BB is natural, by that definition, there should be an infinite number of BBs at each point in space. There is only one BB. The following conclusions are therefore unescapable:

- The BB is not natural
Or
- Time has a start

Either way points to a non-natural creation of the universe.

Only the religious, those who believe in the supernatural, those who practice Voodoo, and those who are superstitious can tell you what they don't know, and they are quite eager to do so at any given time. — god must be atheist

I am not religious.

A perfect virtual machine is indistinguishable from a real machine. Every operation that is executable within the real machine is emulated perfectly. If it is done well (see VM on zSeries for an example), it is impossible to tell the difference - software executes identically on the real and virtual machines. If it is done less well (see VMWare on PC/LInux), then bugs will happen from time to time.

Why believe the fundamental stuff required a start in time? Your intuition about the need for a start is based on experience with configurations of the fundamental stuff, and when you extrapolate this to the fundamental itself, you commit the fallacy of composition — Relativist

I have given you arguments based both on the 'fundamental stuff' and its composition. If the fundamental stuff exists then its composition exists as well. So both basis are covered and I am not committing the fallacy of composition.

Also, It is not intuition; it is logic: things must first come into existence in order to exist - the alternative is just a belief in magic. You cannot have something like a particle existing as an infinitely long world line in spacetime with one end missing - it would be nothing. It would also be fundamentally partially defined - which means it is undefined - meaning it cannot exist. I have already given adequate proof of this IMO, all I can do is reiterate:

1. Assume a particle does not have a temporal start point (IE its existed ‘forever’)
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start and 1 says that it does not have a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on 1 and 2).
4. etc… for start+2, start+3…
5. Implies particle does not have middle
6. etc… unto start+∞ (now)
7. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
8. Implies particle never existed

Quanta are disturbances in a quantum field. Fields are fundamental (or at least, MORE fundamental), so quanta are just configurations of the more fundamental field. — Relativist

If you prefer to view it that way, then I would say those fields and the disturbances in them need a temporal start too. One configuration of the field is caused by a previous configuration of the field. If there is no first configuration of the field, there is no second configuration, no third, and by induction, no configurations at all.

And say we find X is actually fundamental (be it a string or whatever). X will have innate properties. That will require a temporal start at which these innate properties are acquired. Else X has no innate properties and X is null and void.

Matter and energy (which are interchangeable) are just configurations of fundamental stuff — Relativist

The 'fundamental stuff' must of had a start in time. Else how did it come about? A quanta of energy remains a quanta of energy even if its form can change. So that quanta requires a start in time - 'always' existing is not the answer because that explicitly rules it out from starting to exist - leaving only wishful thinking to explain its existence.

The situation with space is analogous - think about an object with no spacial start point(s) - it would be nothing. Time works like space - a quanta of energy with no temporal start does not exist - it would be exactly analogous to an object in space with no spacial start. Its worldline in spacetime would be length zero.

This leads to the conclusion there is a past infinite series of configurations (every configuration "started", having been caused by a prior configuration) — Relativist

That leads to a causal/temporal infinite regress - which is impossible - for example: imagine a pool table. The cue hits the white ball. The white ball hits the black ball. The black goes in the pocket. Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - if we remove the first element in the time ordered regress, the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal/casual infinite regresses are impossible. So this chain of configurations requires a temporal start.

There is also impossibility of the actually infinite to consider. There are many arguments for the start of time (and the start of everything within it) based on this, here is one: imagine an ever-lasting time traveller travelling backwards in time whilst counting. From our perspective, the past is completed, so the time traveller must have counted every number if the past is infinite. But there is no largest number, so that is impossible - time must be finite.

Then there are other arguments like entropy (it is too low for infinite time), the measure problem, the BB, BGV theorem. All of these point to a start of time and a temporal start for all 'fundamental stuff' within time.

IMO matter/energy has to have a start too. If something never comes into existence, it does not exist. Think of a matter particle for example; it has innate attributes like mass etc... If it has no start, then there is no time at which it could acquire those innate attributes and it would be null and void.

Or we could consider the collision history of a particle to be represented by a temporal/causal infinite regress. Infinite regresses are impossible.

I'd also argue that time has a start so everything within time must have a start. If time did not have a start, we would have already passed through all possible states of the universe and some of those states must be equilibrium states - in which case we should still be in equilibrium - we are not.

Causality requires a brute fact to be the base of the pyramid of causality and brute facts are timeless - this is also strongly suggestive of time having a start.

Something that exists outside of time can exist in a tenseless state - it just 'IS'. It can have nothing temporally or logically before it. It has no reason/cause in the same way an elephant has no engine CC - it simply does not have a 'why' property.

Anything that exists within time must have a start. It is impossible to exist 'forever' in time - forever has no start. If something has no temporal start, then it has no start+1, start+2 and so by induction it does not exist. So a brute fact cannot exist in time. Everything in time is subject to causality and requires an explanation. Spacetime itself must also have an explanation.

And it's unnatural to call natural events unnatural. — god must be atheist

I gave you evidence for the BB being unnatural. Your response is to claim it is natural without offering any evidence. That is hardly convincing.

All the matter/energy in the universe, packed into a single point in space. What exactly is natural about that? How could the universe get into such a state? All I can think of is gravitational collapse, but that would result in a black hole and black holes do not explode (nothing can escape a black hole). So I think there is no obvious, natural explanation.

I have an idea that it could have been some sort of astrophysical device/bomb that caused the BB. Something computed the requirements for a life supporting universe and designed a device that would achieve that. IMO this is no more far fetched than multiple universes, CCC and the rest of the stuff that passes for cosmology.

This does not imply the quantum system itself is necessarily explainable by something external. — Relativist

There must be an explanation for everything that is not a brute fact. Brute facts can only exist outside of time. So I assume the quantum system you refer to exists outside of time and is somehow responsible for the creation of time. What is the mechanism by which time is created? I doubt a dimension could be created by evolution of a quantum system. The start of time would seem a discontinuous, unnatural process.

Things have changed drastically over the years; once you were condemned a heretic for being atheist; nowadays it seems it is heretical to be anything but.

The facts of the BB are: unnaturally low entropy and an unnatural expansion of space itself. That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing also seems unnatural. It is also an unnatural singleton (natural events come always come in pluralities - the BB is a suspicious looking singleton). Nature if left to itself finds its way to equilibrium. The BB is the polar opposite of equilibrium. The expansion of space seems engineered to keep us out of a gravitational equilibrium.

Or alternatively, if you wish to ignore the above evidence, probability says that there is a 50/50 chance that the universe is a creation (its a boolean question). Is cosmology investing 50% of its collective effort into theories that are compatible with a creation? No it is not. So we have an unhealthy balance of effort focusing on one side of the coin to the exclusion of the other side. IMO that is foolish and unscientific.

There's a difference between "God did it" and "using this collection of mathematical models we can correctly predict the behaviour of all physical phenomena". — Michael

What if mathematical models point to the universe being a creation? That's the way the BB looks at the moment. If this stays the case, we just give up on science and cosmology? Or do we try to use science to investigate the creator?

We have at the moment, a ludicrous situation in cosmology; people are jumping though hoops to find away around the fine tuning argument - far fetched models like multiple universes that flaunt Occam's Razor, common sense, causality etc...

Science should address reality even if it is a reality that atheist scientists find unpalatable.

I think it could be that we and Data are both machines of similar complexity, so we would both share the same level of consciousness. Considering a simpler machine, a computer (specifically the operating system), it has parallels to a human:

- It is linked to and responds to peripherals (it 'senses' so to speak)
- It manages multiple tasks simultaneously
- it is constantly aware (well aware at least for every time slice - at least 60 times a second).
- It has an active train of thought - the current process (on a uniprocessor)

A human has a better ability to deal with unexpected sensual input. If an operating system reads data off disk in an unexpected format, it responds with a predicable error. If a human senses something he/she has not sensed before, there is (usually) a creative response that shows adaptation and improvisation. This is probably just indicative that humans have much more complex logic than any current computer.

I'll call everything including God the universe. And then spacetime is part of that. And I'll assume that God exists.

A ToE could presumably explain the contents spacetime, but what about God and the wider universe? It is possible that God is made of similar stuff to us so a ToE could govern God too? Pre-Big Bang physics seems to make assumptions along these lines (about the wider universe).

Or God is maybe made of different stuff - but there could still be a ToE that explains God and the wider universe too?

God must be bound by some rules. God must be information of some form. Anything, be it material or non-material is information (else it is nothing), so we can adopt related axioms when dealing with God. Also common sense axioms should apply. So for example:

- Information cannot be destroyed, only transformed.
- Information is finite (my axiom)
- The whole is greater than the parts
- Great minds think alike (more of a guideline)

Bearing in mind God may not be part of time, I am not sure that causality, entropy and equilibrium belong in the list.

Maybe it is possible that a ToE will be at the level of pure information and as such it will tells us about God too?

An alternative approach is to say that God is not bound by any rules at all. That leads nowhere apart from spiritualism... nullifies all axioms... so nothing about God could be deduced.

"Should"? Why? What is the force of this "should"? And, what is the error of my analysis? — Dfpolis

There must be at least one timeless thing without at explanation and it must be capable of acting as a causal agent - the pyramid of causality within time requires a first cause.

So I think the difference of opinion is that I have God as a timeless brute fact which clashes with your premise 4 - you have God as a 'self explaining being'. I also have God as a non-omnipotent being.

I do not understand the concept of 'self explaining being' and I am not sure it hangs together logically.
As I mentioned before, nothing can exist 'forever' in time so the concept of timelessness seems to be required, which leads to the existence of brute facts.

It's a category error to think an infinite being can be confined to a location. If a being is contained, it can act in the container, but not outside of it, and so is limited. — Dfpolis

To be a being is to be composed of information - otherwise we have null and void. That information must have a representation. That requires some form of container. Maybe not a physical container as we understand it, but a container none the less and containers are finite. A belief in spiritualism does not escape this requirement (unless we also dispense with common sense - assume that nothing can be something).

This argument fails because we are not speaking of numerical but ontological infinity -- the capacity to do any possible act. An infinite being cannot change because an infinite being is a necessary being, and whatever is necessary cannot possibly be different. — Dfpolis

How is it possible to do anything possible and not be changed by the doing? I can only think of future real eternalism - God would have done everything already (in a sense) so would be completely static from the perspective of 4D spacetime. Maybe this is the way things are but it is a lot to swallow (no free will for example).

I must admit this is a challenge for my point of view too - how can a timeless being effect change? Possibly essential causality might help? Maybe change is possible without time. Maybe God has something like time within him (it cannot be without him - cannot exist 'always' in any form of time).

I agree that it is a real problem, but having a problem does not mean that the proof is unsound. I think the problem is that what might be good for other things need not be good for humans. If dinosaurs could think they would have thought the asteroid that ended their era was evil, but it was good for us. — Dfpolis

There are things in the universe that are just plain bad for all intelligent beings. Black holes for example are purely destructive. But they are a necessary consequence of gravity which is necessary for life. I would have thought an unlimited God would have gravity and also somehow intercede to prevent the negative consequences?

If a proof leads to a conclusion that clashes with reality, one has to question the proof. One or more of these has to give:

- Omnipotence
- Omnipresence
- Omnibenevolence

Personally I belief none of the 3 hold - leading to a deistic God - which is much easier concept to prove and defend.

I think your proof is an excellent effort but you are trying to prove something that is impossible.

Assuming there is one, if it is timelessly, it is necessarily. This necessity is either intrinsic (in which case it is self-explaining), or it is derived (in which case it is explained by another). In either case, it has an explanation. — Dfpolis

Timeless things should be able to exist without an explanation (as a brute fact). I believe the first cause is of this nature. Asking for an explanation is like asking what engine size an elephant has; the first cause simply does not have a 'why' property.

I made no claim that God is "in" (limited to) the cosmos. — Dfpolis

So there must be a wider (timeless) container that contains God and the cosmos. The wider container cannot just be 'nothingness' - nothing can exist in nothing - no dimensions. It must be something, and if it is something, then it is finite (infinity has the property ∞+1=∞ which implies it can be changed without being changed which is a straight contradiction).

But your definition of infinite seems to be omnipotence which I think is defined as ability to achieve anything possible. God must clearly be benevolent, so how do you account for the problem of evil? Having a deist view of God myself, the problem of evil is simply not relevant; the universe is a good as God could make it which is not perfect. It seems obvious to me that a first cause must exist. Omnipotence complicates logical / scientific justifications unnecessarily.

So I wonder do you mean intelligent design in the sense of could determinism allow a designer to set the initial starting conditions of the universe and sit back and watch life evolve in a deterministic fashion?

That would be an unusual way to use the term 'intelligent design'.

That was because Theologian made a separate point about my views on the universe.

Yes sorry, my original point was that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe.

By experience. Everything in reality is fundamentally logical. 2000 years of science has taught us that logical answers are out there. We may not have all the answers at present but they are out there and they are logical.

Contrast to actual infinity. ∞+1=∞. IE something that when you change it, it does not change. How is that logical?

I consider the existence of actual infinity in reality as likely as a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

See the post one up.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/303825

Still not entirely sure how you get to that. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not at all sure how you justify that claim in a positive sense. — Theologian

There is a separate thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5791/musings-on-infinity/p1

In summary I would say:

- Reality is constrained to what is logical
- Actual infinity comes with a bunch of illogical behaviours (see Hilbert's Hotel etc...)
- So Actual infinity does not feature in reality

Yet placing God, or at least God's ability to act, wholly inside this universe seems to be a premise of your argument. Remember: post Einstein, time is very much a part of the fabric of this universe. So it is difficult to say that God exists outside of time and yet is somehow constrained by the limits of the universe. — Theologian

I think that the term universe is the source of your confusion:

- If we define the universe as everything then God must be within it by definition
- Everything must also be finite
- Hence we cannot have an unlimited God in a limited universe
- So God exists outside of spacetime but he still exists within the context of a larger, finite, timeless universe

Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence — Dfpolis

A finite being outside of time has no need to explain its own existence, it is beyond causality, it just 'IS'.

I am not going to say that there are brute facts. I am going to say that it is not a self evident truth that there are not - and since you're the one offering the proof, the burden is on you. — Theologian

A finite being outside of time is a brute fact. This I believe is the actual nature of God.

Premise 2: Whatever exists is either finite or infinite. — Dfpolis

I would argue that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe.

'square circles exist or they don't' - complete disjunction so true.
'square circles exist ' - contradictory

'Whatever exists is either finite or infinite' - complete disjunction so true.
'The infinite exists' - contradictory (could a completely unlimited being exist in a finite universe?)

The rest of the proof assumes that an infinite being is possible; it needs to be demonstrated that an infinite being is not a logical contradiction.

I don't really see what you mean by "proof" here. A "proof" in the strict sense only exists in purely deductive systems like formal logic or mathematics. There is no "proof" of that kind for empirical science, and I don't believe very much can be deduced about metaphysics other than that something exists that thinks my thoughts. But since the possibility of metaphysics are essentially unlimited, it doesn't make sense to call this "being agnostic". Because it would follow that one is agnostic towards everything, from naive realism to the simulation hypothesis. — Echarmion

'Proof' is the wrong word - sorry. Strong atheists hold a positive belief in the non-existence of any deities. What I'm suggesting is they need a justification for that belief (as in Justified True Belief). Evidence/a strong argument for the non-existence of a deist God is what is required to rationally hold the strong atheist viewpoint. I am not aware that any such evidence/strong arguments exist.

Well, the quality of the evidence will depend on the circumstances, as I already stated. With God, the problem isn't really about whether the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence but more about how God can even be imagined as a physical entity in the first place and what predictive power such a theory of God would have. Rules such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are only true for purely deductive formal logic, not for inductive empirical science, and are useful shorthands rather than actual rules in the latter. — Echarmion

It is a fair point, but I think there is a natural tendency for humans to limit their consideration of what is possible to what they are familiar with when in fact what they are familiar could be only a tiny subset of what is actually possible. It seems God must be timeless so straight away we are in very unfamiliar / non-earth-like territory. God maybe extra dimensional. God may not be a physical entity. These things could be possible but are completely alien to us.

Yes I agree. Absence of evidence of evidence (for God) is not evidence of absence (of God).

How does that show the measure number to pre-exist the measurement operation? — Dfpolis

I mean that the measure number does not preexists the measurement, the proper length quantity preexists the measurement.

The relativistic length is a function of the proper length and the relative movement of the observer. So for a given object, it is proportional to the relative movement of the observer. So for a given object, proper length is constant. Proper length is therefore an observer independent property of the object being measured and the object has this property (which I'd call a quantity) whether it is being measured or not.

I agree that our universe is finitely old. — Dfpolis

Aristotle had sufficient information in his possession to conclude time must be finite - metaphysical considerations are sufficient to realise this without recourse to modern science. It does seem however, despite the evidence of the BB, there is still a widespread believe in infinite past time, so it is probably quite harsh to be critical.

If you have distinct events, there is not concurrence between them. Being concurrent means there is only one event. — Dfpolis

If an observer measures less than Planck time between two events, I would have thought the events are concurrent from that observer's perspective?

In their ignorance, most modern philosopers do not realize that there are two kinds of efficient causes (accidental and essential). Aristotle and the Scholastics did. You may do as you choose. — Dfpolis

Thanks for highlighting the difference.

Only if you choose to close your mind to essential causality. Sawing and being sawed are concurrent. Every doing is concurrent with someting being done. — Dfpolis

A good example, but I feel it can still be argued that essential causality and accidental causality are synonymous at a lower level:

At any moment I could say the force being transmitted to the saw by the carpenter will become the force transmitted to the wood - it cannot be an instantaneous transmission of force. If then spacetime is taken to be discrete, I could regard the sawing as a series of minute pulses of force, each of which can be considered a separate cause, the effect of each being a separate minute abrasion to the wood.

God is not a physical being, and so not subject to the laws of physics. God is an intention being. Aristotle called Him "Self-thinking thought." As intentions are not measuable, they cannot be quantified and so are beyond the competance of mathmatical physics. — Dfpolis

This is a point I have never been sure of:

- The fact that God created spacetime suggests he is not of spacetime.
- If God is immanent and can interact with the world, that suggests a physical component that maybe bound by the laws of physics.
- How can a timeless God fit within spacetime? Surely this is like getting a pint in a half pint pot
- To evade the fallout from Big Bang, God may need to be non-material or extra-dimensional, but both concepts are hard to swallow from a materialist viewpoint.

The space time manifold has no intrinsic necessity. If God did not act to maintain it in being, it would cease to be. — Dfpolis

One view of God is more as a timeless astrophysicist: he computed the requirements for a life supporting universe, worked out the physics needed to achieve that, and created some sort of gravity bomb that resulted in the BB and spacetime. His involvement in the universe is over; maybe moved onto bigger and better things - his presence is not required to 'support' space time.

I feel the our best hope for extended longevity is closed timelike curves from GR. If the universe itself is on a CTC, we might all get to live forever. An astrophysicist might have built something like this into his universe.

When you look at the menu in your favourite restaurant, you have to choose among perhaps 5 favourite dishes, all very pleasant. Then there is the competing issue of cost. You might like the steak tartare, but it costs 3 times as much as the stuffed grape leaves which you also like. Your date is a vegan, so splitting the steak tartare is out of the question (you won't have to give so much as a bite of it). The desserts are good too -- Galatopoureko (custard baked in filo crust) isn't vegan so you won't have to share that either. — Bitter Crank

To me these are all pain/pleasure related considerations. For example:

1. 'choose among perhaps 5 favourite dishes, all very pleasant' - equal pleasure for all dishes
2. 'Then there is the competing issue of cost' - expense now denies pleasure in future (money=pleasure)
3. 'You might like the steak tartare, but it costs 3 times as much as the stuffed grape leaves which you also like.' - then the question is do you get 3 times or more pleasure from the steak tartare as the grapes.
4. 'so splitting the steak tartare is out of the question' - lack of ability to save money = lack of future pleasure
5. 'You have quite mixed feelings about your date' - companionship and sex are all about emotional and physical pleasure in the short/long term

It all really just comes down to hedonism IMO. Its a matter, though of getting the definitions of pleasure and pain right:

- We have to include all forms of pain/pleasure - physical/emotional/intellectual/spiritual
- Long and short term must be considered (long term pleasure/pain outweighs the short term)
- The impact on your peer group must be considered (if it is painful for your peers, that will be reflected back upon you).

I think of it in terms of maximising net pleasure (total pleasure - total pain) for oneself (which entails maximising net pleasure for one's peer group).

Weak/negative atheism is lack of belief in any particular deity. I think it falls under the wider category of of agnosticism. To justify weak atheism, nothing is required because it is a negative belief.

Strong/positive atheism is a belief that no deities at all exist (strong atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false according to Wikipedia). To justify that belief/assertion, strictly speaking, one has to be sure that no deities exist at all. That requires a proof that no deities at all exist. That is surely unprovable for a deist deity (=no 3Os).

But maybe the above is unreasonable. I think a proof that the universe is not a creation would be sufficient for most people to adopt strong atheism. But no such prove exists.

So strong/positive atheism is a positive belief/assertion - which requires proof - else it is classed as belief without evidence - which is irrational.

I agree we have evidence of absence. But this evidence is based on absence of evidence - quite literally nothing happening. — Echarmion

But in the drug trial example, you expect something to happen if the drug is effective and it does not so you can reach the conclusion that the drug is not effective.

In terms of God, it would be a like building a God detection device, turning it on and getting a negative result.

In both cases there is evidence of absence (of drug effects / God) rather than absence of evidence.

Disproving the existence of things doesn't usually involve ruling out the possibility of it's existence. — Echarmion

Disproving the existence of something means ruling out the possibility of its existence. I know what you mean, but still it is strictly speaking a contradiction.

Unless there is a reason to posit some metaphysical entity, we might as well consider it nonexistent. — Echarmion

There are many arguments for the existence of God. So there is some (debated) evidence of presence and also no evidence of absence. I do not see now on this basis a fully rational person could dismiss the existence of a deist god with 100% certainty - that leads to a conclusion (with the deist definition of God) that there are no fully rational atheists.

Depends on the context. If you run a drug trial and detect no difference compared to the control group, that is evidence of absence (in that case absence of a pharmaceutical effect). — Echarmion

I think this is a different situation. Here we have changed something (put drugs into a patient) and noted no effect. So we have positive evidence (that the drug is not working).

If strict determinism was proved, predestination follows as a consequence. But predestination seems to be possible without determinism - we would simply not be able determine an already fixed future.

No experiment is ever repeatable in the strictest sense. We cannot get the same rat to choose twice between hole A and B - when we repeat the experiment, time has moved on and it is a different rat making a different choice.

So I would have though free will cannot be proved empirically (or theoretically).

I think the Hitchensian dictum "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" holds true in this case. No faith is required. — NOS4A2

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Actually, in relation to "the eternal", what Aristotle argued is that anything eternal must be actual. So the infinite is argued to be potential, and the eternal is argued to be actual. This produces a separation between "infinite", and "eternal", as categorically distinct, and lays the ground work for a conception of "eternal" which is other than infinite time. This is the sense of "eternal" which is more commonly expressed in metaphysics, meaning outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree:

1. Eternal things must be actual
2. infinite things must be potential (not sure I agree with Aristotle here, but for the sake of argument...)
3. Without the concept of timelessness, eternal things must be infinite
4. So from 1, 2, 3, we have actual things must be potential - a contradiction
5. So 3 is wrong: eternal things are timeless and finite.