We have established separately that there is a start of time. The start of time requires a cause. An uncaused cause. Quantum fields I feel are part of spacetime and so I doubt they can preexist spacetime (there is no time/space for them to fluctuate in). — Devans99

In theory, spacetime CONSISTS of quantum fields. Collectively, these comprise a quantum system. In this context, a quantum fluctuation is not a temporal event. The initial quantum state is zero-point energy; a quantum state is a superposition of all possible eigenstates, each with an energy value of (zero + a value associated with the uncertainty principle).

An eigenstate with high energy/low entropry will necessarily inflate, either collapsing the quantum system to this state, or (if Many-Worlds interpretation is true) - in a world that branches off the initial superpositioned quantum state.. The "cause" of this inflation is the high energy of that eigenstate; the existence of that high energy eigenstate is just a consequence of the quantum uncertainty of a zero point energy system - the quantum system as a whole has "zero" energy. Therefore nothing external needs to cause it to inflate.

A start of time needs a cause from from beyond spacetime. — Devans99

"Spacetime" may not be the right label to apply to the initial state I described, but it is clearly doesn't require anything external to inflate and become what we call a universe (spacetime). The "cause" is its high energy, and the initial high energy is a consequence of the quantum uncertainty of a zero point energy.

But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. — Devans99

Agreed. But a feature of time is not beyond time.

So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.

Not "beyond", but yes, of course there is no time prior to the state of affairs that is the first cause.

Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible — Devans99

Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist.

; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, — Devans99

Here's the assumption I anticipated. You assume there cannot simply be an initial state of affairs at an initial point of time. As I said, you're rationalizing your prior belief, not showing it must be true.

I think we have been here before. A natural cause implies the universe is a dumb mechanical system. Dumb mechanical systems cannot start themselves without input from an intelligence and end up in equilibrium. — Devans99

Yes we have, and that why I knew your argument was dependent on convenient assumptions. Here you have pontificated another - asserting, without proof, that an intelligence must be behind it. You also seem to be stuck in a classical (non-quantum) view of physical reality.

Basically, you choose to believe in God, so you choose to believe things that preclude other possibilities.

There is an explanation for God's existence; he is uncaused because he is from beyond causality, IE beyond time. — Devans99

That doesn't explain God's existence it just asserts that he's uncaused. Any first cause is uncaused, so this alleged "explanation" is equally applicable to any first-cause state of affairs.

The first cause cannot be "beyond" causation, it obviously must be the initial point in a continuous causal chain. Nor can it be "beyond time", because causation reflects change over time - there can be no causation without an elapse of time.

You will undoubtedly rationalize all this, but it will require making just the right assumptions that preclude a natural first cause while permitting a supernatural one. But this doesn't actually prove anything.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up. — NOS4A2

There was lots of debate on the JCPOA at the time, and there were smart people on both sides of it. I accept that it wasn't a perfect deal, and perhaps a better one could have been obtained - but absolutely no one can say for certain. On the other hand, once it was in place, it was idiotic to withdraw from it - and that's exactly what Trump did, over the objections of the military and his own Secretary of State. We will never know what would have happened had the US stayed in it, but we will know what will happen following Trump's actions. I don't know what the future will bring, and I hope it will be bright. However, the situation at the present does not look good, and Trump owns it.

The zero energy universe explains inflation (the big bang) and all that ensued. It does not entail an infinite past. The only thing it does not explain is the existence of the quantum system that could inflate. But of course, it seems inevitable that there would be SOMETHING unexplainable at the root of it all: neither is there an explanation for a "God's" existence.

It turns out he was more spot on than you.. He never wanted a war with Iran, and in fact wants to negotiate a better nuclear deal. — NOS4A2

I'm sure you're right that Trump doesn't want war - he's extremely isolationist. Instead of a "better nuclear deal", we have NO nuclear deal: he pushed Iran into abandoning the JCPOA entirely. The chances of negotiating with them at all is low, because when Trump abandoned the JCPOA, he showed them the US is faithless in their negotiations.

Iran’s influence in Iraq dangerously grows, just like he predicted.

And Trump's presence in the White House hasn't slowed this a bit. Incidentally, the experts you disdain predicted that toppling Saddam would lead to this. I don't think it was preventable by either Obama or Trump, but Trump's behavior with the Kurds and with Iran puts him on the poorest of footings to negotiate anything. Trump has made us even more unwelcome in Iraq. I do not expect him to withdraw our troops, but it does mean the troops will be surrounded by growing hostility towards them.

He is indeed more militaristic, showing military strength at key moments, like he did with Soleimani.

Honestly, I hope his saber rattling works, but I expect that sooner or later, our enemies may realize that his threats are empty.

He supports their protesters, like he said Obama could have done. Iran’s problem’s with protesters is so bad their extrajudicial killings of their own people has fomented inner struggle.

Verbal support for protestors doesn't get you much. The real problem is that Trump's action has kindled the flames of Iranian nationalism, shifting the focus from internal Iranian leadership to the hated US.

Other possibilities besides war should be exhausted, which they were.

I agree that other possibilities should be exhausted. It's unfortunate that Trump's big misstep of withdrawing from the JPCOA got us to this point. I predict Iran will not respond with open warfare, but will instead step up their support for terrorist activities.

The bottom line is that Trump has put us in a worse position with respect to Iran and Iraq than when he took office. That seems indisputable.

The Jewish court which sentenced Jesus had no temporal powers. The Romans were the ones who crucified Jesus, probably because they considered him as a potential rebel. Suggest you study the history of the Jewish rebellion against the Roman rule. — Jacob-B

I'm familiar with that. I was referring to the evolution of story of Pilate's sentencing Jesus to death. Over time, blame is increasingly shifted from Pilate to that Jewish public. A key point is that only in Gospel of Matthew (which came later than Mark and used Mark as a source) does Pilate wash his hands, and declare that he is innocent of Jesus’ blood, while the Jewish crowd (all the crowd, not just the leaders) cry out those infamous words, “His blood be upon us and our children” (Matt 27:25). That sort of thing is a plausible seed for eventual anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the evolution of anti-Semitism is more complicated than that. A few years ago, I read John Gager's "The Origin of Anti-Semitism", and he lays out a good bit of historical context to support his theory for developing anti-Semitism. The above is a small factor, but moreso is the competition that grew between Jews and Christians in the second and third centuries. I honestly don't remember a lot of detail, since its been awhile, but it does seem an excellent source for anyone interested in learing about the earliest roots of anti-Semitism.

Tim - I re-read our earlier exchages and I now see that I misinterpreted your position. Sorry about that, and going off on what was apparently a silly tangent.

And you evaded my parenthetical question. I'm satisfied there was an historical person corresponding to the literary creation of the Bible, but I am under the impression there is no evidence outside the bible of such a person. And certainly none outside the bible that recounts what what the bible says about that person. On this, however, I accept correction providing the sources are generally accepted as authoritative. — tim wood

I think you're asking about Jesus, so I'll respond accordingly.

Yes, I think it much more likely than not that there existed a man of that approximate name, upon whom a religion developed. There IS some limited extra-biblical record of his having existed, but probably the best evidence is the fact that Paul discusses his own interactions with Jesus brother (James), and his #1 disciple Cephas/Peter.

What really drove individuals to explore nature?
— Relativist
You're not getting that observing/exploring nature is not what modern science does. — tim wood

You're mincing words. I described the various reasons why I believe it's impossible to know how western society would have developed had Christianity not developed as it did. (The hypothetical is: what if Christianity hadn't developed as it did? And you seem to be claiming that we would not have modern science).

Tenuous except where and when it's a matter of record — tim wood

Sure, but that's pretty sketchy. But there isn't what one would need to truly understand ancient world views, and how and why world views evolved over time, but you seem to think you have a strong handle on this. Are you a historian? Have you researched this?

Feel free to educate yourself on this before assuming you are all that knowledgable in the matter. — christian2017

Jeez! All I said was, " I don't think any Christians today keep kosher. ". When someone says, "I think...", that's a good sign they aren't claiming to be "all that knowledgable". But thanks for setting me straihht on that issue. Next time I'll say "most Christians do not keep kosher."

The error you're making - that I think you're making - and a common error commonly made by folks who do not really understand history (itself) is that those folks in their thinking were just like us folks in ours, only maybe not-so-far along. And they weren't. — tim wood

I don't think that at all, and I've raised that point myself in other discussions. But neither do you know how they thought, and your claim depends on your speculations about their world views, and that these assumed world views were so ubiquitous that it would be impossible for science to develop.

What really drove individuals to explore nature? What external enablers (e.g. prosperity, education...)were there? What other enablers might have arisen? There are likely to be many answers to these questions.

For that matter, why did Christianity spread as it did? Under this hypothetical, had Christianity not spread - would something else have arisen? Because surely, the societal enablers for Christianity could have resulted in other directions equally productive to science, or even more so.

The history of the Western World is bound up with the development of Christianity. Had Christianity not developed as it did, history would have been very, very different - so much so, that no speculation can have a good basis. I guess you could write a story of speculative fiction, in the vein of "The Man in the High Castle", but nothing more.

I've done a fair amount of reading about the historical Jesus and it's pretty obvious to me that our knowledge of the distant past is very tenuous. And if we can't really know the actual past with any certainty, it is folly to think we can figure out what would have happened under this hypothetical.

Relativist
How do you know Jesus actually said that?
— Relativist

All that the supernaturally based religions have to offer are lies and speculative nonsense about god.

I am not a literalist but write to engage them and I have to use their ball to play on their field — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You didn't answer my question. How do you know Jesus said that?

FYI, I do not believe there exists an "immortal soul".

They seem to have ignored that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How do you know Jesus actually said that? I presume it's because "Matthew" attributes those words to Jesus. However it's very possibly an apologetic invention by "Matthew" to convey his view that Mosaic law was to continue to be followed.

If you choose to believe everything in the Gospels is true, that's religious faith. You are free to believe whatever you like, but obviously YOUR faith isn't going to persuade anyone who doesn't share it.

. Christianity was an influence that allowed those presuppositions to evolve and change. I — tim wood

I see no reason to think science wouldn't have advanced had Christianity not gained the big following that it did, but historical what-ifs like this seem an exercise in futility.

actually Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it and in fact he went on to say that not a "tittle" of the law would be undermined until some distant future event. — christian2017

That's what the author of Matthew (whoever that may have been) claimed Jesus said, but I don't think any Christians today keep kosher. Even Paul, writing before Matthew, believed it unnecessary.

That for the pagan ancient world (not ever to be confused with any kind of ignorance or stupidity), nature was imperfect, and therefore not really knowable. Observable yes, knowable no. Christianity, on the other hand, believed that nature was made by God, and therefore perfect in itself, and therefore perfectly knowable. — tim wood

The "pagan" religion of the Roman empire was based on ritual, not adherence to a world view. There was no ideological barrier to making efforts to understand the world. Aristotelian metaphysics was consistent with pursuing natural explanations for the behavior of the world.

His gut feelings have done a better job than any sober, technocratic deliberation. They think and claim to know better but I don’t think that’s the case. All the over-educated, effete people know how to do is talk, talk, talk. What have they built? What have they made? What else have they done? — NOS4A2

His "gut feel" has resulted in such things as:

- a stalling to real immigration reform.
- damaged relations with allies
- damaged Ukraine internally and with respect to Russia
- the death of hundreds of Kurdish allies - and demonstrated the untrustworthiness of the US
- created a crisis with Iran
- damaged relations with Iraq
- threats to removing health care coverage for millions
- failed to address the impending funding crisis for social security
- created an unnecessary, inappropriate, and damaging controversy with application of the code of military justice
- exacerbated political/ideological divisions within the US
- promotion of crazy conspiracy theories

What have experts done? Over the decades, they have provided sound advice that enables poltical leaders to progress the country in positive ways - and the country HAS advanced. Consider the trade deals that Trump has blasted out of ignorance and/or political expediency. What has been their net effect?

Name one prediction regarding Trump’s presidency that an “authority” has gotten correct — NOS4A2

Most expert predictions relate to the long term - like the long term unsustainability of these high levels of deficit spending, the long term damage to international relations, and of course - to climate change.
But some shorter term predictions have also borne out: experts predicted Trump's actions in Syria would result in the death of Kurds (which has been borne out) and that this will have the long term effect of increasing distrust of America (which seems indisputable). Experts disagreed with Trump's prediction of 6% GDP grown. Experts predicted that termination of NAFTA would be severely damaging to the economy - fortunately this didn't occur, and it was never likely, but expert analysis has always shown that freer trade is in the general interest (contrary to Tump's stated beliefs).

I'm not sure what you're asking. Society has evolved over time, so that each stage in time is a consequence of its past. Historians examine various intellectual and societal currents. But to the degree that Science reflects an (best guess at) an objective view of reality, I don't see that Christianity was a sine qua non for its development. What am I missing?

cool. Thanks.

Jesus was a Jew. Why do some Christians and Muslims hate Jews? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The Christian line is that Jesus altered Judaism (abolishing the "law", forgiving sins, and demanding faith in him) and welcomed non-Jews into the fold, while non-Christian Jews rejected him and his message - and even had him killed.

I don't know much about Muslim alleged hatred of Jews. I know that many Muslims resent the theft of Palestine for a Jewish homeland, but that's relatively recent.

Science didn't pop full-fledged out of nowhere. It evolved, and in the west, it evolved out of Christianity — frank

It didn't evolve "out of Chistianity". Rather, it happens to have primarily evolved within a culture that happened to be predominantly Christian. Christianity isn't really on the critical path.

As I have pointed out in other recent threads, mathematics is the science of drawing necessary inferences about hypothetical states. Consequently, mathematical existence does not entail metaphysical actuality, only logical possibility in accordance with a specified set of definitions and axioms. — aletheist

That sounds reasonable. In that vein, do you recognize that there's a conceptual distinction between an "actual infinity" and a "potential infinity"?

↪Relativist

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

I suppose he just bungled his way into the most powerful position in the world. — NOS4A2

Not at all - I'm not suggesting he's low IQ. Rather, he has the sort of superficial knowledge of the world that pundits possess (like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin), and that point of view has a big audience. The stupidity lies in thinking there's no need for more in depth analysis and knowledge, and thinking you know better than everyone else...and in exercising an extreme amount of confirmation bias, so that he accepts any conspiracy theory that comes along that confirms his prior beliefs, and his unwillingness to accept expert advice that is contrary to his ignorant gut feel.

So what? Your obsequiousness to intellectuals and smooth talkers alarms me. — NOS4A2

I respect the opinion of authorities, and it is irrational to deny them solely because you don't like their conclusions. Authorities can be wrong - obviously they aren't always in agreement, but accepting a non-authority demagogue(especially one that so frequently spouts untruths) over an actual authority based solely on faith in the demagogue - that's scary. And that gets back to why it matters what Trump says: there's no good reason to trust either his judgment nor what he says.

Do abstractions exist at all? I suggest they don't. A number line "exists" only as an abstraction, but this is not true existence. It's just a concept, in which a set of logical/mathematical properties are considered abstractly. The same is true of numbers, whether rational or irrational. "3" doesn't exist, but collections of 3 objects exist - so we can think abstractly about 3-ness. Neither does Pi exist; nevertheless we can abstractly consider the fact that all "circles" (another abstraction) have Pi as the ratio between their circumference and diameter.

I don't think there are any Thomists anymore — frank

Yes there are: Edward Feser, and his devotees.

The Thomist God set the world in motion and then sort of turned away to let it run its course. — frank

While Thomistic metaphysics doesn't entail intervention in the world, it doesn't preclude it either. Aquinas (and Feser) believed all the usual Catholic doctrine, including Jesus' virginal conception, his Resurrection, and transsubstantiation.

For a Thomist, all sin brings about a greater good whether we understand how or not. — frank

In effect, you are saying:
If Thomism then all sin brings about a greater good

Tim and Gnostic Christian Bishop suggest that it is more reasonable to believe all sin brings about a greater good is false, which is sufficient grounds to reject Thomism:
1. If Thomism then all sin brings about a greater good
2. ~( all sin brings about a greater good) (problem of evil)
3. Therefore ~Thomism (1,2 modus tollens).

all sin brings about a greater good is logically possible, so your faith-based belief in Thomism is not refuted. Nevertheless, I hope you can see why this is not satisfying to non-Thomists.

They’ve been consistently breaching the deal. — NOS4A2

They were complying with the deal before Trump dumped it. This was the first bullet fired in the war because it backed Iran into a corner.

↪Relativist
Then why make the following post:

Because it is true.

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I haven’t criticized anyone for being partisan. — NOS4A2

What you do is to respond perceived partisan comments with your own partisan comments. It's a waste of time. I try to avoid that sort of thing. For instance, my view on Trump's stupidity is based on examining facts.

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are even dumber than he is.


You don’t like the way he talks. I get it. But if a good talker is your standard for good leadership than any actor who can read a script will suffice as your ideal politician. That frightens me because talking good is all some people can do. — NOS4A2

You're deflecting from the point I made, just like all loyal partisans. This isn't a matter of merely "not liking" what he says, it's a matter of being alarmed at how stupid he must be to say them, and how stupid and/or blindly loyal his followers are for not seeing this.

No, I don’t care what they say. — NOS4A2

Then why make the following post:

Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

You're playing exactly the same partisan game as the people you criticize.

I know you’d just love to reiterate trumps speech and thought crimes because it’s really all you guys have. — NOS4A2

Unlike you, I think what are leaders say does matter. My primary issue with Trump is not "thought crimes" - it's that he's arrogant and stupid. This is regularly shown in his tweets, rally-streams of consciousness, and his Fox interviews. IMO, anyone who doesn't see this is either blinded by faith in Trump or they are are even dumber than he is.

Don't be so flippant. Post the work, show the work, make the argument you want to make based upon the work. I've a very strong feeling that there is nothing in that report that could be used to show the negative affects/effects that a number of different pieces of legislation has had on a very large swathe of the American population. — creativesoul

So, instead of reading the report I gave you, you're going to make assumptions on what it says based on your "very strong feelings." And yet, you claim I'm the one being flippant.

You cannot look at GDP and job numbers as a means to establish the unnecessary and demonstrable financial harm that has been suffered by countless Americans — creativesoul

I never denied that some individuals have been hurt. How many jobs have been lost is impossible to day, because some of the job losses attributed to NAFTA would have been lost anyway - manufacturing has been shifting out of the US for a long time; NAFTA probably sped it up, but it didn't originate it. The report you didn't read discusses this.

What you overlook is that NAFTA also created some jobs, and raised the income for some people. So some people are better off, and others are worse off. You seem blind to that, and focus entirely on those who are worse off. Sorry, but I think it would be absurd to avoid taking actions that are in the general interest because it will negatively impact a relatively small number of people. Businesses strive for "efficiency" and efficiency entails producing more for less money. Automation does that, and so does utilizing cheaper labor in locations outside the US. Protectionism to prevent utilizing cheaper labor makes as much sense as forbidding automation.

That said, I do think it appropriate to provide remedy for those who ARE negatively impacted - e.g. training and education, perhaps moving expenses to move to areas where there are more, or better, jobs. THAT would make it win-win for everyone.

Trump is the Great Scapegoat of whatever happens next, so long as whatever happens makes things demonstrably worse. — NOS4A2

Isn't that politics-as-usual? Never give credit to the other side for anything good, and always assign blame for anything bad.

The ultimate irony is that no politician has done this to the degree that Trump has. Would you like to be reminded about the various attacks he's made? Oh, that's right - you don't care what he says. Oddly, you do care about what his political opponents say.

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? quote]
— Relativist

No, I’m suggesting Trump just blew up Putin’s Iranian military ally and he cannot do anything about it. If he did, it would put His country at odds with Iran’s enemies: US, Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia, relationships Russia has been cultivating in recent decades. — NOS4A2

No, Putin can't do anything about it, but why would he need or want to? Putin respected Soleimani, but I see no reason to think it's critical to Russia'a relationship with Iran. I agree that Putin would have preferred Soleimani remain alive, but it's minor compared to the overall benefit he gets from Trump being in office.

OK, then define "meaning" in your terms.

But then again Soleimani was a direct link between Khomeini and the Kremlin, and worked with Putin in Syria. He just lost a key ally. — NOS4A2

Surely you don't really believe killing Soleimani somehow severs the link between Iran and the Kremlin. At worst, it's an inconvenience.

I do not think more trade and influence with Iran is worth risking further alienation from America and her allies

Are you suggesting this alienates Russia from the U.S.? What makes you think that? How does this change anything- Russia was already their ally and arms supplier, and we already didn't like that they were doing this. What changes?

with the recent massive arms deals and good relations with Iran's biggest enemies. Putin will not benefit from anything that might further destabilize that region.

Putin benefits from bad perceptions of the US. Russian oil benefits from supply constraints from the middle east. Major instability would hurt them, but it hurts the US more, and this makes it a win for Russia.

What if I told you that feelings are a special kind of information or signal that carries its meaning within? — Zelebg

Feelings aren't just information, they drive behavior. Information doesn't directly drive behavior; it only indirectly does so through the feeling-associations.

I don’t see much difference between external sensations and internal emotions, both feel like feelings. — Zelebg

We have the capacity to distinguish color, so each color is basically just information. Bits of information in our brains (including perceived colors) have associations to other information and to feelings (e.g. blueness might invoke a pleasureable feeling associated with experiencing a clear, blue sky).

Without feelings, there's just information storage. Feelings drive intentional behavior.

when you feel pain you know it means “bad” — Zelebg

When a nonhuman animal feels pain, it reacts behaviorally - just as we do. We humans also associate various words with that feeling ("bad", "hurts"), and are thusly able to communicate and reason about it- which can lead to more effective actions, but the feeling which drives us to do something is the same.

What is "meaning"? If we just consider information, then meaning just entails a dictionary - a word means its definition. Only when you add in the associated feelings do you get to the essence of meaning.

Yes. When the US bombs a Russian ally, Russia comes out ahead, in terms of influence and with trade, particularly arms sales. Is there any downside for Russia?

Putin has such a grip on Trump that Trump keeps bombing Putin’s allies. — NOS4A2

When the US bombs Russia's allies, do you think that will somehow turn them against Russia? Seems to me it's a win for Putin - I doubt Putin really cares about the loss of life among his allies.

the whole universe is being simulated in which we only exist virtually, is being accepted too easy considering that we know of no way how could possibly something mechanical like computation ever produce something conceptual like imagination, intuition, feelings, and the rest of the mental content. Or do we? — Zelebg

The notion that the universe is a simulation seems silly to me, but your fundamental issue seems to be with the nature of consciousness, and whether a human-like consciousness could possibly be constructed. I don't think sensory-input qualia are necessarily a problem: e.g. knowing redness entails experiencing redness in the way our sensory apparatus presents it. The REALLY hard problem is feelings (e.g. pain, desire). It's hard, and we aren't close to figuring it out, but that hardly seems like a good reason to jump to conclusions like panpsychism.

That coup was the origin of relations, but there was reason to hope Obama's nuclear deal might lead to improving relations over time. By withdrawing from it, Trump killed that possibility and demonstrated that the US is an untrustworthy negotiator.

I predict that history will show that the first action that led to this war was withdrawing from the Nuclear Pact, and the second was the imposition of the extremely restrictive sanctions. Trump backed Iran into a corner. That's not to excuse anything they did as a consequence, but it's crazy to think they'd just buckle under to our will.