With a simple majority vote (50 plus 1 from Kamala), Democrats could change the filibuster that would allow for a legislative codification of Roe v. Wade to pass with another simple majority — Maw

Republicans will eventually be in the majority, and can then easily strike down that law, not to mention the ACA

It is logically impossible for infinitely many intervals to have passed.

Points of time don't exist. Nor points of space. — Hillary

Irrelevant. We can examine the passage of time in countable, discrete intervals.

The continuum can't be broken up in the first place — Hillary

Sure it can. The real number line can be divided into discrete, equal intervals mapping to integers. There have been infinitely many temporal points of time since yesterday, but we can divide it up into 24 1-hour intervals.

This is what I was talking about when I said that language cannot express this. Creation implies a temporal event: The thing exists, and it didn't earlier, but if there's no earlier, it isn't really a creation, or a 'becoming' for that matter. — noAxioms

"God exists timelessly sans creation" refers to the counterfactual case, the non-actualized, metaphysically contingent possibility in which God did not choose to create the universe. So it doesn't entail a time before time. Craig relies on atemporal causation, which seems to entail God and the universe's initial conditions coexisting at t0. But Craig doesn't commit to this. He says that God could exist temporally prior to the universe (a time before spacetime), because he's omnipotent. So I don't think there's a logical problem.

, you said otherwise earlier:
Craig says the past is finite (his KCA depends on it), and God chose to create spacetime
— Relativist
so I assume that was said in error. God created or fired-up time, and then created a 3D universe (space, not spacetime) in that time. — noAxioms

No, not an error. Although spacetime is a package deal, omnipotence means he can behave temporally without the full package. So he's not going against general relativity, just saying God's not constrained by it. The assumption of omnipotence is quite a convenience when constructing a metaphysical account.

mostly arguments from incredulity — noAxioms

That is his Forte.

So you can't count infinity to yesterday.

But (thermodynamic) time can naturally emerge from a state without time yet. So it doesn't need God to be created. — Hillary

I pretty much agree, except for the phrasing "without time yet"- this sounds like there's a point prior to time. My view is that there is an initial point OF time (t0). IMO, there could be multiple thermodynamic arrows of time emerging from initial conditions, each causally independent of each other, but retrospectively converging at t0. This is a hypothesis of Sean Carroll. (I don't know if it's true, but it seems as reasonable as anything).

if God created spacetime, that's a structure of which time is a part, not a structure in time — noAxioms

Well, Craig also says that by creating time, became a temporal being. One of his slogans is, "God exists timelessly sans the universe, and temorally with it". So he does not consider time to merely be a dimension of spacetime, and he absolutely rejects block-time.

to propose the creation of a spacetime structure, one has to posit a 2nd kind of time that is entirely separate from the time that is part of the structure.

Not necessarily. Craig is a presentist: only the present exists and it is universal (includes God). In terms of special relativity, God has a privileged point of view.

IMO, Craig's views are coherent, albeit that they depend on some questionable metaphysical assumptions.

I honestly don't think there's a single correct answer. One can only draw boundaries and apply them consistently, but you may draw the boundaries differently than I.

Personally, I draw the boundaries as beginning when the rudimentary mind emerges during gestation, and terminating when that mind ceases to exist at death. Of course, both boundaries are fuzzy (there is not some instant of time at which a mind begins to exist), but that's true of many things (at what precise length must whiskers be, to be a beard?)

Some believe in haeccity, the theory that identity is something irreducible, but just IS. Your haeccity could inhabit your body, Taylor Swift's body, a cockroach body, or no body at all. I reject it, but it's a means to "solve" the problem of identity.

Why needs time to be created? — Hillary

Because (according to Craig) everything is created, except for God).

Aleph0 is countable. — Hillary

Yes, the set of integers is a countable set (unlike the real numbers). But the problem I'm referring to is that a temporal counting process would never end - it cannot reach infinity.

Time proceeds in countable increments
— Relativist

What do you mean here? — Hillary

This:

Well, aleph0 is countable. — Hillary

There is a successor function that "counts" from one transfinite to the next, but you can't count integers (corresponding to a day, for example) and eventually reach aleph-0.

If the first big bang started infinite big bangs ago, then the serie is created infinite time ago. — Hillary

You're treating "infinite" as a number, and transfinite math doesn't solve the problem. Time proceeds in countable increments, and you can't count from aleph-0 to today.

Bear in mind that Craig believes the past is finite.
— Relativist
He says that? Then God didn't create time? How unomnipotent of him. — noAxioms

Yes, Craig says the past is finite (his KCA depends on it), and God chose to create spacetime, and to become temporal himself.

If you go fast enough you can reach billions of lightyears in 80 years. Only the CMBR poses a velocity limit. — Hillary

Even removing the speed of light limitation, you still need to accelerate to some maximum velocity halfway there, and then decelerate for the second half. Acceleration potential would be limited by the amount of G force humans can sustain for a long period. Need a large (or renewable) energy source. Dillithium crystals are in short supply. I wish you luck on your journey!

But I have a description. And for what happened long before the big bang too. And after ours. — Hillary

But there are quite a few speculative hypotheses like this. How do you justify settling on a particular one?

The whole history of periodic big bangs is natural. And because I can't know more than an infinite past (in which time starts from zero over and over) so what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? — Hillary

What makes you so sure the past is infinite? How do you reconcile an infinite past with time starting over?

what else to conclude that the gods started it infinitely long ago? What ignorance you refer too? — Hillary

What does it mean to be "infinitely long ago"? Infinite past seems to entail no beginning.

I referred to an argument from ignorance: i.e. we don't know what happened, so you insist "therefore it must be X". The problem is there there are many existing speculative hypotheses available today, and there's many more could be developed. How did you choose the one you embrace?

What's sacred? Good question! — Hillary

I'm asking what you mean by the term (which you used), not what IS sacred.

3. Atmospheric studies of potentially habitable exoplanets (colonization)
— Agent Smith
Easy there, conquistador. :sweat: — 180 Proof


:lol:

Enthusiastic as ever! — Hillary

Smith is quite the optimist. I wonder if he's anticipating warp drive, suspended animation, teleportation - or something else.

Well, the universe needs a reason and a kind of sacredness. A non-scientific reason, since I have a scientific description from beginning to end. I don't see how one can go deeper. Of course you can say that's because we don't know but I think we can know. So the three combined give reason, sacredness, and an vision of how gods and heaven look like (like life and the universe) And a reason why they created the basics in the first place. And the sacredness tells that we should treat all life as sacred. — Hillary

I'll assume that by "universe", you're referring to the stars/galaxies/dark matter etc that were produced by the big bang that cosmologists study. It's true that we don't have a scientific description of what existed prior to the inflationary period - but why would you assume this implies it's probably not natural? Why assume we can't go deeper, when you consider the gaps in scientific understanding (quantum mechanics and general relativity aren't reconciled - but theoretical physicists generally believe they will one day be reconciled). You say "we can know", but do you allow for theoretical physics to advance and answer at least some of the questions? It sounds too much like argument from ignorance.

Sacredness? Please explain what that is, and what leads you to believe there is such a thing. Why think there's a heaven? Is it a non-physical place, is it just a natural container for the universe? What's the basis of your "vision"?

What you mean by justified? Evidence? — Hillary

Some sort of epistemic justification, including (but not limited to): deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation...

I couldn't find my car keys this morning, despite the fact that I always hang them on the hook by the front door. Am I justified in blaming a poltergeist?

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right". — Relativist


No. But for life they are right. — Hillary

Life is a consequence of what they are. Different values would have led to different consequences.

Yes. Hawking said that. The gods breath the fire, the charge, into them. — Hillary

OK, but it still reflects a platonist perspective. Law realism seems much more reasonable.

Of course it's speculation. So what? — Hillary

Simply that it's not rational, because it's unjustifiable.

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?
— Relativist

Because them gods are the non-material forms of life, as heaven is the form of the universe. Without the evolving into beings... — Hillary

This is pure speculation. There is no evidence for it. This is true of many things you've asserted. I don't see how these can possibly be justified beliefs.

The right coupling strengths of particles, which determines interaction, and are just numbers and determine the relative strengths of vertex factors, The right speed of light. The right Planck constant. The dimensionslity of space, though for three dimensions there are as many translational as rotational degrees of freedom. They could be interrelated though but still. Where does it come from? What blows the fire into the equations? — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and there are consequences. This doesn't mean they're "right".

The "fire in the equations" (sounds like something Vilenkin said) is based on a platonic view of laws of nature: equations existing in platonic heaven that mysteriously affect the objects to which they apply. Law realists (e.g. Armstrong, Tooley, Sosa) view laws of nature as physical relations, part of the physical structure of the world, existing exclusively in their instantiations . e.g.the attraction between electron and proton reflects a physical relation between them.

Just try to imagine how particles, virtual ones, or real ones, and the space the move in (which can be made of the hidden variables of QM) can come into existence. With all the right properties (or a mechanism to include all possibilities, which isn't the string landscape, and why not simply posing that they have the right qualities.). From nothing. I can't explain that. And the direction in which they move, towards the greater entropy, is an indication too. — Hillary

What do you mean by "right qualities"?

Why do you assume there are QM hidden
variables? Does quantum indeterminacy unsatisfying?

You agree something exists that is uncaused. Do you also agree that it didn't "come into" existence?

Why assume the uncaused thing(s) are as complex as intelligent being(s)?

Non-intelligent matter, like elementary particles and space, etc. need intelligences to exist. — Hillary

What makes you think that?

It appears to me that intelligence entails complex processes, which are produced by complex entities- there's a dependency on underlying, complex structure. This implies that without components that work together, there can be no intelligence. Why think intelligence can be produced without this?

Not sure I follow you here... You mean not everything can be known? — Hillary

Yes, more than likely. You should agree, since you believe there are gods. How could you possibly determine their properties?

Because they are different from the material universe. They are eternal intelligences, without the need for explanation. — Hillary

Sounds like a special pleading. You acknowledge that something exists without explanation, and we agree on that. IMO, the notion that it is something as complex as intelligent beings seems absurd.

But the everyday world was not looked at in the experiments. — Hillary

But the phenomena does manifest itself in a detectable way.

If there is a god, it is probably not directly detectable. If one is open to that possibility, one should be open to the existence of other non-detectable things.

But I mean, if there are 2 basics, you can't go deeper logically. Two basis particles is the minimum. It can't be one. — Hillary

Logically, humans can't go deeper in exploration, but that does not mean that's all there is. Remember, I wad responding to this:

I think everything can actually be known. — Hillary

No. But neither is there not to claim. And I think the incapacity of physics to find the cause of it's ingredients, elementary particles, pretty good reason for such assumption. — Hillary

Why exempt god(s) from requiring a reason for existing?

It's not so weird if you understand it from a certain angle, — Hillary

It's weird in the sense that no one would have proposed it based on everyday experience of the world. The behavior did, at least, have an experimental manifestation. But there could be weirdness that doesn't manifest itself this way. We don't know what we don't know.

Two basic massless particles, beneath the standard model seems the bottom. You logically can't go deeper. Or can we? — Hillary

We may not be able to explore deeper, but that doesn't mean this is truly fundamental. We used to think protons and neutrons were fundamental.

Exactly! I said that earlier somewhere. When the gaps are closed, gods provide the last closure. — Hillary

The point is that the psychological need for causal closure makes some of us overly willing to accept answers just because they are answers, in spite of weak support and implausibility.

But so is Dawkins' interpretation of evolution. The selfish genes or memes testify and this is based on a dogma even: The central dogma of molecular biology. — Hillary

I assure you, Dawkins believes the processes are deterministic (perhaps with some influence from quantum indeterminacy). Genes are not making choices based on some sense of self-interest. The descriptions are terms of art.

The question is asked because there has to be a reason. — Hillary

That's an assumption you make. There is no objective basis for the claim. Everything that exists has been caused by something prior, which can be described as a "causal reason" , but it's a phrasing to describe our motivation to discover "why?" There's no objective basis for assuming intentionality.

And the fine-tuning argument is a good indication for the reason. The coupling constants (electric, color, and hypercolor charge, and to some extent mass) need to have a fixed ratio. In the string landscape 10exp 500 possibilities are offered but in the face of infinity this is small. — Hillary

The constants are what they are, and the universe has evolved accordingly. Fine tuning arguments assume there was a design objective and remark at the improbability of meeting the objective. The exact state of the universe today is grossly improbable, because of the many instances of prior quantum indeterministic events. But every unrealized state would have been equally improbable - so it is an absolute certainty that the universe would exist in a low probability state. Only if you assume humans (or a life permitting universe) was a goal does it seem remarkable that this particular universe came to be.

There just has to be intelligences behind it. Or not, who knows, but I feel more comfortable, in the knowledge that there is such reason behind it. — Hillary

There is a psychological phenomenon called "the need for cognitive closure." We all have it to some degree - it's related to curiosity. But it can also drive people to embrace answers just because they are answers. Conspiracy theorists have a high need for cognitive closure. Plausibility takes a back seat, explanatory scope is the driver. "Knowing" the answer gives them comfort. IMO, it's worthwhile to seek answers, but counterproductive to land on answers just because of the compulsion to have an answer, rather than applying reasonable epistemic standards.

Words refer to mental concepts - usually fuzzy concepts (e.g. "shoe"). A definition is an attempt to convey the concept associated with the word. Because the concept is fuzzy, there isn't a strict set of properties that unequivocally define it. But the most significant properties are conveyed, based on the most common usage.

I think everything can actually be known. Why not? — Hillary

How could we ever determine the nature of the "bottom layer" of reality? Even if a model were developed (something like the standard model of particle physics), we could never know that there isn't something even more fundamental.

Quantum mechanics is weird - had we not been able to measure the weirdness (eg double slit), no one would have proposed such an odd model. Physical reality may very well have weirdness that doesn't expose itself to us. There would be no way to know.

Assume God created the world. What exactly did he create? Would there be any way to determine this?

The standard view on evolution, genes or memes trying to replicate, says the purpose of life is to do exactly that. — Hillary

My issue is that "purpose" suggests intentionality, and intentionality implies an intelligence directing it. Theists often reply, "of course there is!", but that's not a deduction, it's an interpretation from a theist point of view.

A question popular among theists is: "why is there something rather than nothing?" But this assumes there is a reason - so to ask the question implies one assumes there is intentionality behind it all. Similarly, fine-tuning arguments assume there's a reason (or design objective).

Of course, I'm not going to convince you there isn't intentionality behind it all, but I'd like you to see that you can't prove (or justify) God's existence by assuming there is intentionality - that's circular.

Interesting. My position was formulated after reading Penelope Mackie.

I argue from knowledge of the cosmos. I know the workings of the cosmos. And thats the basis of my my default position that next to the cosmos gods exist. — Hillary

What do you mean by "default position"? I had assumed you were mirroring atheists who propose that atheism should be assumed as a starting point, but your statement implies you concluded it only after learning about the cosmos, after previously having a contrary or neutral position.

Yes you have. You consider them non existent — Hillary

After growing up Catholic, and spending years questioning what I'd been taught, I concluded gods don't exist. My default would have been to unquestioningly accept what I was taught, like most theists do.

just to be safe you say that might evidence show up you believe in them. — Hillary

That's a weird charge. Do you think it's 【u]better[/u] to cling to beliefs irrespective of evidence to the contrary?!

The imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade is only one component in the culmination of this, IMO, 50-60 year long reactionary, ethno-nationalist movement. — 180 Proof

That sounds reasonable.