The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[LNC]

I asked LNC about self-causation, which he says is a logical fallacy.

Here's a link to an article from Stanford about all the issue regarding "causation": http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

 

I've read that some philosophers consider free will as a form of self-causation.

 

Could you point me to the philosophers who consider free-will to be self-causation? I would be interested in hearing how they work that out.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Just so you know, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) that is suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

I should have said, there has not been one solar system in our universe (let alone a planet) other than our own that has been found to be suitable to supporting higher life forms.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I can't explain it any better than this from Hawking:

 

If the histories of the universe in imaginary time are indeed closed surfaces, as Hartle and I proposed, it would have fundamental implications for philosophy and our picture of where we came from. The universe would be entirely self-contained, it wouldn't need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going. Instead, everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by the rolls of the dice within the universe. This may sound presumptuous, but it is what I and many other scientists believe.

 

Keep in mind that it was Hawking and Penrose, using classic general relativity, that determined that there was a singularity. Unlike theologians, he has reconsidered and come to a different conclusion.

 

Also, the theory of the Big Bang has exactly the same experimental data as every other theory, and is itself a mathematical model.

 

The bottom line is that the study of the beginning of the universe is not for you or I to know with certainty, but it is clearly outside of theology just like the study of thunder, rain, earthquakes and disease.

 

It is now a matter for theoretical physicists and science. Even theologians are using science, but as usual, they are following, not leading.

 

Just so you won't be too far behind, start studying branes and M-Theory.

 

I'm not sure why you mention theologians in your statement, since the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists still hold to the singularity as the beginning of the universe. I have already given evidence that later work by Vilenkin, Guth and Borde have shown that the singularity cannot be avoided. So, unless you have discovered some new physics since their work was done, I believe it still holds up.

 

You are mistaken in your assumption about the Big Bang evidence compared to models like Hawkings which is based purely on mathematics and not on any physical data from the universe as the Big Bang model is. The other problem that Hawkings model suffers from is that when the imaginary numbers are converted back to real numbers, as is common practice in these types of calculations, the singularity reappears and, in fact, cannot be avoided. He states, "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. (A Brief History of Time, 139)

 

You seem to want make false assertions that it is only theologians who hold to a finite universe and that since we cannot know something with certainty, that we cannot know anything at all. Both are false assertions. I have made no arguments based on theology as you could tell if you read back through my posts. So, your quasi-ad hominems are off the mark.

 

Now, you toss out the m-theory and I am familiar with it, so tell me what you know and why you think it helps your case. Maybe you can start by describing it and telling me how much experimental data there is to support it. Then you can tell me which of the more than 10⁵⁰⁰ possible explanations you think will end up being the correct one and when we will have experimental data to confirm that? I'll look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

[skepticalme]

 

Now, you toss out the m-theory and I am familiar with it, so tell me what you know and why you think it helps your case. Maybe you can start by describing it and telling me how much experimental data there is to support it. Then you can tell me which of the more than 10⁵⁰⁰ possible explanations you think will end up being the correct one and when we will have experimental data to confirm that? I'll look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

 

You can just as easily turn that around and ask, "Which of the MANY, MANY supernatural creation stories are the correct one and when will we have experimental data to confirm that?" Its easy to shift the burden of proof to someone else. I see many creationist take the position of, "I win by default because your explanations will never satisfy me." Yet they can't answer the same questions that they ask of others. Saying 'god-did-it' is a cop out answer that they use to dodge the hard questions themselves. I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know how the universe came to be. There likely won't be an answer in my lifetime. But I won't use that as an excuse to surrender to supernatural explainations. To do so is to draw a conclusion from an unknown. Don't misunderstand, I still WANT to know and will spend the rest of my life looking for the answer, but to say that I do know and that answer is god, well, I would just be lying to myself.

 

I see two possibilities:

1. There is a god.

2. There is no god.

 

Of those two statements only #2 is falsifiable because you can't prove a negative. So my default position will be 'there is no god' until god presents himself. So far he hasn't.

[LNC]

"time is the measure of a sequence of events"

 

Is it?

 

Yes, why did you have a different definition or understanding? If so, please share.

 

LNC

Read about space-time.

 

Right, space time has a temporal dimension to it. Temporality involves a progression of events and the measurement thereof.

 

LNC

[LNC]

This is incoherent, but if you have chased God right out of the universe as an immaterial being, then He cannot interact with matter, right?

 

That which interacts with matter and affects the laws of physics must have properties that pertain to the universe.

 

You want it both ways. Not subject to the laws of physics and immaterial, but capable of maneuvering and altering matter. How would you say this is possible? It makes no sense.

 

You want time to begin with the universe, but refer to God as eternal - lasting as long as time has existed. That could only mean that God was born with the universe - if there were such a thing, or unless you define God as the Universe.

 

Likewise, "always" is a reference to time. Did time begin? Or do you now agree with the Big Bounce Theory?

 

Immaterial can also be a word to refer to importance. "Lacking importance; not mattering one way or the other" God is immaterial indeed.

 

I think this is relevent:

 

Actually, the concept is quite coherent and has been held by top thinkers throughout history. I don't know where you get the idea that that which interacts with the universe must contain the properties of the universe. That seems to be question begging unless you can explain why that must be the case.

 

The alternative is that we have a universe that has existed eternally in defiance of the laws of physics, so I don't see that you are arguing from a stronger position in that regard. Unless you have some other ways to overcome the entropy problem inherent with a past eternal universe.

 

When I use the word eternal, it is to indicate that God is beginningless, not that time is beginningless. Again, the terms are not precise, but it is a way to indicate that God has no beginning. However, in regard to God not being subject to the laws of physics, that follows logically as God is not a physical being, so I don't see why that is problematic for you. You also have not made a case that God came into being with the universe, there is no reason why that must be the case. Philosophers like William Lane Craig make arguments that make the case for divine timelessness. Let me suggest that you check out these arguments here. Now, we can pick nits over language usage, but I'm sure that you understand what I am trying to convey and you also know that the use of language here is equivocal and not univocal. However, if it is too difficult for you to make these distinctions, I will be more precise in my usage of language.

 

You use the term "Big Bounce" which begs the question as to whether you believe that the universe literally "bounced?" I don't think you do, so I guess you do know that we use terms euphemistically to convey ideas. No, I don't think that the evidence is solid enough to believe that the universe "bounced" either literally or figuratively. It requires a whole new type of physics for which we have no evidence.

 

As for the usage of the word immaterial, I am using the word to mean "not consisting of matter."

 

How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.

 

To say that God is a Force is also incoherent if He is immaterial.

 

Force = d/dt(mv) = ma

 

Strange how you can't keep the concepts in your mind while you revert back to biblical terminology. Eternal?

 

This quote simply assumes materialism, nothing more. The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time, they are called ideas. They have no material make up, they take up no space, have no weight, have no mass; yet, they have tremendous impact on moving matter in our world. In fact, without information, of which ideas consist, matter would not move at all.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

 

You use the term "Big Bounce" which begs the question as to whether you believe that the universe literally "bounced?" I don't think you do, so I guess you do know that we use terms euphemistically to convey ideas. No, I don't think that the evidence is solid enough to believe that the universe "bounced" either literally or figuratively. It requires a whole new type of physics for which we have no evidence.

 

LNC

First, the concepts you refer to as having been held by "top thinkers throughout history" is nothing more than to 1) use the argument from authority without justifying it and 2) is intellectually dishonest because the top thinkers you reference are all theologians trying to find someplace to stick god where scientists can't find him.

 

As for the above, I used the "big bounce" theory because there are more theories than you know of, and you don't really fully understand that the physics describing the universe, even when using the same terminology, does not have the same theological implications. You want science to stop when they land on the theology slot of the roulette wheel, but it's still spinning rapidly.

 

Here's some kind of new theory: The big suck. And are you familiar with DSSU? (Dynamic Steady State Universe)?

 

The irony is that theology will find some way to make any type of universe consistent with theology and claim it was in the bible the whole time.

 

Can you define eternal without any direct or indirect reference to time (and without using the fallacy of the stolen concept and negating time to create a "timeless eternity")?

[bornagainathiest]

You use the term "Big Bounce" which begs the question as to whether you believe that the universe literally "bounced?" I don't think you do, so I guess you do know that we use terms euphemistically to convey ideas. No, I don't think that the evidence is solid enough to believe that the universe "bounced" either literally or figuratively. It requires a whole new type of physics for which we have no evidence.

LNC

First, the concepts you refer to as having been held by "top thinkers throughout history" is nothing more than to 1) use the argument from authority without justifying it and 2) is intellectually dishonest because the top thinkers you reference are all theologians trying to find someplace to stick god where scientists can't find him.

As for the above, I used the "big bounce" theory because there are more theories than you know of, and you don't really fully understand that the physics describing the universe, even when using the same terminology, does not have the same theological implications. You want science to stop when they land on the theology slot of the roulette wheel, but it's still spinning rapidly.

Here's some kind of new theory: The big suck. And are you familiar with DSSU? (Dynamic Steady State Universe)?

 

The irony is that theology will find some way to make any type of universe consistent with theology and claim it was in the bible the whole time.

Can you define eternal without any direct or indirect reference to time (and without using the fallacy of the stolen concept and negating time to create a "timeless eternity")?

 

Hey Shyone!

 

Re: the emboldened sentence, check the end of verse two... http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2co12.pdf Tritou ouranou = third heaven. Looks like scripture's got Andrei Linde's Multiverse theory covered!

 

BAA.

[LNC]

You first.

 

See? I can play the "waste your time forcing you to exhaustively support every little thing you say" game too.

 

Nice! Punt the ball back when asked a simple question. Here is an article for an example.

 

LNC

[skepticalme]

 

This quote simply assumes materialism, nothing more. The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time, they are called ideas. They have no material make up, they take up no space, have no weight, have no mass; yet, they have tremendous impact on moving matter in our world. In fact, without information, of which ideas consist, matter would not move at all.

 

LNC

 

That is completely false because information must be written in or carried by matter or energy. Whether its the orientation of magnetic domains on your harddrive, modulations in an electromagnetic carrier wave, the state/position of a particle, the arangements of pigments on paper or neurons in the brain; information can not exist without matter or energy. So information and ideas are MATERIAL.

 

If I'm wrong feel free to name a few examples of information that exist without matter or energy.

[Legion]

The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time,...

I actually tend to agree with this assertion. But then I think natural systems have an aspect which can be examined independently of matter, called organization.

 

(I'm going to keep using the word "organization" until someone has the guts to ask me what it is. Then I'll really have to think.)

[Shyone]

 

This quote simply assumes materialism, nothing more. The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time, they are called ideas. They have no material make up, they take up no space, have no weight, have no mass; yet, they have tremendous impact on moving matter in our world. In fact, without information, of which ideas consist, matter would not move at all.

 

LNC

 

That is completely false because information must be written in or carried by matter or energy. Whether its the orientation of magnetic domains on your harddrive, modulations in an electromagnetic carrier wave, the state/position of a particle, the arangements of pigments on paper or neurons in the brain; information can not exist without matter or energy. So information and ideas are MATERIAL.

 

If I'm wrong feel free to name a few examples of information that exist without matter or energy.

That concisely describes the problem with considering ideas, thoughts or even consciousness as "immaterial." It's a black box scenario where the mechanistic character of ideas seems to not exist when, in fact, ideas, thoughts and consciousness require matter and there are identifiable physical structures that need to be present for these to originate, perpetuate, transmit or manifest.

[NotBlinded]

The fact is that immaterial entities impact matter all the time,...

I actually tend to agree with this assertion. But then I think natural systems have an aspect which can be examined independently of matter, called organization.

 

(I'm going to keep using the word "organization" until someone has the guts to ask me what it is. Then I'll really have to think.)

I would really like to see your ideas Legion. You will probably be poked by both types of materialists here. The theistic and the atheistic ones, but poking and getting poked can be kinda fun though.

[Legion]

I would really like to see your ideas Legion.

Well the thing is NotBlinded, they're not even my ideas. I wish that I could claim their origination, but I can't. They're due to the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen. I think his ideas touch upon many of the subjects we discuss here because he was forced during his research to re-examine the nature of causality itself. I continue to hope that others will look at his arguments for themselves for two main reasons. First, I think his ideas have merit. Second, I don't yet entirely understand his arguments, and would appreciate other's perspective on them.

 

You will probably be poked by both types of materialists here. The theistic and the atheistic ones,

I do often feel like I'm trapped between two warring factions: theologists and mechanists. I have sympathy for the theologist's intuitive rejection of mechanism. And I have symapthy for the mechanist's rejection of magic and vitalism. But I think Rosen pioneered a path neither mechanism or vitalism, an approach to study the organization of natural systems called a relational approach.

[NotBlinded]

I would really like to see your ideas Legion.

Well the thing is NotBlinded, they're not even my ideas. I wish that I could claim their origination, but I can't. They're due to the late theoretical biologist Robert Rosen. I think his ideas touch upon many of the subjects we discuss here because he was forced during his research to re-examine the nature of causality itself. I continue to hope that others will look at his arguments for themselves for two main reasons. First, I think his ideas have merit. Second, I don't yet entirely understand his arguments, and would appreciate other's perspective on them.

I have bookmarked this: Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (Complexity in Ecological Systems)

 

There is probably no way that I can take in enough to help you understand any more than you do, but I am willing to try when I get a little extra money to purchase this. I was hoping there would be a used one for 4.00 or something.

 

It looks like something that I will "so totally" (like - for real) agree with.

 

 

)

You will probably be poked by both types of materialists here. The theistic and the atheistic ones,

I do often feel like I'm trapped between two warring factions: theologists and mechanists. I have sympathy for the theologist's intuitive rejection of mechanism. And I have symapthy for the mechanist's rejection of magic and vitalism. But I think Rosen pioneered a path neither mechanism or vitalism, an approach to study the organization of natural systems called a relational approach.

Ahhhh...a brother from another mother (and father too for that matter).

[Legion]

I have bookmarked this: Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life (Complexity in Ecological Systems)

 

There is probably no way that I can take in enough to help you understand any more than you do, but I am willing to try when I get a little extra money to purchase this. I was hoping there would be a used one for 4.00 or something.

 

It looks like something that I will "so totally" (like - for real) agree with.

I am like so totally stoked to the max for real about that NotBlinded. If you get a copy of Life Itself then let me say several things. First, please don't be intimidated by the math in it. Robert Rosen's daughter, Judith, assures me that much can be gleaned from it without a comprehension of the mathematics, and I think she's right. Second, I think you will really groove on Rosen's use of Aristotle's categories of causation. Third, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

 

Ahhhh...a brother from another mother (and father too for that matter).

[LNC]

I'm using common sense. Did Jesus come back right away like he promised? No. Did writers of the later books of the bible -- 2 Peter definitely qualifies as one of the latest -- detect disappointment among believers and try to address it? Yes. Therefore what's the simplest explanation? The "a day with God" thing is a secret Green Lantern decoder passage to interpret God's mystical timelines? Is it a back door to justify a literal interpretation of the creation story and let it co-exist with evolutionary timelines? Or it's just a figure of speech, intended as a sort of "God's ways are not our ways" cop-out explanation?

 

However, I know you want a source for everything because you seem incapable of thinking for yourself, so here's a list of failed bible prophecies I found after two seconds of googling. I also read it in "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" a while ago, sorry, no link for that, no online version. I suggest you go to the library and read all 1,300 pages to verify. Here's another one that dumps all over "gap theory."

 

First of all, I don't mind covering this topic, but it seems a bit far afield of the Kalam Argument. Can you tell me where Jesus promised that he would come back right away (and I assume that you don't count the resurrection as that first return)? Regarding the prophecies, maybe you could pick out a few you want to discuss. I'm not going to start responding to every website that posts assertions that are not defended and verses that are not taken in context, sorry. If you have to rely on sources like Asimov's Guide to the Bible, I think you are relying on a weak source. Asimov was not a Biblical scholar or theologian, nor did he ever claim to be. His area of study was biochemistry, so maybe he would be qualified to discuss any assertions made about biochemistry in the Bible, but I am not aware of any detailed discussions on this topic in the Bible.

 

Plus, according to the Gospel of Answers in Genesis,

"If people use Scripture to try to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8, '... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . .'. Because of this, they think the days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, it you look at the rest of the verse, it says, '. . . and a thousand years as one day'. This cancels out their argument! The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. This particular verse is telling people that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time — He is not limited by natural processes and time. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Besides, the word 'day' already exists and has been defined, which is why in 2 Peter it can be compared to a thousand years. There is no reference In this passage to the days of creation.

 

So using this verse in reference to creation is out of context.

 

The biggest source is the bible itself. Paul talks about Christians who were hanging around being useless, waiting for the last days. The gospels themselves reflect a changing view of the second coming of Christ, from immediate and imminent in Mark to the more spiritual view in John.

 

I don't use that verse in relation to creation as I hold to an ancient universe view. The fact that some early Christians had an incorrect view of the return of Christ is another story. They also had an incorrect view of who Messiah would be and what his coming (the first time) would entail. Jesus corrected their false beliefs then, so I am not surprised that they would have faulty understanding of his return. I will look forward to hearing back from you on your first assertion in this post.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Hi LNC!

 

'However we cannot observe them...'? Umm... now I'm confused again.

 

Your Stanford link appears to say that virtual particles are abstract, conceptual entities, not real and physical ones that can be detected. However, if we look at that Wikipedia page we can see under the heading, 'Manifestations' that...

* The Coulomb force is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles is caused by the exchange of virtual photons.

* The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of the interaction of virtual gluons.

* The weak nuclear force - it is the result of the exchange of virtual W bosons.

* The Casimir effect was observed in 2001 by a group from the University of Padua and is significant in the fields of micro and nanotechnologies.

* The Lamb shift (a difference of energy levels in the hydrogen atom) currently provides a measurement of the fine structure constant (Alpha) to better than one part in a million, allowing a precision test of Quantum Electrodynamics.

 

So what's the deal here? Can you help me out please? Call me slow, but I just can't get my head around the idea that abstract entities can cause real and measurable effects in our physical universe. Ouroboros' link would seem to be relevant here. Specifically, 1.1 'Immanence', where it talks about 'Pushing'. So, are virtual particles immanent (concrete and located in space-time) or transcendent (abstract and non-spatiotemporal) ? Since the main thrust of the 'pushing' argument seems to be that of interaction and the Wikipedia links do talk about manifestation thru interaction, wouldn't it be fair to say that virtual particles are, in fact, real and concrete entities, not abstract or conceptual ones? I mean, you did say that they...only exist for a brief time. Wouldn't that mean that their existence is real (immanent) and not abstract (transcendent)? If anything can exist in our universe, no matter how short it's duration, doesn't that therefore mean that it ceases to be abstract concept and becomes a concrete, interactive entity?

 

Ok LNC, lots of questions. I know. Sorry 'bout that, but I'm really puzzled over this one. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

BAA.

 

I'm not sure how you interpreted the linked article from Stanford to indicate that virtual particles are abstract conceptual entities and not real entities. I think you misread what they were saying, here is a quote:

 

Feynman diagrams have lines that represent mathematical expressions, but each line can also be viewed as representing a particle. However in the intermediate stages of a process the lines represent particles that can never be observed. These particles do not have the required Einstein relationship between their energy, momentum and mass. They are called "virtual" particles.

 

So, I think you are mistaken in your interpretation as they are talking about real particles, but those particle cannot be observed due to their relationship between energy, momentum and mass. I think your misinterpretation is what is throwing you off.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Perhaps you can give some names of philosophers who speak of existence outside of time that aren't speaking of God. The concept of existence outside of time was invented of whole cloth solely to excuse the absolute absence of evidence for God in the first place. What else exists outside of time?

 

Can you provide back up evidence for your assertion? I don't believe that anything else exists outside of time, but that of of no consequence as it does nothing to the argument for God's existence outside of time. Since time itself had a beginning, then it logically follows that the cause of time existed independent of time.

 

There are some problems with the concept itself since it is undefined.

 

First, existence "outside of time" commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

To say that something can exist outside the Universe, is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. The Universe is that which contains existence(things that exist). To claim that something exists outside of the Universe, is to steal the concept of existence, and apply to something external to itself.

 

The problem with this fallacy is that it is begging the question in assuming that all existence is within time, therefore, to argue that something exists outside of time is to "steal the concept". First, you must prove that there cannot be existence outside of time in order for this assertion of fallacy to be valid. I see no evidence of that and, in fact, see evidence that there must be existence outside of time as the cause of time. Therefore, the assertion seems to be invalid.

 

Second, taking something that fits every definition of nonexistence and making it into something that exists is reification of the zero.

 

Again, I think you are begging the question here in assuming that God (which is to whom I believe you are referring)fits every definition of nonexistence. I would like to see you work that one out, otherwise this objection is also invalid.

 

Third, If something could be defined as existing "outside of time" it would necessarily be excluded from the universe. "The Universe is supported by several credible sources as being by definition, everything that exists."

 

Again, I'm afraid you are guilty of question-begging here. How do you prove that everything that exists is contained within the physical universe? It seems that you must give valid argumentation for this assertion. Appeals to unnamed authorities will not suffice.

 

Fourth, by creating definitions of God that defy any concept of existence, we have defined nothing.

To "exist" is to "exist as something rather than something else." Existence cannot be separated from having certain qualities rather than others. Now, if we cannot identify any such qualities, then it seems that we cannot say what the difference is between "X exists" and "X does not exist." And, if that is the case, what reason do we have for asserting the former over the latter? If we have no qualities to speak of, then we have nothing to speak of. So what are we really talking about?

 

The first statements of the above definition (from where does this come?) seem to be incoherent. What does it mean "to 'exist' is to 'exist as something rather than something else'"? That seems to vague to really grab hold of. God exists as something, namely himself, God. I don't know who claims that he exists as something else or what that actually means. He has certain qualities, omniscience, omnipotence, justice, love, etc. We can and do identify such qualities through effects of his use of them and through revelation. So, again, your objection doesn't seem to stand up.

 

And finally, since the existence of God is said to be necessary so that God can have "caused" the universe and so "preexisted" the universe (by existing outside of time:

 

There was no "before" the universe. There is no "to the south of" the universe. There is no "above" the universe. There was, in a sense, no "cause" of the universe. These concepts (before, outside, south of, cause) rely upon things that only exist as part of the universe: space, time, physical laws. To apply them to the origin of the universe is a "stolen concept" fallacy: it's taking a concept that only appears later in an argument and applying it earlier than is allowed.

 

Incidentally, show me a physicist that can explain anything existing "outside of time."

 

Again, this is simply a misuse of terms, a fact that I have already pointed out on this thread. When I speak of God existing prior to the universe, I am speaking causally, not temporally. So, here again, your objection is due to your misunderstanding or misrepresenting terms, not due to a true problem with the concept. God existed apart from the universe's existence. I make no claims to God's spatial presence (above, outside, south of the universe) as God is not a physical being who takes a spatial position.

 

When you say that there was no cause of the universe, are you arguing for a past eternal universe or an uncaused universe? Again, I think you are begging the question once more in assuming that all that exists is the physical universe, therefore, God could not exist apart from the universe. You must prove that the universe is either past eternal or uncaused before asserting that God could not exist apart from the universe. However, even if you can make this case, which I find highly improbable, it still would not necessitate that God could not exist apart from the universe. You would still be left to prove that nothing could exist apart from the physical universe, which again, I would consider an insurmountable feat for you to achieve. I look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

[bdp]

 

 

When I speak of God existing prior to the universe

 

 

 

what god?

[LNC]

Describe to me what physical things are LNC. Matter is particles, or is it waves, or is it wavicles? What does matter exist IN?

 

Physical things consist of matter, which consists of mass and volume. Matter exists within the bounds of the universe, if that is what you mean by your question.

 

Are you telling me that your understanding of God is one that cannot interact with nature? If you believe it can can, then you too are saying that there are non-physical occurences in nature. You see it as beginning outside of the physical and somehow being directed into the physical to cause things. I say its existence is in the physical to begin with. They go together. Seems like a minor difference because it ends up interacting with the physcial either way, yet it does pose a mountain of difference in the way we view nature. You have a controller/law giver that pushes buttons from some grand console and I have a spontaneous nature that happens on its own because of this Essence that has its existence in it.

 

I don't believe I have made that assertion. I believe that God does interact with nature and, in fact, entered into space and time, taking on human flesh about 2,000 years ago. God's existence could not begin with the physical world as that would mean that God and the physical world came into existence at the same time, therefore, both being uncaused. The concept of something being uncaused is, I believe, logically untenable. Maybe you could explain how you believe that this could happen and why we don't see more evidence of things coming into existence uncaused.

 

Why would I toss out science any more than you would? Is it not you that suggests that physical laws must have a law-giver? This suggests that this law-giver can change his mind at any time and, interfering with the physical, turn gravity on its head, water into wine and stop the sun in its tracks. What I suggest is that this runs smoothly because nature itself is the Essence that allows for water to remain water and wine to remain wine. There is nothing outside itself that interfers with it. It is It. And, if there is to be an evolution of a thistle producing figs, then that will come from the interactions of the thistle with the environment and not from some outside Being directing it.

 

So yes, there is a conflict. I'm not a materialist or a reductionist. My understanding doesn't have nature violating the laws of nature. You, LNC, are a materialist and a reductionist that sees nature in the exact same way as they do. As a machine. You have a controller of the machine and they have a fully automatic machine. Not much difference in both views of reality. I say there is no machine. The physical is alive and will produce many fruits.

 

Why does it follow that because physical laws have a law-giver that that law-giver could or would change his mind at any time? That doesn't seem to follow from premise to conclusion. Do I believe that God can suspend the laws of nature in order to perform a miracle? Sure, but then again you are proposing that the universe came into existence uncaused, which would be a violation of the laws of physics. The fact is that we can look at the past actions of the universe and make predictions of what will happen in the future based upon these laws of physics; however, that doesn't mean that these laws are inviolable or that we have them so well figured out that we won't make changes or adjustments to our understanding of them in the future. Past experience tells us that these adjustments in our understanding have happened and will again.

 

I think we agree that nature will not violate the laws of nature - I don't suggest such a thing. However, I do believe that a Supernature can suspend the laws of nature, which is a different claim and doesn't violate the laws of nature any more than an airplane violates the laws of gravity, it merely overrides them using other laws.

 

Now, how do you figure that I am a materialist or a reductionist? I have given no indication of being either and, in fact, am not either. If you are not a materialist or a reductionist as you claim, then surely you have room in your worldview for an immaterial reality to exist apart from nature, so you should find my claims plausible. If you are a dualist, as you have claimed, then you should hold to the idea that man is not just the sum of his parts, but has an immaterial nature to him. If that is the case, then we can agree on that point.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

Perhaps you can give some names of philosophers who speak of existence outside of time that aren't speaking of God. The concept of existence outside of time was invented of whole cloth solely to excuse the absolute absence of evidence for God in the first place. What else exists outside of time?

 

Can you provide back up evidence for your assertion? I don't believe that anything else exists outside of time, but that of of no consequence as it does nothing to the argument for God's existence outside of time. Since time itself had a beginning, then it logically follows that the cause of time existed independent of time.

 

When you say that there was no cause of the universe, are you arguing for a past eternal universe or an uncaused universe? Again, I think you are begging the question once more in assuming that all that exists is the physical universe, therefore, God could not exist apart from the universe. You must prove that the universe is either past eternal or uncaused before asserting that God could not exist apart from the universe. However, even if you can make this case, which I find highly improbable, it still would not necessitate that God could not exist apart from the universe. You would still be left to prove that nothing could exist apart from the physical universe, which again, I would consider an insurmountable feat for you to achieve. I look forward to your reply.

 

LNC

My assertion? I asked a question, and made an assessment based on your silence up that time and including the present answer! You were the one that asserted that "existing outside of time or the physical universe" was something philosophers and scientists acknowledged. I simply asked for substantiation that there is any philosopher or scientist that isn't talking about God but is talking about existence outside of time or the physical universe.

 

Any? Just one? It should be a simple question to answer, but you haven't. I mean really, there may be one. I don't know everything. I'm only looking for one...

 

One?

 

As for your last paragraph there, you are shifting the burden of proof. You haven't defined God, haven't shown that it/he/she exists in any understandable way, and it is not my responsibility to show you anything about the nature of the universe.

 

The fact is that you should establish unequivocally that the universe had a cause or is uncaused. You already know that Hawking is working with Quantum Gravity which would explain that the universe is boundariless and that there was no singularity - and that the universe in all of its particulars is self-contained with no need of anything "outside".

 

[T]he quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition for the universe is that is has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

 

I have presented another theory that suggests prior universes. Then there's DSSU and a host of other concepts that are being considered. This debate is over your paygrade. And mine.

 

Of course, in the apologetic way, you would be likely to select the most vulnerable theory and cite someone that says it's silly. Without actually refuting anything, of course.

 

You also wrote, "You would still be left to prove that nothing could exist apart from the physical universe, which again, I would consider an insurmountable feat for you to achieve."

 

Easy. There is nothing apart from the physical universe. It is undefined and nonexistent. It's Nonsense. It's Nowhere. And continuing to assert that there is "something outside of the universe" doesn't make such a thing any more reasonable. It sure as hell doesn't prove that "God", whatever that means, is outside of the universe.

[LNC]

That's just silly. He's personal because he had to choose to create? What if creation just happened? Are you personal because you choose to start your brain cells every morning? Your brain functions just fine without you choosing it to doesn't it? You are doing that aren't you? It happens every day doesn't it?

 

You go from sounding smart to really silly conclusions. And your silly conclusions are no better than mine are.

 

Yes. If the cause of the universe were to be an impersonal mechanism, then the cause and the effect would be concurrent and the universe would need to be infinitely old. The fact is that the universe is only about 14 billion years old, so that would seem to rule out an impersonal mechanistic cause.

 

If my brain functions (or yours) are impersonal, then that would rule out certain experiences that we have, such as intentionality, the thinking of or about something. It would also rule out first person subjectivity as machines do not possess this quality. However, we do have intrinsic intentionality and we have subjective, first person experiences, therefore, I believe we are personal beings (agents) as well. Our brains are not just mechanistic machines.

 

So, my conclusions are not as silly as you seem to believe. The area of consciousness and intentionality happen to be an area of study for me these days. I started a separate thread on the subject. I can't remember whether you have participated in that one, but it has been fascinating.

 

BTW, you really didn't address my other points in the previous post, so I will look forward to your reply to this post and the other points I made in the other.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

The first statements of the above definition (from where does this come?) seem to be incoherent. What does it mean "to 'exist' is to 'exist as something rather than something else'"? That seems to vague to really grab hold of. God exists as something, namely himself, God. I don't know who claims that he exists as something else or what that actually means. He has certain qualities, omniscience, omnipotence, justice, love, etc. We can and do identify such qualities through effects of his use of them and through revelation. So, again, your objection doesn't seem to stand up.LNC

You won't understand, but here goes:

 

The qualities you named are two stolen concepts that are meaningless (and contradictory) and two are human constructs that have been hijacked by religion. None of these are descriptions in the sense that they indicate something rather than nothing.

 

"God is love" is meaningless as a means of identifying love because love is independent of God. I love my work!

 

"God is omniscient" is also nondescript because it has no identifiable quality that distinguishes it from a fantasy.

 

Anselm's Ontologic argument does not establish the existence of God any more than the concept of a "unicorn greater than that which can be imagined" establishes a super unicorn. Attaching superlatives that don't exist does not create a being that exists.

 

The "revelation" is certainly nothing you want to hang your hat on, or you'll be hanging your hat on the bloody end of the Hebrew sword.

[Shyone]

You know, LNC, I noted you did not include "omnipresent" in your list of nonsensical properties of the nonexistent god. It that because "existing outside of the physical universe" and "omnipresent" are contradictory? Everywhere except the physical universe?

 

I think what you are getting at is found in the text of Ecclesiastes 13.