The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Deleted member]

which I believe they're flawed.

Yeah, for no reason whatsoever.

 

[AltF4]

It would be nicer if we could get a mod to branch this tangent into a new thread. As opposed to just starting one...


A) Time really does have a shape. Like, an actual geometric shape. Not some metaphoric "shape". An actual shape.

What is the shape of timespace in a broad sense? (Time and space are one single thing, remember. See: Einstein) It's an open question right now in astronomy. Nobody quite knows. It can be spherical, saddle shaped, or others. But we don't have any evidence to support one or the other.

B) Let me make sure I'm understanding the terminology correctly: "Finite" means anything which isn't self-necessary. And "infinite" then means something which _is_ self necessary. Okay.

Can you give me an example of something which is "self-necessary"? Clearly no physical object made of matter. Unless you're talking about ideas or mathematics.

I'm sure you know of the transcendental numbers? So-called because the must have their set values, no matter what universe you live in. Their values can be derived from the mathematical axioms.

So I guess in some sense you could call Euler's number "self-necessary". (If you accept the mathematical axioms, of course). I dunno. The meaning of that term is still eluding me.

But as to the actual argument you put forward more formally...

1. The original being, or ultimate reality, must be SN, this is self-explanatory and I doubt you'll have an issue with this premise.

Why must we assume that there is an "ultimate being" or an "ultimate reality"? There is no evidence to suggest the existence of either.

2. To be SN the being must be infinite, for beings cannot cause themselves, and nothing prior could have it, for it would not be SN

As I understand your definitions, this is a tautology.

3. As well as infinity, there are other traits required for SN, which we'll abbreviate as ABC.

So here you say that there are other traits... but don't say what they are.

4. Time does not have ABC (this will be explained later), therefore cannot be infinite, because there cannot be two SN beings.

Time doesn't have a bunch of traits which you haven't said what are? Am I reading this right?

5. What I consider to be the only possible being that would possess both infinity and ABC is what i commonly referred to as 'God', therefore God must exist due to the fact that our existence, and the nature of existence, necessitates it.

You can't start a sentence with "What I consider to be" and expect me to take the rest of it seriously. You quite clearly are saying: "This next bit is completely my own opinion, but...".


Besides, you haven't stated any properties of this "god". You've just claimed the existence of this "something" and then gave it a name. Okay. You have established that there is something which exists.

How do you then planning on deriving what it's like? If it's not made of matter, then in what sense does it "exist"? Does it "exist" in the same abstract sense that Euler's number does? That would be pretty weak for a god.

It seems like you might as well have named your dog: "god", and then proclaimed "god exists". While true, it's not exactly what most people are thinking of when you say that sentence.


PS: Everyone knows that Hitchens is the best of the "New Atheists".

PPS: Ah, I forgot to elaborate on the difference between the No Boundary Proposal and "Looping Theory". I don't have the time tonight. I will perhaps tomorrow. I don't mean to evade.

Plus I'm not a physicist. I took several physics courses, have a minor in math, and am an engineer by day. But not a physicist. So someone else might be able to answer better than I.

 

[Reaver197]

Right now you're probably thinking 'but I'm proposing time is infinite, therefore self-necessray by his definition'. The problem I have is that time does not have the attributes to be self-neccessary (SN from now on).

Here's a summed up version of my argument which I'll elaborate on as this debate progresses (you sure you don't want to move this to another thread?).

1. The original being, or ultimate reality, must be SN, this is self-explanatory and I doubt you'll have an issue with this premise.

2. To be SN the being must be infinite, for beings cannot cause themselves, and nothing prior could have it, for it would not be SN

3. As well as infinity, there are other traits required for SN, which we'll abbreviate as ABC.

4. Time does not have ABC (this will be explained later), therefore cannot be infinite, because there cannot be two SN beings.

5. What I consider to be the only possible being that would possess both infinity and ABC is what i commonly referred to as 'God', therefore God must exist due to the fact that our existence, and the nature of existence, necessitates it.

Note: When I say time cannot be infinite, I'm talking about time in the universe, in which change occurs in. I (as well as several other philosophers) argue that change and infinity are not compatible, which is part of the reason why time cannot be infinite.

So would you please be so kind as to epxlain to me the difference between Loop Theory (LT) and NBT. Thanks in advance.

I hate to have to keep swooping in and out of arguments at random, but my work schedule really makes it difficult for me to follow up on fast moving threads. However, though I know that Alt probably can do as well, and most likely better, of a job than I at debating this (especially with my awful attendance record). Nonetheless, I feel like I must interject.

I realize that your post is a summary of your position, and thus is probably oversimplified and leaves some steps and explanations out, but I must point out the fallacious reasoning that seems to be pervading the whole thing and show it to be, at the very least, a bad summarization.

Once again, like I and others have pointed out before, you start with this idea that there must be an "original being" that is self-necessary, a term you have yet to fully define, despite your constant use of it (unless I have missed it elsewhere). Remember, we're talking about something outside of the universe here, something completely beyond our knowledge and capability to know or understand. Such ideas and "logical" reasoning as being "self-necessary" or the idea of there needing to be an origin or being infinite might have no meaning, value, nor relevance applied to something that is outside of space and time.

Your argument rings extremely hollow to me by purporting to definitively know that such assumptions must be true, with no evidence other than the "logic" you've employed with your mind, an instrument that is most decidedly fallacious and quite prone to poor reasoning or jumps of conclusion (and I mean this generally, not just specifically you, in case you take this the wrong way), without having any way to double check or verify any of your base assumptions. The whole thing just smacks of circular logic to me.

You still don't provide any reasoning why we should favor picking a deity as being infinite and self-necessary, versus just deciding the universe itself is. Then you go and don't even say what are the traits for being self-necessary even is. You want us just to take your word for it? Then the suddenly forced assumption that, whatever is entailed by being self-necessary, there can definitely only be one thing of it? How do you even decide that, for a place that exists outside of the universe and therefore probably has no concept or application of there being "only one"?

This doesn't even take into count that you seem to be set on interpreting the idea of "infinity" in such a way that only allows for whatever you feel should enable your argument, even though Alt is showing that does not have to be the case.

Also, as for your allegory of the painting and the painter, would you not say that the painter must be considerably more complex than the painting in order to create it? Yet, then you also go to say that the idea of God is "simple" (once again, with no reasoning or justification, nor explanation of what such a thing is as "unnecessary complexity" entails).

I also tried to explain to you before that there isn't any such thing that's simply called Loop Theory for cosmology. The only thing I found was for antennae and magnetism.

http://www.vlf.it/octoloop/rlt-n4ywk.htm

As I said earlier, I think what you're trying to get at is Loop Quantum Gravity, which you can read about at these following links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=...su.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles/rovelli03.pdf

No Boundary Proposal (not theory) is thus:

http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

Such a fantastic case you build against Dawkins, by the way. Claims of straw-manning with no examples. You saw his books in a book store where no other academic literature was sold, and that somehow proves he is just a money-making leech? Even though he has no control over what bookstores sell his books?

Edit: Gurgh, ended up replying later than Alt anyway, and now it's 2, and I have work in the morning, lol. Kind of wish I had the timing of my classes from college, where they didn't start till the afternoon...

 

[AltF4]

Well, I don't want to play "dog pile on the theist". You don't need to feel compelled to respond to me, Dre.


Hey Del, maybe you answered this some time ago but I forgot. If you happen to "believe in a god", but not any particular religion, how do you place any attributes on this god? I mean, would be accurate to call you a deist then? There was a god as a creator, but not an interferer?

It seems to me like unless you place attributes on the object of the discussion, we're not even really talking about anything.

 

[rvkevin]

Such a fantastic case you build against Dawkins, by the way. Claims of straw-manning with no examples. You saw his books in a book store where no other academic literature was sold, and that somehow proves he is just a money-making leech? Even though he has no control over what bookstores sell his books?

To clarify. The God Delusion is in the athiest/agnostic section while his other books that I have seen are in the science/biology section. Taking one out of ten books he's written and using that as a general rule or standard seems to be in poor taste.

 

[Aesir]

PS: Everyone knows that Hitchens is the best of the "New Atheists".

I respectfully disagree, Dennett is the best.

 

[Reaver197]

Well, I don't want to play "dog pile on the theist". You don't need to feel compelled to respond to me, Dre.

Yeah, this seems to happen a lot. I probably should've just withheld my post until it had died down a bit (assuming it doesn't change topic completely like it tends to).

Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" is probably the best of his books that I've read so far. If you read that, you can safely skip "The Blind Watchmaker" I feel. I've been meaning to read "The Extended Phenotype" though, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

But, yeah, Dawkins established himself on his writings on how evolution is driven by genetic phenotypes, and scientific literature for evolution and biology way before he even got into writing "The God Delusion" or the New Atheist stuff.

 

[Deleted member]

Don't get me started on my hatred for "The God Delusion"... I shelve that **** in children's fiction when I work at my book store.

Alt, I don't place attributes on my belief. I just think there's a higher power. Yeah... extremely general... but it's the only way I can get away with believing in a god without looking silly. That, and I actually have no descriptions for what I believe in, I just believe in the concept.

 

[Dre89]

There's alot to answer too here, so I'll just answer Alt because he was who I was initially debating, and hopefully it clears things up for other people as well.

It would be nicer if we could get a mod to branch this tangent into a new thread. As opposed to just starting one...


A) Time really does have a shape. Like, an actual geometric shape. Not some metaphoric "shape". An actual shape.

What is the shape of timespace in a broad sense? (Time and space are one single thing, remember. See: Einstein) It's an open question right now in astronomy. Nobody quite knows. It can be spherical, saddle shaped, or others. But we don't have any evidence to support one or the other.

I never denied it had shape, nor attempted to assert what particular shape it had. The fact it has shape means it is a finite being, and that's all that concerns me.

B) Let me make sure I'm understanding the terminology correctly: "Finite" means anything which isn't self-necessary. And "infinite" then means something which _is_ self necessary. Okay.

To be SN, you must be infinite, but infinity is only one requirement, I'll probably get to explaining the other requirements later.

For example, you can't have a SN pink unicorn. A pink unicorn could never be eternal, because it is a physical object, and all physical objects are contingent. Physical objects can never be eternal because physical objects have motion, and you can't have change in infinity.

Now you may argue perhaps the PU was the first physical object, and all other physical objects are created in its image. The problem is that a physical being is comprised of complexity, complexity that if the being was eternal and SN, there'd be no reason for.

Complexity is always necessitated by a prior truth, there is always a reason for complexity. Again, take for example a painting. The nature of the painting (the complexity, its constitution consisting of finite parts etc.) necessitates that it was painted by a painter.

The original being or ultimate reality must be being itself, it must encompass all existence. A complex object does not encompass all being, because resulting beings must be an extension of the original being. The original being must be a universal, not a particular, yet complex beings are always particulars.

Take for example the concept of fauna. Fauna is a universal in that several particulars extend from it, those particulars being the various types of animals. However, fauna cannot be the ultimate reality, for it itself is a particular to a universal, the universal of living beings (obviosuly encompassing both flora and fauna) which itself is a particular to a greater universal and so on. Fauna can only be responsible for that which it is a universal to, yet fauna is itself a particular, because of its complexity. In this sense, particulars will always regress back to something totally simple, something which is a universal, but a particular to nothing. This cannot be time, because time is a complexity, it is a particular to greater universals.

My point in saying this is that time, like the pink unicorn, does not possess the attributes to be SN. As a result, it is not infinite, for only the SN being can be infinite. The reason why there can't be two infinite beings is because if the SN being must be being itself, then not only would a second infinite being mean that they are dependant on each other, removing all self-necessity, but a second infinite entity would mean that the SN being could not be being itself, for there would be a being that it was not responsible for, meaning the SN being would no longer be being itself, and then you'd have to ifnd yet another being which would in fact be being itself.

Can you give me an example of something which is "self-necessary"? Clearly no physical object made of matter. Unless you're talking about ideas or mathematics.

The only thing that could be self-necessary could be God, and if you're an athiest it'd be the singularity or if you subscirbe to NBT it'd be time-space itself. However, I obivously believe the singularity and time-space in NBT don't have the attributes to be SN, but those are what the atheist would consider SN.

I'm sure you know of the transcendental numbers? So-called because the must have their set values, no matter what universe you live in. Their values can be derived from the mathematical axioms.

So I guess in some sense you could call Euler's number "self-necessary". (If you accept the mathematical axioms, of course). I dunno. The meaning of that term is still eluding me.

But as to the actual argument you put forward more formally...


Why must we assume that there is an "ultimate being" or an "ultimate reality"? There is no evidence to suggest the existence of either.

There's always going to be an ultimate reality. The question is whether that reality is beyond natural restraints or not.

Again, the evidence for me is that this universe necessittates it, as the nature of a painting necessitates a painter to have painted it. The reason why I conclude this necessity is because everything natural is contingent, so it is part of the essence of natural entities to be contingent.

Now if everything is contingent, there must be something SN that kicked things off. You can't have a coherentism, because that's like saying in constructing a robot, part X built part Y, Y built Z, and Z built X.

You also can't have an infinite regress. If you remove first cause, you rmeove the effect, which is middle cause, which removes its effect, which is last cause.

We have a concept of past, present and future, because motion is a reality. If we consider the present to be zero, we can't count down from infinity to zero. Yet ten years later, the distance between infinity to zero is still exactly the same, despite the ten year gap.

As I understand your definitions, this is a tautology.


So here you say that there are other traits... but don't say what they are.

As I alluded to previously, you can't have complexity. Time is a complexity, it is a particular. Whilst space and time are heavily intertwined, I'd argue they're separable; you can have space without time, and you can have time without space. I don't see how either, or both could be SN if they're dependant on each other.

With NBT you're basically saying there is nothing beyond this particular structure of time-space. Everything is encompassed in time-space, which means you consider it to be the ultimate reality. The problem this ultimate reality is highly complex, and there is no reason for it at all. You can't say randomness, because randomness is the method in which a being applies itself, yet there was no prior being to this complexity, it just exists without reason.

The problem is this conflicts with all other complexity. As I alluded to previously, all complexity is necessitated by a prior truth.

Time doesn't have a bunch of traits which you haven't said what are? Am I reading this right?

I told you I would explain this eventually, and I have alluded to this above.

You can't start a sentence with "What I consider to be" and expect me to take the rest of it seriously. You quite clearly are saying: "This next bit is completely my own opinion, but...".

"What I consider" is a result of the conclusion I've made as a result of all the premises I have layed out for you. It's not merely an opinion without justification. I arrived at the conclusion that the ultimate reality must be an original being, which is self-necessary, therefore eternal, and is being itself, it encompasses all existence, meaning it is simple. This is being is most accurately depicted by the word God.

Besides, you haven't stated any properties of this "god". You've just claimed the existence of this "something" and then gave it a name. Okay. You have established that there is something which exists.

How do you then planning on deriving what it's like? If it's not made of matter, then in what sense does it "exist"? Does it "exist" in the same abstract sense that Euler's number does? That would be pretty weak for a god.

It seems like you might as well have named your dog: "god", and then proclaimed "god exists". While true, it's not exactly what most people are thinking of when you say that sentence.

Being beyond the material, God would have to be immaterial.

With regards to His properties, the point is He doesn't have many. As I've said before, He's SN therefore eternal, being itself therefore simple, would have an intellect (because thinking is considered to be being).

He would also be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The first two are straight forward, because He encompasses all being and is being itself his capabilites and knowledge would be unrestrained.

The omnibenevolence one is a different issue. Being simple and consisting of nothing unnecessary, it comes down to whether He is omnibenevolent, or just neutral or indifferent. The argument from omnibenevolence stems from the fact that being is considered good, and evil is the absence of good, therefore it is the absence of being. However, that's all another debate and don't want/need to go into it unless you really want me to.

I'm sure Alt you as well as many others will be critical of my argument, but every little conclusion has a justification behind it. If anyone doubts this, feel free to ask me why I conclude X, and I'll tell you why (mind the pun).

 

[rvkevin]

I'm sure Alt you as well as many others will be critical of my argument, but every little conclusion has a justification behind it. If anyone doubts this, feel free to ask me why I conclude X, and I'll tell you why (mind the pun).

Why do you ascribe agency to SN?

 

[Dre89]

What do you mean?

 

[rvkevin]

With regards to His properties, the point is He doesn't have many. As I've said before, He's SN therefore eternal, being itself therefore simple, would have an intellect (because thinking is considered to be being).

He would also be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The first two are straight forward, because He encompasses all being and is being itself his capabilites and knowledge would be unrestrained.

Here, why do you attribute agency to SN (Why must SN be a being)? Why is thinking considered to be being? And it seems like your saying that if SN is causal (which it is), then it encompasses all links in the chain, is that right?

Edit:

Also, I don't know why you seem to refuse ever really clearly defining what you mean. Yet, you go on and make all these conclusions and assumptions from it, and argue what is and is not (even though you seem to mention that what you consider SN is inherently subjective anyway). We can't just take your word for it, you need to define what such pivotal terms for your argument are.

Hence why most of posts have been, what do you mean by X, why does X infer Y, etc. A lack of clarity after several requests to clear up ambiguities does not give me much confidence in the argument. I wouldn't be surprised if the argument fails when the fuzzy terminology is clarified.

 

[Reaver197]

I just want to quickly state this. How have you, Dre, determined that time itself is too complex to be infinite, yet, somehow, a deity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is not (attributes that are not without contradictions, especially them all together 1 2)? It seems to me that such a being is good deal more complex than any idea of time, and possibly the universe itself, to once again borrow from your example the relative level of complexity of a painter versus a painting.

Also, I don't know why you seem to refuse ever really clearly defining what you mean. Yet, you go on and make all these conclusions and assumptions from it, and argue what is and is not (even though you seem to mention that what you consider SN is inherently subjective anyway). We can't just take your word for it, you need to define what such pivotal terms for your argument are. Otherwise, it just seems like you're setting up an ever shifting goal line that you can change so that you're never really proven wrong.

 

[AltF4]

Ah, okay. I'm going to respond to exactly one point where I think everything falls apart. And it has to do with the No Boundary Proposal. You claim this:

Now if everything is contingent, there must be something SN that kicked things off. You can't have a coherentism, because that's like saying in constructing a robot, part X built part Y, Y built Z, and Z built X.

You also can't have an infinite regress. If you remove first cause, you rmeove the effect, which is middle cause, which removes its effect, which is last cause.

Science has the same sort of idea. It's called Causality. It's a pretty basic idea and is something like an axiom in physics. Nobody can prove that causality _must_ hold, but we kind of assume that it does.

So this principle causes a huge problem with the "standard" (not "atheistic") big band model. The one you were shown in middle school. The big bang model describes very well the universe after the "moment of creation". It describes the formation and expansion of galaxies, stars and planets, etc...

But it all kind of breaks down at time=0, or "the moment of creation". There is no prior event, so causality is violated! Oh, no! How can we solve this!


The No Boundary Proposal. It says "Hey, time can be bent into different shapes. What if it's bent asymptotically backward?" So it would look like this:

(That's the best picture I could muster really quick. Imagine it bending upward at t=0) Where the X axis is time, and the Y axis is how curved it is. (density, kind of)

Causality is never violated in such a universe. Because there is "No Boundary". The curve shown above is infinite in length. It never ends. It keeps on going. At no point is there ever a place where causality is ever violated.

Yet the extent of time is finite. (In the geometric sense) Is this making sense? You can have a universe where there is no god, AND causality is not violated.

 

[Deleted member]

anyone wanna have a gender debate with meh

 

[adumbrodeus]

On the same note, thoughts on topics for my debate with Dre?

 

[Lore]

anyone wanna have a gender debate with meh

That sounds like a cool idea; I'm in.

On the same note, thoughts on topics for my debate with Dre?

Is morality absolute?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Is morality absolute?

Prefer something that we don't agree on, unless talking about "does absolute morality require a "God".



*Airquotes mean I'm referring to the concept in the most general sense.

 

[Lore]

Prefer something that we don't agree on, unless talking about "does absolute morality require a "God".

Sorry, I forgot that you both believe in God (or a God, in Dre's case).

"Does absolute morality require a God" would be a great topic, but it really depends on what side Dre takes.

 

[rvkevin]

On the same note, thoughts on topics for my debate with Dre?

Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection?
Is the Bible reliable?
Is the Catholic Church or religion a force for good in the world?
Is God necessary for morality?
Does religion thwart economic and/or scientific progress?
Should we refer to nature for morality?
Does free will exist?
Is human cloning ethical?
Should religion be a part of school curriculum?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Is the Catholic Church or religion a force for good in the world?

I think that is by far the best topic mentioned. Dre really thinks that the Catholic Church is a massive force for good in the world. If adumbrodeus disagrees on this, we have ourselves a debate.

 

[Dre89]

With the God being necessary for morality topic I'd argue that He isn't. But I don't think that'd be too interesting a debate though.

Edit: I decided to answer some responses to my God post. I know I'll regret starting this up again in the near future.

Here, why do you attribute agency to SN (Why must SN be a being)? Why is thinking considered to be being? And it seems like your saying that if SN is causal (which it is), then it encompasses all links in the chain, is that right?

For the first question, the fact that there is being in the universe necessitates it. You can’t have the movement from non-being to being, because that that would mean that the being existed prior to itself to cause itself.

As for the second question, the reason why thinking is being is because in the case of the original SN being, thinking is what distinguishes it from non-being. Remember, the original being is simple, it’s immaterial, so the only thing that would distinguish it from nothingness would be an intellect.

Now the reason why we know there was an intellect is because we know that being exists (our universe), and being could not come from non-being, hence thinking is being.

I just want to quickly state this. How have you, Dre, determined that time itself is too complex to be infinite, yet, somehow, a deity that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is not (attributes that are not without contradictions, especially them all together 1 2)? It seems to me that such a being is good deal more complex than any idea of time, and possibly the universe itself, to once again borrow from your example the relative level of complexity of a painter versus a painting.

The Omni attributes are a result of being the being which is ‘being itself’. Everything in existence is encompassed by the being with the Omni attributes, so it makes sense it would have them.

The only debatable one for me is omnibenevolence. But that is related to the problem of evil argument so I won’t go into it because it isn’t that necessary.

And no the being is the most simple of them all. It is the universal from which all particulars stem. Take blue objects for example. Which is more complex, a blue object, or the colour blue itself? Obviously the object is more complex, because it is a particular. It, as well as many other objects, stem from the colour blue.

You’re confusing complexity with capacity. Being more limited does not make you more simple.

Also, I don't know why you seem to refuse ever really clearly defining what you mean. Yet, you go on and make all these conclusions and assumptions from it, and argue what is and is not (even though you seem to mention that what you consider SN is inherently subjective anyway). We can't just take your word for it, you need to define what such pivotal terms for your argument are. Otherwise, it just seems like you're setting up an ever shifting goal line that you can change so that you're never really proven wrong.

Well I assume people understand what I mean (which would normally be the case with philosophy students/lecturers) and I’m happy to clarify any confusion. The problem is that I get a lot of people responding to my posts, this is why I’ve been pushing for one-on-one debates, where I would have the time to clarify anything.

Ah, okay. I'm going to respond to exactly one point where I think everything falls apart. And it has to do with the No Boundary Proposal. You claim this:



Science has the same sort of idea. It's called Causality. It's a pretty basic idea and is something like an axiom in physics. Nobody can prove that causality _must_ hold, but we kind of assume that it does.

So this principle causes a huge problem with the "standard" (not "atheistic") big band model. The one you were shown in middle school. The big bang model describes very well the universe after the "moment of creation". It describes the formation and expansion of galaxies, stars and planets, etc...

But it all kind of breaks down at time=0, or "the moment of creation". There is no prior event, so causality is violated! Oh, no! How can we solve this!


The No Boundary Proposal. It says "Hey, time can be bent into different shapes. What if it's bent asymptotically backward?" So it would look like this:

(That's the best picture I could muster really quick. Imagine it bending upward at t=0) Where the X axis is time, and the Y axis is how curved it is. (density, kind of)

Causality is never violated in such a universe. Because there is "No Boundary". The curve shown above is infinite in length. It never ends. It keeps on going. At no point is there ever a place where causality is ever violated.

Yet the extent of time is finite. (In the geometric sense) Is this making sense? You can have a universe where there is no god, AND causality is not violated.

If I understand this correctly, the only problem it solves is specifically the cause of matter in the universe, once the principles of time and space are in existence.

The problem I have with NBT is not the specific structure of time-space you are proposing, but the fact you are proposing it is the ultimate reality and it has a structure.

 

[rvkevin]

It seems like your presupposing that there was nothing besides SN, why?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Historicity of Jesus's Resurrection?
Is the Bible reliable?
Is the Catholic Church or religion a force for good in the world?
Is God necessary for morality?
Does religion thwart economic and/or scientific progress?
Should we refer to nature for morality?
Does free will exist?
Is human cloning ethical?
Should religion be a part of school curriculum?

Where would we disagree though?

I think that is by far the best topic mentioned. Dre really thinks that the Catholic Church is a massive force for good in the world. If adumbrodeus disagrees on this, we have ourselves a debate.

Errr, I thought I've made it pretty clear that I'm a Catholic, guess my opinion on the topic from that.

Historically (depending on the period) my opinions are more mixed.

 

[Dre89]

Rvkevin if there something besides the SN being, then it wouldn't be SN, becuase the two beings would be dependant on each other.

The other reason is that for any complex being to be caused into existence, 'being' or 'existence' must already exist. This is what the SN being is, it is being itself. If you have multiple original beings, none of those beings can be being itself, because there would be beings that exist independantly of each other, none of the beings would encompass all other beings.

So then what you have are complexities with no universal. As soon as you have multiple beings, you no longer have a being that is being itself, so then there must be a being prior to these 'original' beings which is the explanation for why there was being in the first place, but then as soon as you do this those beings are no longer the original being.

Edit: I wouldn't be good on history debates. I need something more philosophical like a God debate, if God is necessary for mroality (I stated before that I would say no), the problem of evil, abortion etc.

Is God necessary for morality?
Should we refer to nature for morality?
Does free will exist?

Of the topics mentioned preivously, these three would probably be the only ones I'd be able to contribute to signifcantly.

If you like, I can argue that God does not exist. That'd be an interesting debate, and to be honest it's the one I recommend most.

 

[rvkevin]

I was lazy in my question. We have SN+a bunch of qualities named God and then we have SN. It seems like you are presupposing that God is the SN. How do you know that nothing else can be the SN? For example, if energy, quantum fields, etc. are the SN, then it no longer follows that SN is thinking, etc. With this in mind, it seems like the inferences you make such as "being could not come from non-being, hence thinking is being" are either presupposing that SN, being, is God or are just invalid.

 

[Dre89]

SN+ABC= what we call God.

The reason why only God can be SN is because a being must have ABC to be SN.

I've explained that-

1. Cannot be complex, therefore physical
2. Must be eternal, therefore not complex.
3. Must be being itself, therefore not in relation to any other being.

Energy fields and the like are complex beings. They do not encompass beings that are completely distinct from them.

I don't feel I've answered the questions as best I could so if you still have questions let me know because I probably have more explaining to do.

At this point I'd like to ask what you guys think of my argument so far. I know you all think it's flawed, but in terms of a pro-God argument how do you guys rate it in terms of structure, depth, logic etc.?

Anyway Adumbrodeus when you see this do you want to have a God debate? I want to take a positive atheist position that God does not exist.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

It's funny because overall, I'm awful at debating in itself.

It just comes to discussion for me. I prefer to discover and research things through conversation instead of arguement.

 

[AltF4]

If I understand this correctly, the only problem it solves is specifically the cause of matter in the universe, once the principles of time and space are in existence.

The problem I have with NBT is not the specific structure of time-space you are proposing, but the fact you are proposing it is the ultimate reality and it has a structure.

That is incorrect. You're still thinking in terms of linear time. You have to think in terms of General Relativity, ie: curved spacetime.

It is not the case that there was a period of time before the big bang, and the creation of space needs to be explained. Time itself began at the big bang. Then NBT demonstrates that you can have a big bang without the "bang".

Plus, by your usage, I suspect you are again using a non-standard definition of the word "structure". Because if you think there is something inconsistent with the NBT you should take it up with Hawking and the scientific community, not me.

 

[Dre89]

That is incorrect. You're still thinking in terms of linear time. You have to think in terms of General Relativity, ie: curved spacetime.

It is not the case that there was a period of time before the big bang, and the creation of space needs to be explained. Time itself began at the big bang. Then NBT demonstrates that you can have a big bang without the "bang".

Plus, by your usage, I suspect you are again using a non-standard definition of the word "structure". Because if you think there is something inconsistent with the NBT you should take it up with Hawking and the scientific community, not me.

No I know it's supposed to remove the necessity the initial expansion of the singularity.

My problem is not with the physics, it's with the metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate reality. If you're going to argue that that it is a self-sufficient system, that no God is required for it, that nothing is beyond it, then you're saying it is the ultimate reality, rendering it subject to metaphysical criticism.

When I say it only solves the causality of matter what I'm saying is that there is no explanation as for why tiime-space has that specific structure, and moreso, that time-space can't have that specific structure unless it was formulated by a higher being. That's essentially what I've been getting at this whole time.

But anyway, it seems as if this debate sort of turned out to be a non-event and it doesn't seem like it will get anywhere so we'll just leave it at that. At least it didn't turn insultive, which is always a good result for a God debate.

 

[RDK]

No I know it's supposed to remove the necessity the initial expansion of the singularity.

My problem is not with the physics, it's with the metaphysics.

Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate reality. If you're going to argue that that it is a self-sufficient system, that no God is required for it, that nothing is beyond it, then you're saying it is the ultimate reality, rendering it subject to metaphysical criticism.

When I say it only solves the causality of matter what I'm saying is that there is no explanation as for why tiime-space has that specific structure, and moreso, that time-space can't have that specific structure unless it was formulated by a higher being. That's essentially what I've been getting at this whole time.

But anyway, it seems as if this debate sort of turned out to be a non-event and it doesn't seem like it will get anywhere so we'll just leave it at that. At least it didn't turn insultive, which is always a good result for a God debate.

You're not listening.

Nobody has said that we needed to answer why spacetime has a specific curvature. Science doesn't deal with "why"s, it deals with "how"s. The important thing is that it has said curvature.

Philosophy and metaphysics have nothing to do with it; these are scientific facts we're dealing with, and it's what we know about the universe no matter how hard you try to fit deities into the picture to answer for something that isn't known yet. This is what you're not getting.

People keep giving you information and all you have to contribute is why you think it's false because of ____ philosophical argument. This is silly.

 

[Dre89]

And I'm saying that this time-space structure can't be the ultimate reality for reasons I've mentioned before.

It can be the product of the ultimate reality, but not the ultimate reality itself.

You'd have a point if I said that time curvature is not possible, but I didn't, I just said it can't be the ultimate reality.

As soon as you claim it is the ultimate reality, it is subject to metaphysical criticism.

For example, the statement 'I exist' is plausible, because I do, and that can probably even be scientifically proven. But to then say 'I exist as the ultimate reality' is completely different statement, for in claiming to be the ultimate reality, there is a certain critiera I have to fulfill, which I clearly don't. I also feel time-space curvature doesn't meet this criteria.

So explain to me, how is what meet the criteria of being the ultimate reality a scientific issue, and not a metaphysical one?

I also find it interesting that you label it fact, when it's called the No Boundary Proposal. Previous DHers also told me Hawkins acknowledged there are problems with his theory. There are also several other theories such as Loop Theory, Infinite Vacuum which the scientific community have proposed as well, and so they appear divided on an issue.

Again I'm not saying time-space curvature isn't a fact, it isn't relevant to me what structure it has, but to label it fact seems to conflict with the division in the scientific community.

 

[Aesir]

I certainly hope no one is going to say "it's just a theory" because that would make me very sad.

Dre I'll respond to your 1v1 tomorrow, I'm exhausted.

 

[AltF4]

Dre, you seem to have a habit of making extremely strong statements without justifying them at all. Presumably thinking they are obvious. Make an effort to say exactly what you mean and not more. Don't say "X is impossible" when really what you mean is "I can't think of how X is possible". Those are very different statements.

It can be the product of the ultimate reality, but not the ultimate reality itself.

Why not? You've been arguing this for some time now and have never come close to justifying this. And when you make a claim like "something CANNOT happen", then you've got to have a really good proof.

what I'm saying is that there is no explanation as for why tiime-space has that specific structure

What you should have said was "I can't think of a reason why it has this structure". There are in fact plenty of theories which can explain the structure, and no reason to think that in the future we can't do so even better in the future.

There is no inconsistency with a universe described in the NBT. It's a perfectly self-consistent account of how a universe can exist all on its own, without a god. Just because it seems unsatisfactory to you in some sense means nothing. Your ability to grasp at an intuitive level what's going on is irrelevant. If the math works, then it works. And it does.



Didn't I say that every god argument eventually devolves into talking about theoretical physics? It's stupid. Even if a theist does find an inconsistency, you've only got yet another "God of the Gap".

 

[Dre89]

Dre, you seem to have a habit of making extremely strong statements without justifying them at all. Presumably thinking they are obvious. Make an effort to say exactly what you mean and not more. Don't say "X is impossible" when really what you mean is "I can't think of how X is possible". Those are very different statements.


Why not? You've been arguing this for some time now and have never come close to justifying this. And when you make a claim like "something CANNOT happen", then you've got to have a really good proof.

Did you not read my huge post explaining all this? I think it's on the previous page.

All the talk about how complex beings/structures cannot be self-necessary. I've explained all of it before.

What you should have said was "I can't think of a reason why it has this structure". There are in fact plenty of theories which can explain the structure, and no reason to think that in the future we can't do so even better in the future.

Not in the sense I'm talking about. The NBT implies that time is curved, thus removing a beginning.

What you have is an infinite time theory. According to NBT, there was no beginning, nothing existed before time-space curvature, and time-space didn't need anything else to exist.

Because time-space curvature is infinite, nothing prior to it caused it into existence. Because nothing prior caused it, what you have is an unecessary complexity that exists for no reason at all. So when one comes to the question of why something rather than nothing exists, not only do you have to explain why something exists, but why all this complexity exists.

What you have is multiple complex principles such as time and space that are all self-necessary, they have all existed infinitely for no reason. In my big post with my argument I showed why I find this impossible.

Remember I'm not saying NBT isn't true, I'm just saying it can't exist as the ultimate reality, it can't exist as a self-necessary entity, it can only existed if atcuated by a prior being.

There is no inconsistency with a universe described in the NBT. It's a perfectly self-consistent account of how a universe can exist all on its own, without a god. Just because it seems unsatisfactory to you in some sense means nothing. Your ability to grasp at an intuitive level what's going on is irrelevant. If the math works, then it works. And it does.

As I said before, there's a difference between 'NBT exists', and 'NBT exists as the ultimate reality'. As soon as you attribute it to being the ultimate reality, it is rendered subject to metaphysical criticism.

All you've shown is the specific structure of certain principles such as time and space. You haven't shown how or why those principles are in existence.

Didn't I say that every god argument eventually devolves into talking about theoretical physics? It's stupid. Even if a theist does find an inconsistency, you've only got yet another "God of the Gap".

All my arguments stem from necessity "It is impossible that it is anything other than X'. They all stem from natural observation "all complexities are necessitated by a prior truth' 'complexities stem from universals' 'all physical beings are finite', these conclusions all came from what we emprically perceive.

 

[RDK]

Did you not read my huge post explaining all this? I think it's on the previous page.

All the talk about how complex beings/structures cannot be self-necessary. I've explained all of it before.




Not in the sense I'm talking about. The NBT implies that time is curved, thus removing a beginning.

What you have is an infinite time theory. According to NBT, there was no beginning, nothing existed before time-space curvature, and time-space didn't need anything else to exist.

Because time-space curvature is infinite, nothing prior to it caused it into existence. Because nothing prior caused it, what you have is an unecessary complexity that exists for no reason at all. So when one comes to the question of why something rather than nothing exists, not only do you have to explain why something exists, but why all this complexity exists.

What you have is multiple complex principles such as time and space that are all self-necessary, they have all existed infinitely for no reason. In my big post with my argument I showed why I find this impossible.

Remember I'm not saying NBT isn't true, I'm just saying it can't exist as the ultimate reality, it can't exist as a self-necessary entity, it can only existed if atcuated by a prior being.

Why?

Why?

Why?

This is why people get so frustrated with you. You make outlandish philosophical statements without ever giving any explanation. Why does the universe need to be self-necessary? How is an inexplainable deity allowed to be the self-necessary catalyst for the universe, but the universe itself could never have been self-necessary without the need for a deity?

For some reason you refuse to answer this question. There is no reason to assume deity and then make special cases for it about how it always existed if we can safely say the same exact things about the universe itself. You're thrusting theology into a place where it has no business being.

And this is also why you need to read up on the relevant science instead of trying to undermine what we know about the universe using philosophy.

Because time-space curvature is infinite, nothing prior to it caused it into existence. Because nothing prior caused it, what you have is an unecessary complexity that exists for no reason at all. So when one comes to the question of why something rather than nothing exists, not only do you have to explain why something exists, but why all this complexity exists.

No, no we don't have to explain why. We have to explain how, and it's fairly self-explanatory if you go back again and read Hawking's writings. You have this theological need to explain everything in terms of "god" that has nothing to do with the reality of the matter.

What you have is multiple complex principles such as time and space that are all self-necessary, they have all existed infinitely for no reason. In my big post with my argument I showed why I find this impossible.

Remember I'm not saying NBT isn't true, I'm just saying it can't exist as the ultimate reality, it can't exist as a self-necessary entity, it can only existed if atcuated by a prior being.

So? What's your point?

Ultimate reality is not a scientific concept, it's a theological / metaphysical one duded-up to look like a philosophical one.

In any case it was bound to come to this, but it's the gist of the argument at hand: why does the universe need to be "actuated by a prior being" but the prior being doesn't need to be "actuated by a prior being"? Apparently this is the criteria that you require of the universe. So my question is why is the prior being not measured by this same criteria? Because that doesn't fit with your theology?

'all physical beings are finite'

Okay let me ask you this.

Is energy a physical being?

Is god?

 

[Dre89]

Why?

Why?

Why?

This is why people get so frustrated with you. You make outlandish philosophical statements without ever giving any explanation. Why does the universe need to be self-necessary? How is an inexplainable deity allowed to be the self-necessary catalyst for the universe, but the universe itself could never have been self-necessary without the need for a deity?

For some reason you refuse to answer this question. There is no reason to assume deity and then make special cases for it about how it always existed if we can safely say the same exact things about the universe itself. You're thrusting theology into a place where it has no business being.

And this is also why you need to read up on the relevant science instead of trying to undermine what we know about the universe using philosophy.

What do you mean I refuse to answer questions? I've answered every question thrown at me, just look at my response to Rvkevin's question.

Do even read the debate or do you just read my last post and assume none of my argument is located in other ones?

Essentially, you just want me to repeat everything I've said in that big post?

If you understood what I said, you would know that I said the universe couldn't be self-necessary, I didn't say it has to be self-necessary.

I also explained numerous differences between God and the universe. The universe is comprised of finite and complex beings. Finite in that they are contingent on other beings, being caused into existence by prior beings. Complex in that they are all necessitated by prior truths, they are all particulars to a universal (like how different animals are particulars that stem from the universal of fauna), and not all being stems from them (like how evolution has nothing to do with the creation of time and space, because they obviously existed before evolution did).

Everything was explained in that big post. Judging by what you've been saying, it seems as if you haven't read it at all.

Instead of just insulting the post, why don't you do what Rvkevin did and ask me a specific question about something you have trouble grasping/agreeing with? I'm more than happy to clarify.

No, no we don't have to explain why. We have to explain how, and it's fairly self-explanatory if you go back again and read Hawking's writings. You have this theological need to explain everything in terms of "god" that has nothing to do with the reality of the matter.

Again, another accusation with no grounding. I don't feel a need to explain everything through God, I'm not religious at all. I didn't even believe in God until I concluded through these premises that He was necessary for the existence of the universe, so how could I want to explain everything through God, if I didn't believe in Him until I concluded He existed through these premises? If I wanted to explain everything theologically, I would have to:

1. Believe in theology.
2. Have assumed God's existence before I came to this issue, which as I've said before, wasn't the case, it was actually this issue that made me believe in God.

And yes, you have to explain how it can be the ultimate reality. Whether NBT exists is a scientific issue. Whether it exists as the ultimate reality is a metaphysical issue. I'm not saying NBT doesn't exist, I'm saying it doesn't exist as the ultimate reality.

What you're doing is like a fidiest saying creationsim is true because the Bible says so. When the scientist tells him science has proven creationism wrong, by your logic he can just say "no it's theologically consistent, it's not a scientific issue".

Obviously the scientist will be angry because it is in fact a scientific issue, just as the ultimate reality is a metaphysical issue.

So? What's your point?

Ultimate reality is not a scientific concept, it's a theological / metaphysical one duded-up to look like a philosophical one.

What?

In any case it was bound to come to this, but it's the gist of the argument at hand: why does the universe need to be "actuated by a prior being" but the prior being doesn't need to be "actuated by a prior being"? Apparently this is the criteria that you require of the universe. So my question is why is the prior being not measured by this same criteria? Because that doesn't fit with your theology?

Can you explain to me how my theory could be a 'theology' when I'm not even religious in the slightest? What on Earth does understanding of faith have at all to do with this?

Why are you even asking this? This was all explained in the post. If you disagree with it, fine, take what you disagree with and refute it, but you're acting as if I gave no answer to these questions at all, which suggests to me that you haven't really read my post.

The reason why God does not require a prior being to cause it into existence is because He is eternal and has no complexities, He is simple, He is being itself.

As I've said a hundred times, all complexities are necessitated by a prior truths. A complexity implies it would be caused into existence by a prior being, like how the nature of a painting suggests it was painted by a painter.

You're acting as if there's no difference between the God I portrayed and natural beings, when I evidently made it clear there is. You may think that natural beings are capable of being self-necessary, or that the God I portaryed isn't capable either, resulting in the 'God of the Gaps', but you're acting as if I made no distinctions between God and natural beings. Do you even read my posts?

Okay let me ask you this.

Is energy a physical being?

To make things clearer, I'll refer to them as natural beings. So yes, everything in the universe is natural, meaning energy is too.

Is god?

Only twelve year olds think God is a physical being, normally they think he's a guy with a beard in the clouds or something childish like that.

 

[AltF4]

Is energy a physical being?

According to Einstein, yes. Energy even has a measurable mass.


Dre, what about my former criticism for calling this being of yours "god"? Suppose we grant its existence. All you've established is the sentence. "Something exists, and I'll call it god"

But this "god" may very well just be a law of nature. No right-minded person would call the law of gravity "god"! The word god has certain connotations on common parlance. It has to have agency, it has to have super powers, etc... How do you plan on deriving these characteristics?

 

[Dre89]

First of all Alt thanks for the maturity in your response, and for not just insulting. Secondly, it can't be a natural law because natural law because they are complex, or particulars, and I explained a complexity can't be sn. What makes me call it God is the fact that it must think, or must be a mind. The reason is that it can't be complex, therefore it can't be particular and subsequently physical. Now if the sn being has to be simple and being itself, then the only thing that would distinguish it from being nothing (we know it wasn't nothing because being obviously exists, that's why were having this debate) would be having a mind. It must be the case because this is the only trait you can attribute it without comprimising it's other traits such as sn, simplicity etc.

 

[AltF4]

I guess you have to be a dualist then? That would seem like an awfully large assumption in order to come to your conclusion. I mean, a minute ago you were all bent out of shape about causality, and now dualism? Dualism has the biggest causality problem of all in th mind-body problem.

Plus, I'm just not following on:
1) How a consciousness can be "simple" in any respect.
2) "The only thing that would distinguish it from being nothing would be having a mind." I'm just not following this sentence.

Unless you mean:

Assume: There are two worlds, the world of physical things and the world of minds.
Assume: There are no other such worlds.
Assume: Minds are capable of creating universes.
1) The thing which we supposedly established previously is not physical.
2) Therefore it must be a mind.

...which seems rather unconvincing to me...