The Existence of God

[Deleted member]

No, the "idea" of a universe that is a closed system as true says nothing about the existence of gods. Just as the idea of an open system would not mean that gods do or do not exist.

Your arguments are invalid in this topic.

Ugh, I thought you were gone for good.

Maybe you think you're being funny, but you're actually just spamming and interrupting the topic. Of course no one here is going to post some magical evidence. Of course you're being a colossal D. Go away.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Ugh, I thought you were gone for good.

Of course no one here is going to post some magical evidence.

I've been back for months. And I don't need (nor want) "magical" evidence. Just any evidence would be nice.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm tired of people always saying 'God is just a matter of faith'.

...

The universe and God are no different. I can look at the universe, and for various reasons, assume it needed to be caused by a prior being.

Now whether those reasons are justified are debateable.

... So, the existence of God cannot be purely a matter of faith, and yet you yourself require a level of faith in your own "reasons." Could you explain how what you believe is in any way not faith-based, because I'm not seeing it.

I've been back for months. And I don't need (nor want) "magical" evidence. Just any evidence would be nice.

There's none to be had. Any evidence to the existence of God could be described in other terms, based on the observer.

 

[Deleted member]

I've been back for months. And I don't need (nor want) "magical" evidence. Just any evidence would be nice.

Agreed, but please stop acting dumb.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

There's none to be had. Any evidence to the existence of God could be described in other terms, based on the observer.

I have heard many people say that proof exists and of their specific deity. What I want is for these people to present this evidence. Although, I haven't seen any evidence in this thread... yet.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob, the painter analogy isn't flawed. Are you saying that a person only knows a painting was painted if they've seen one being painted before?

Well, in short yes. They've painted before probably, they've heard of others paint, seen others paint, so that's the reason why they know a painting must have a painter.

There are plenty of objects that if we'd looked at for the first time, we'd know were created even if we've never visually witnessed that creation.

Examples please.

It's inductive logic. The logic for God's existence is the same as knowing a painting you didn't see painted was in fact painted. Past experience tells us that the painting, or any created object, consists entirely of physical parts, which have always been contingent. In the same sense, inductive logic can tell me that all the 'parts' of the universe are contingent, therefore require a prior being.

Obviously it's alot more complex than that.

Uh I don't really understand. It's rather weird, there's a lot of large statements thrown around there, and not much to back it up.

2. Something existing in this case is just as probable as nothing existing. Normally, the existence of a positive reality is less probable than nothingness, because the positive reality, or being, requires a cause, there needs to be a potentiality, and a movement of this potentiality to actuality, whereas nothing of the sort is required for nothingness. However, the being we are talking about here is eternal, so if God does exist, there would been no movement from potentiality to actuality, there would have been no cause, so it is just as probable as nothingness.

Uh, why can't the universe just not have a beginning? Second of all, nothing in quantum mechanics is always something. Particles popping in and out of existence due to quantum fluctuations. If the universe has a net energy of 0, then we could be the result of the a random quantum fluctuation.

It turns out the universe is flat, and this means that it will have a net energy of 0, so we could be the result of a random quantum fluctuation.

Also, Gamer it is relevant. If the universe doesn't need any energy input, than no net creation has occurred, and therefore a creator isn't necessary.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Also, Gamer it is relevant. If the universe doesn't need any energy input, than no net creation has occurred, and therefore a creator isn't necessary.

That does not follow. If we are in a closed system, gods may exist who manipulate matter/energy within the system itself. If we are in an open system then matter/energy can be "spilling" in and out of our universe from another dimension which does not require gods. Two examples that show that your assertion that a closed system proves gods do not exist and the opposite necessitates gods is not true.

Arguing about closed and open systems says nothing about the existence of gods.

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not entirely sure, but the mathematics suggest that a flat universe will continue expanding at an ever decreasing rate. (I think) And it just happens that a flat universe has 0 net energy.

Yeah, but the fact is that they're still expanding. When if we're going by any laws of motion. They shouldn't be.

Something that's moving has kinetic energy correct?
The matter in the universe is expanding and it has energy. yes?
That's the positive.
Now the negative energy of gravity is supposed to cancel this out. Correct?That way we have zero net energy.

However, if that's the case. Then the kinetic energy in the matter of the universe should be canceled out. Therefore, they should not be moving. But they are.

They don't the temporarily pop into existence, using energy and then give it back to the system. In Quantum Mechanics, nothing is always something.

So technically, you can't say that we started from nothing then.

It's not out the window. The expansion an after effect from the big-bang. The energy at the moment maybe be cancelling out, but the expansion as an after effect from the big bang is keeping everything moving apart.

This doesn't seem clear to me. If the energy is canceling out, then even after the big bang, if we're still to be a universe with zero net energy, nothing should be moving. Because the kinetic energy of all the particles would be canceled out by gravity.

Energy =/= Force. Secondly, it's not experiencing net movement in any direction that we know of, we know it's just expanding.

Yeah, energy isn't the same as force, but the two go hand in hand.

Your statement also brings up a big point:
Gravity is a force. So where is this negative energy coming from? Kinetic energy only deals with the idea that the object is moving. However, I suppose you could take a stretch and say potential energy could be positive or negative in relationship to whichever force you put into question. Gravity, or the force that has matter moving away from it. And I'm guessing that's how theoretical physics allows for that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Using that tidbit.
Total Energy= Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy

Given the nature of what we're discussing there are two systems. Potential energy becomes a vector quantity (since theoretical physics says gravity has negative energy) while kinetic energy is a scalar quantity. (It only deals with the object and the fact that it is moving, regardless of direction)

If the net energy is to be zero, then the net force must also be zero. Because only then will you have the potential energy of the matter in reference to the force moving the particles away from where gravity is taking them, equal to the potential energy of the matter in reference to the force of gravity.

If the net force isn't zero then objects are in motion. Using the fact that the universe is expanding at a decreasing rate. You have the kinetic energy of the object + it's potential energy due to its position. As the object moves further away it's kinetic energy decreases as the potential energy grows. Now the kinetic energy only concerns the object itself and it's being in motion. That's a positive value. Considering that positive potential energy is the potential for the object to move towards gravity. (That keeps the TE=PE+KE relationship)
Then that grows greater as the object moves further away while slowing down. Reaching it's maximum whenever the object stops moving. The negative potential energy matches this. So the positive and negative potential energy values cancel out. You're left with only the kinetic energy concerning the object moving. That's positive so you're left with TE value greater than zero.

So to have a net energy of zero, nothing can be moving in the universe.

No, the "idea" of a universe that is a closed system as true says nothing about the existence of gods. Just as the idea of an open system would not mean that gods do or do not exist.

Your arguments are invalid in this topic.

A universe that has zero net energy doesn't need a deity to come into being. Someone could justify their idea in there not being a God with this. While it doesn't prove that there is or is not a God, it does eliminate a main idea behind the God debate: The idea that the universe could not come to being without God. There would be no further reason to pursue the God debate because those opposing the existence of God could just bring up that idea about the universe and there would be no further avenue to go to.

That does not follow. If we are in a closed system, gods may exist who manipulate matter/energy within the system itself. If we are in an open system then matter/energy can be "spilling" in and out of our universe from another dimension which does not require gods. Two examples that show that your assertion that a closed system proves gods do not exist and the opposite necessitates gods is not true.

Arguing about closed and open systems says nothing about the existence of gods.

Still the fact that it wouldn't necessitate a God closes off the whole reason for the debate.

Also, you're example showing an open system could work without God, is purely speculation. The explanation being debated about the closed system here is much more definitive, and therefore holds more gravity to the conclusion to this debate than your example.

The example you use to show that God could exist in a closed is completely off point. The debate as I see it centers more so around proving that there is no way that the universe can exist without god and therefore necessitating his existence.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

A universe that has zero net energy doesn't need a deity to come into being. Someone could justify their idea in there not being a God with this. While it doesn't prove that there is or is not a God, it does eliminate a main idea behind the God debate: The idea that the universe could not come to being without God. There would be no further reason to pursue the God debate because those opposing the existence of God could just bring up that idea about the universe and there would be no further avenue to go to.

If history has taught us anything, it is that when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, religions change to suit the new perception of the world. People were burned at the stake for the heresy of saying that the Earth is not the center of the universe. But given enough time, religions have changed the perceived meaning of their texts to be more in line with reality.

For example: the Catholic church says that the creation story is a metaphor, a dramatization of how Jehovah created the Earth, universe and everything in it. It is no longer taken literally (at least by them). It would take little stretch of the imagination for them to declare that Jehovah is the impetus of the big bang and father of the universe without having to "change" the nature of the reality we live in from closed to open or vise-versa.

Or as a wise old Indian woman once said, "It's turtles, all the way down."

Now please stop nitpicking about it and let's get to something a little more germane.

 

[Dre89]

Alt stop saying that I'm supposing a world ideas, you're just saying that to straw-man my argument.

All my argument says is that an immaterial reality must have existed before a material one.

How can an immaterial being possibly be anything other than a mind? As soon s you give it any other attribute, it becomes contingent and physical.

So according to your logic, virtually any theory that has ever argued for an immaterial being is dualist? That's absurd.

Dualism supposes that there is a good and evil force in the world. I don't argue this, because to do so, you have to argue evil is the opposite of good. I've you've read my posts on evil, you'd know that I consider being to be good, and evil to be the absence of being, so no that is not dualism at all.

Dualism also implies a world of individual ideas. These are not a unified being, they are an infinite series of complexities, and I've already argued that an infinite series, and/or a complexity cannot be an ultimate reality.

Trying to call my argument dualism is just pidgeon-holeing it to make it easier to refute.

Gamer4fire you assume the burden of proof is entirely on those who believe in God.

The atheist still needs to provide a sound explanation of how the universe could exist without God, which goes beyond just stating scientific theories such as big bang or time curvature.

Also, you sound like you'll only accept empirical evidence. While I personally would argue that the nature of the universe necessitates a higher being to have caused it, and that would be somehwat empirically deduced, I doubt you'll acceept that.

However, the idea that empirical methodology is the only way to deduce truth is self-defeating, because it was philosophy that determined that empirical methodology can deduce truth.

If philosophy can deduce that truth, it can deduce others without empirical methodology too.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Gamer4fire you assume the burden of proof is entirely on those who believe in God.

The burden of proof is on the individual who makes the assertion. In your case, I gather that you assert that your god exists and that he created the universe. Therefore the burden of proof of your god is on you.

The atheist still needs to provide a sound explanation of how the universe could exist without God, which goes beyond just stating scientific theories such as big bang or time curvature.

Only if I assert that "gods do not exist" or that "god did not create the universe." However, I can state with quiet confidence that "there is no evidence to the existence of any gods," and that, "there is no evidence that gods were involved in the creation of the universe."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Then you lose the ability to create something from nothing.

Does the fact that a boy can get a sex change and become girl mean that boys and girls are the same thing? Granted they're both human, but they don't have the same features.

Matter has a criteria that I don't believe energy meets. Unless we can find out what energy looks like: Like a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
Matter has energy in it. But I wouldn't say that Matter is energy. Because then the apple hanging from a tree is basically, energy with energy.

If there was a mathematical equation saying energy=matter I would agree, but I've never seen a equation that does that.
If you do matter+antimatter=energy. Then you can't say matter is energy. Because you have to add antimatter to it. And the very name of anti-matter shows that it's not matter. It's like saying 1+2=3. 1=/=3 and 2=/=3.




Probably, but saying otherwise would be saying that the basics are wrong.

I'm going to go and say "you're right" on this one, more or less. It makes sense. Plus I just poked my own hole in it-if you can transform matter into energy, and gravity is negative energy, wouldn't that make for a net gain of energy if mc^2 is created? Similarly, if you transform energy into matter, wouldn't the overall gravity of the universe rise? Og my head.

Alt stop saying that I'm supposing a world ideas, you're just saying that to straw-man my argument.

All my argument says is that an immaterial reality must have existed before a material one.

How can an immaterial being possibly be anything other than a mind? As soon s you give it any other attribute, it becomes contingent and physical.

How can a mind be immaterial? It's essentially a collection of electrical charges traveling through synapses like a ridiculously advanced computer.

Gamer4fire you assume the burden of proof is entirely on those who believe in God.

It is. You're making a claim and have yet to back it up with solid evidence.

Also, you sound like you'll only accept empirical evidence. While I personally would argue that the nature of the universe necessitates a higher being to have caused it, and that would be somehwat empirically deduced, I doubt you'll acceept that.

Empirical evidence - the scientific method, in other words - is actually the only reasonable way to deduce fact. Seriously. Try it with any simple everyday fact, and ask why you know it to be true-the answer will be because it's empirically proven.

However, the idea that empirical methodology is the only way to deduce truth is self-defeating, because it was philosophy that determined that empirical methodology can deduce truth.

If philosophy can deduce that truth, it can deduce others without empirical methodology too.

Or, alternatively, said proof showed itself to be correct. Seems paradoxical, but imagine it like this:
-Someone proposes empirical methodology
-Said someone tests it with just about everything he knows to be correct and common fact about the universe, gathering information with the most advanced tools he has.
-Said someone finds out that everything that can be taken for granted is applicable, and anything that isn't applicable either has weak causality or is outright wrong.
-Empirical methodology proves itself, by the exact manner it works.

 

[RDK]

Double post; ignore.

 

[RDK]

Dre the mind is completely material. There is nothing spiritual or mystical about our biological brains. The idea that it can be an immaterial being floating off in another dimension is silly.

And your "painting" analogy is straight out of the creationist handbook. You're a creationist and you know you can't argue science with anybody so you whip out the philosophy schtick. That, or your Del's sock.

Come on now, you're not fooling anybody.

 

[blazedaces]

Here's my issue with the "painting" analogy, or really, any other creationist "the world looks designed just like a watch" argument:

If the world looks just as designed as a watch... is there an example of ANYTHING that DOESN'T look "designed"?!

Seriously. The argument quite literally claims that ALL THINGS are too "whatever it is that watches/paintings are" to be created via coincidence, therefore, "someone" must have created them.

So does anything in our entire universe NOT fit that criteria? Are rocks simple enough? How about empty space?

-blazed

 

[RDK]

Snowflakes are pretty complicated. Hey Dre, does your god create each individual snowflake before it hits the ground?

What about a tornado? Obviously such a complex wind structure couldn't come from random warm and cold arrangements colliding. Is that god farting?

 

[blazedaces]

Snowflakes are pretty complicated. Hey Dre, does your god create each individual snowflake before it hits the ground?

What about a tornado? Obviously such a complex wind structure couldn't come from random warm and cold arrangements colliding. Is that god farting?

The conceit and sarcasm is really unnecessary...

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

RDK posts with hostility, but the point is true. For anyone inspired by a teleological argument, try to define the quality of "designed". You will find that you can't.

How can you distinguish between a designed object and a non-designed one? What qualities do designed objects contain that non-designed ones don't?

Plus, the entire teleological argument is an argument from ignorance. It essentially goes:

- The world appears, to me, to have been designed.
- Therefore, god exists.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

RDK posts with hostility, but the point is true. For anyone inspired by a teleological argument, try to define the quality of "designed". You will find that you can't.

How can you distinguish between a designed object and a non-designed one? What qualities do designed objects contain that non-designed ones don't?

Plus, the entire teleological argument is an argument from ignorance. It essentially goes:

- The world appears, to me, to have been designed.
- Therefore, god exists.

My philosophy class all over again :&

I'm trying to find one good thing from this, but I can't. =/

 

[Dre89]

Hold on I never said that there was no burden of proof to prove that a God exists.

I was saying that neither position is self-evident. However, atheists seem to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which isn't true.

The only Gods that bestow a heavy burden of proof are theological gods. This is because certain actions they do and characteristics they have weren't necessary for the actuation of the universe.

However, the atheist can't just put his feet up and assume his/her position is justified if they feel there is no sufficient evidence that a deity was necessary to actuate the universe. The atheist is still required to show how the universe does not necessitate a higher being for justified belief.

RDK posts with hostility, but the point is true. For anyone inspired by a teleological argument, try to define the quality of "designed". You will find that you can't.

How can you distinguish between a designed object and a non-designed one? What qualities do designed objects contain that non-designed ones don't?


Plus, the entire teleological argument is an argument from ignorance. It essentially goes:

- The world appears, to me, to have been designed.
- Therefore, god exists.

1. A complex object is a designed one. A complex object necessitates a prior truth, in that it is always actuated into existence by a prior being.

2. Therefore, a non-complex, or simple being must be the original being/ultimate reality.

3. No material/natural being is simple, therefore the ultimate reality/original being cannot be a material/natural being.

4. What must exist as the ultimate reality/original being is a simple, immaterial being, ie. God.

And RDK why do you keep saying I have something against science? It's like you have this ideal that everyone who believes in a God has something against science. That is backward thinking.

I don't even understand when I have ever challenged anything scientific. When have I ever said scientific theory X is wrong?

Until you can tell me that, and prove to me that I have challenged science, your accusations that I discredit science are without sufficient grounds.

 

[RDK]

Hold on I never said that there was no burden of proof to prove that a God exists.

I was saying that neither position is self-evident. However, atheists seem to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which isn't true.

The only Gods that bestow a heavy burden of proof are theological gods. This is because certain actions they do and characteristics they have weren't necessary for the actuation of the universe.

However, the atheist can't just put his feet up and assume his/her position is justified if they feel there is no sufficient evidence that a deity was necessary to actuate the universe. The atheist is still required to show how the universe does not necessitate a higher being for justified belief.




1. A complex object is a designed one. A complex object necessitates a prior truth, in that it is always actuated into existence by a prior being.

2. Therefore, a non-complex, or simple being must be the original being/ultimate reality.

3. No material/natural being is simple, therefore the ultimate reality/original being cannot be a material/natural being.

4. What must exist as the ultimate reality/original being is a simple, immaterial being, ie. God.

And RDK why do you keep saying I have something against science? It's like you have this ideal that everyone who believes in a God has something against science. That is backward thinking.

I don't even understand when I have ever challenged anything scientific. When have I ever said scientific theory X is wrong?

Until you can tell me that, and prove to me that I have challenged science, your accusations that I discredit science are without sufficient grounds.

Because you refuse to engage any of us using any sort of scientific argument whatsoever. You cannot prove the existence of something - especially god - by using word games. And that is what you're doing.

You say things like this:

1. A complex object is a designed one. A complex object necessitates a prior truth, in that it is always actuated into existence by a prior being.

without ever explaining why. You never give any background as to why a complex object must be a designed one.

I've already brought up several examples of why you're wrong in the other thread, such as snowflakes and tornados. Both are incredibly complex structures that require no independent conscious thought whatsoever and are completely natural.

The entire "painter" analogy is flawed. If you had no prior experience with a painting and was not previously informed (or saw firsthand) that paintings are the work of an agency, you could not and would not deduce that it was man-made. You have no previous template for believing so and it would appear to be the product of natural forces, no matter how outlandish that statement may sound. That's basic psychology, and it's how the human brain is wired. We look for patterns that aren't always there.

We know paintings are man-made because we have prior experience that tells us they're man-made. There is no such template for the universe.

 

[Dre89]

Because you refuse to engage any of us using any sort of scientific argument whatsoever. You cannot prove the existence of something - especially god - by using word games. And that is what you're doing.

You say things like this:



without ever explaining why. You never give any background as to why a complex object must be a designed one.

As I said before, this was all explained in my big post.

I've already brought up several examples of why you're wrong in the other thread, such as snowflakes and tornados. Both are incredibly complex structures that require no independent conscious thought whatsoever and are completely natural.

Conscious thought? What does that have to do with anything? That argument would only have merit if you could prove that tornadoes are not caused by prior beings, which you can't, becuase obviously they're caused by prior beings.

The entire "painter" analogy is flawed. If you had no prior experience with a painting and was not previously informed (or saw firsthand) that paintings are the work of an agency, you could not and would not deduce that it was man-made. You have no previous template for believing so and it would appear to be the product of natural forces, no matter how outlandish that statement may sound. That's basic psychology, and it's how the human brain is wired. We look for patterns that aren't always there.

We know paintings are man-made because we have prior experience that tells us they're man-made. There is no such template for the universe.

But you don't need to have witnessed the creation of every kind of object to know how it was created.

It's inductive logic. Through observation, we witness that complexities always necessitates prior truths. Every complexity does that, they are always actuated into existence by prior beings. The universe is comprised entirely of complex beings, so in a sense it itself is like a painting,

 

[RDK]

But you don't need to have witnessed the creation of every kind of object to know how it was created.

It's inductive logic. Through observation, we witness that complexities always necessitates prior truths. Every complexity does that, they are always actuated into existence by prior beings. The universe is comprised entirely of complex beings, so in a sense it itself is like a painting,

That you're comparing the creation of a painting to the creation of the universe is laughable.

For such a being to be able to create such complexity it would need to be much much more complex than the universe itself. So on one hand we have your "simple first cause" argument going out the window, and then on the other hand we still have the problem of where your first cause came from.

I could use the same exact line of argumentation against whatever god you come up with to explain the origin of the universe, ad infinitum.

 

[Sucumbio]

1. A complex object is a designed one.

I wish for you to explain the complexity of this depiction. I then wish for you to demonstrate its design. Thanks in advance.

A complex object necessitates a prior truth, in that it is always actuated into existence by a prior being.

All things come from prior things, so this is a non-point. Next.

2. Therefore, a non-complex, or simple being must be the original being/ultimate reality.

WOAH. You kinda leap-frogged into that. Therefore? What therefore, your previous point was a non-point, there's no conclusion to be made, least of all such a grandiose one as the original being (God) must be simple. How on Earth does that even make sense to you? Simplicity begets complication? Wouldn't it be the other way around? As things that are complex evolve and become more efficient do they not become simpler by design??? Leon!!!! Halp!!!

3. No material/natural being is simple, therefore the ultimate reality/original being cannot be a material/natural being.

Well based on your preceding logic train, arriving at this conclusion was inevitable. But could you have arrived at this conclusion any other way? I only ask because I agree that God need not necessarily be a material or natural being in essence (though he may appear as such from time to time) and if we both agree on the destination but disagree on the road towards, whose is the right road to take?

4. What must exist as the ultimate reality/original being is a simple, immaterial being, ie. God.

Yeah, so YOU say, but you reinvented the wheel using squares.

 

[Dre89]

It's simple in that it is not limited by any form of complexity, it is the universal that all particulars stem from. Take the concept of fauna for example. It less complex than the concept of mammals, for it is less specific. Mammals is the particular, and fauna is the universal. Fauna is also a particular to the universal of animate beings. We see that the more simple or universal a being is, the more particulars it encompasses. Every particular always has a universal that it stems from. In this sense, we regress back to a being with no complexity at all, the ultimate universal, from which all particulars stem. That is why the original being is simple.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

It's simple in that it is not limited by any form of complexity, it is the universal that all particulars stem from. Take the concept of fauna for example. It less complex than the concept of mammals, for it is less specific. Mammals is the particular, and fauna is the universal. Fauna is also a particular to the universal of animate beings. We see that the more simple or universal a being is, the more particulars it encompasses. Every particular always has a universal that it stems from. In this sense, we regress back to a being with no complexity at all, the ultimate universal, from which all particulars stem. That is why the original being is simple.

Roses are flowers, therefore flowers is all encompassing and simple.

I'm sure that a botanist would kick us in the head for implying such a thing as I am sure that a physicist would tell us that the more encompassing a label becomes the more complex it must necessarily be. All flowers is much more complex than just red roses.

 

[Dre89]

Encompassing more does not necessarily mean more complex. A being is more complex if it necessitates more prior truths. Take a blue sculpture and the concept of blue, or blueness. For blueness to exist, all that needs to exist prior is visual perception, and perhaps other colours. For the sculpture, not only do those need to exist prior to it, but also space, time, the materials, the designer etc. The sculpture can't actuate unless blueness exists, for it is the universal it stems from. Blueness encompasses more, but it is more simple for it necessitates lesser prior truths, it has a less specific form.

 

[blazedaces]

Dre, let me know is this is a proper simplification of your argument:

1. All things I observe have a cause.

2. Therefore, there must be a first, initial cause.

3. That first cause is God.

That's what I'm reading. All this nonsense about complex and simple are just a way to confuse the argument. According to you, something is "more complicated" than another thing because it "stems from it". But this is a flawed system.

You can't categorize complex and simple. You can only relate them between objects in similar categories. And even then there are issues. For example, you can claim that the term fauna is "more simple" than the word "mammal" ... but is the word flower any more or less complex than the word mammal?

Is the word "water vapor" any more complex than the word "ice"? They both stem from the exact same origin (H20).

-blazed

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The Ford F150 is a complex piece of machinery. But every Ford vehicle in existence increases the complexity since you have added more vehicles under a single label. Just as all manufactured vehicles is more complex containing even more different automobiles.

The more generic your label, the more complex it becomes, not less.

 

[blazedaces]

The Ford F150 is a complex piece of machinery. But every Ford vehicle in existence increases the complexity since you have added more vehicles under a single label. Just as all manufactured vehicles is more complex containing even more different automobiles.

The more generic your label, the more complex it becomes, not less.

Gamer, and I don't mean this only towards you, but to just about everyone, the word "complex" used by Dre is not being defined in the typical way we are familiar with.

Dre, if I were you, to avoid confusion in the future, I would have a separate section defining words that are being used in a not-so-common way. Complexity is certainly defined differently by you, and you have laid out the definition multiple times. But, because you first used it, and THEN defined it, this makes the word unclear.

This has nothing to do with your argument, just in how you present your argument. I would suggest this both on DH and in any proper paper you hope to hand in and/or publish in the future. You obviously don't have to listen to my suggestion, but it is something I've heard multiple Professors, Lecturers, Writers (both philosophical and technical) explain.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

It's simple in that it is not limited by any form of complexity, it is the universal that all particulars stem from. Take the concept of fauna for example. It less complex than the concept of mammals, for it is less specific. Mammals is the particular, and fauna is the universal. Fauna is also a particular to the universal of animate beings. We see that the more simple or universal a being is, the more particulars it encompasses. Every particular always has a universal that it stems from. In this sense, we regress back to a being with no complexity at all, the ultimate universal, from which all particulars stem. That is why the original being is simple.

I see... are you familiar with professor wally?

http://www.n4bz.org/

His writings pull quite a lot from a rather gigantic set of works

http://www.n4bz.org/BIB1.htm

Much of it I have not read, personally.

So basically because God cannot be broken down into more specific parts, or concepts/categories, or stuffs, he's ultimate and "simple" (in terms of lacking the ability to be broken down into complex systems or categories, not simple as in stupid, or boring.)

Yeah?

So the Universe (which is basically everything we know and don't know that exists) can be broken down into, galaxies, so something "simpler" would have had to have made it, since there are no categories of Universes, God is the only thing that could have made it, God being the ultimate example of un-break-downable. Yeah. Yeah?

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Sooooooooooo ha. Well honestly, I have no response to this at this time. I may never. But it's ... I hate to say it, it IS a worthwhile examination of the god-universe relationship, I just can't shake the feeling it's missing something key that would unravel it totally. I shouldn't feel this paranoia if the theory is totally sound, ya know? But maybe I just need to think on it more, maybe the "issue" will come to me.

 

[AltF4]

A lot of people, myself included, may be willing to entertain the idea of a non-reducible simplicity at the heart of the universe. I just can't fathom how you can suggest that intelligence (one of the most complex systems known to man) is this non-reducible simplicity.

A simple self-evident mathematical equation would seem to fit the bill much more nicely to me.

 

[Dre89]

I know I just said in the DH Social Thread that I won't be posting here anymore but I couldn't resist this one last post.

Alt I understand you're issue, but you're not taking into aco**** that the intellect is omniscient, or you don't acknowledge the difference that makes.

Firstly, a mathematical equation couldn't be such nothingness, because even mathematics implies a specific form. For example, if a mathematical equation (or even a being) can be either mathematically valid or valid, that implies complexity. Also, think how many variables there are in mathematics, the variables alone imply complexity.

A human intellect is indeed complex. There are several variables i naction, intrinstic inclinations, bad wills, intensity of temptations etc. However a perfect omniscient intellect has nothing of the sort.

The human intellect has said variables because it is a complexity, those variables necessitate prior truths. The omniscient intellect has no prior cause, it necessitates nothing. There are no variables in play, for there is no purpose it needs to fulfill.

Unlike finite intellects such as the human sort, the omnsicient intellect has no concept of perfection to adhere to and fulfill, for being the original self-necessary being, it defines perfection (this is central to my skepticism of the Trinity). So the intellect is simple in that it will always do the perfect thing, for there is no prior concept of perfection it has to adhere to.

However, the main problem I have with my own argument is how we move from this to creation. My problem is that if God adheres to no prior concept of perfection, then His actions define perfpection. However, perfect actions stem from a perfect intellect, yet if it this perfect intellect that wills these actions, then there is something prior to the act which defines perfection. So my problem then becomes that it appears that the perfect will, which commands actions that define perfection, is in fact adhering to a prior concept of perfection.

This issue has bothered me for quite some time now. However, I decided to take it up with one of my lecturers, and he made it apaprent to me my problem is I consider God to be 'potentiality' rather than 'actuality'.

He told me 'God is act', in that there is no distinction between His existence, His will, and His act. He told me there is nothing He is yet to do, there is no moving from potentiality to actuality, God has always been actuallity.

It does make sense in a way, because eternity can't have change, and this notion removes the progression from potentiality to actuallity, which I guess would imply change.

Just some food for thought for you guys, but that is my last post, I oculdn't help myself.

If you wish to continue this thread, I suggest you longer formulate yours posts as direct responses to mine. You can comment on my argument if you like, but don't address me anymore, or just act as if myself and/or my argument were never here. Thanks guys.

 

[AltF4]

What nonsense. You haven't given justification for anything. You could just have easily said:

A Walrus is indeed complex. There are several variables i naction, intrinstic inclinations, bad wills, intensity of temptations etc. However a perfect omniscient Walrus has nothing of the sort.

The normal Walrushas said variables because it is a complexity, those variables necessitate prior truths. The omniscient Walrus has no prior cause, it necessitates nothing. There are no variables in play, for there is no purpose it needs to fulfill.

Unlike finite Walruses such as the normal sort, the omnsicient Walrus has no concept of perfection to adhere to and fulfill, for being the original self-necessary being, it defines perfection (this is central to my skepticism of the Trinity). So the Walrus is simple in that it will always do the perfect thing, for there is no prior concept of perfection it has to adhere to.

Or substitute "Spork" if you prefer. You haven't given the slightest reason why you think this "ultimate reality" must be a mind.

A mind who is capable of making decisions despite the fact that it is outside of time. The entire concept of agency and decision making rests on the concept of passing time. So I don't even know what it means to have an intelligence without it residing within the parameters of time.

 

[Dre89]

I couldn't resist answering this because it was a criticism directed at me (Iasked for you guys to stop directly addressing me as if i'm still in this debate).

What nonsense. You haven't given justification for anything. You could just have easily said:



Or substitute "Spork" if you prefer. You haven't given the slightest reason why you think this "ultimate reality" must be a mind.

You've ignored the part where I said the only trait which would distinguish the self-necessary being from nothingness is intellect.

An omniscient walrus is impossible to begin with. A walrus is a contingent creature, meaning it wouldn't be able to have a universal intellect. Walruses like humans have several variables influencing their minds. To bestow omniscience on a Walrus would be to remove said variables, meaning that it would no longer be a true walrus.

A walrus also exists for a reason, so it has already has a purpose it has to fulfill. This is incompatible with an omniscient intellect because an omnscient intellect is simple because it has no prior concept of perfection to fulfill, instead it defines perfection. A contingent being does not define what reason it exists for, because that reason was actuated when it was caused into existence.

So applying omniscience to a Walrus doesn't work as you think it does.

A mind who is capable of making decisions despite the fact that it is outside of time. The entire concept of agency and decision making rests on the concept of passing time. So I don't even know what it means to have an intelligence without it residing within the parameters of time.

This was covered in the 'God is actuality' part of my last post.

Can you guys please stop addressing me directly from now on. It's furstrating when I come back here to look at how the debates are progressing to see people criticising me when I said I was leaving.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

[...]the word "complex" used by Dre is not being defined in the typical way we are familiar with.

Changing the definition of words to invent arguments is not how you are supposed to debate. Otherwise I could just define gods as things that can't exist and win automatically.

"You say gods exist? Well, by my definition of gods, you LOSE!"

Really! Language doesn't work that way. Everyone agrees what a word means, that is why they are useful.

 

[Deleted member]

Changing the definition of words to invent arguments is not how you are supposed to debate. Otherwise I could just define gods as things that can't exist and win automatically.

"You say gods exist? Well, by my definition of gods, you LOSE!"

Are you on crack? You wouldn't win automatically, we'd simply break down your definition start debating. Y'know, Socratic method 'n all?

Really! Language doesn't work that way. Everyone agrees what a word means, that is why they are useful.

Are you trolling? I hope so.

Language DOES work that way. We don't call a tree a tree for any rational reason. Most language is arbitrary, and definitions are not steadfast. Are you really that stupid? Like seriously, have you not heard of gay marriage debates? Have you not heard of translation issues in texts? Language is by its very nature equivocal...

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah, but the fact is that they're still expanding. When if we're going by any laws of motion. They shouldn't be.

Something that's moving has kinetic energy correct?
The matter in the universe is expanding and it has energy. yes?
That's the positive.
Now the negative energy of gravity is supposed to cancel this out. Correct?That way we have zero net energy.

However, if that's the case. Then the kinetic energy in the matter of the universe should be canceled out. Therefore, they should not be moving. But they are.

Well, there is mass and other forms of energy. These contribute to the amount of energy there is in the universe. Secondly, the galaxies aren't actually moving as such. The space between them is expanding. This may be a different kettle of fish.

So technically, you can't say that we started from nothing then.

Yeah, but that's just technicalities. The point is, no net creation occurred.

This doesn't seem clear to me. If the energy is canceling out, then even after the big bang, if we're still to be a universe with zero net energy, nothing should be moving. Because the kinetic energy of all the particles would be canceled out by gravity.

I don't believe that you're a 100% correct on this, here is a link: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Yeah, energy isn't the same as force, but the two go hand in hand.

Your statement also brings up a big point:
Gravity is a force. So where is this negative energy coming from? Kinetic energy only deals with the idea that the object is moving. However, I suppose you could take a stretch and say potential energy could be positive or negative in relationship to whichever force you put into question. Gravity, or the force that has matter moving away from it. And I'm guessing that's how theoretical physics allows for that. Correct me if I'm wrong.[/colour]

Okay, in the link, the loss of gravitational potential energy is considered the gain of negative energy.

Yeah, but the fact is that they're still expanding. When if we're going by any laws of motion. They shouldn't be.

Something that's moving has kinetic energy correct?
The matter in the universe is expanding and it has energy. yes?
That's the positive.
Now the negative energy of gravity is supposed to cancel this out. Correct?That way we have zero net energy.

However, if that's the case. Then the kinetic energy in the matter of the universe should be canceled out. Therefore, they should not be moving. But they are.

Well, there is mass and other forms of energy. These contribute to the amount of energy there is in the universe. Secondly, the galaxies aren't actually moving as such. The space between them is expanding. This may be a different kettle of fish.

So technically, you can't say that we started from nothing then.

Yeah, but that's just technicalities. The point is, no net creation occurred.

This doesn't seem clear to me. If the energy is canceling out, then even after the big bang, if we're still to be a universe with zero net energy, nothing should be moving. Because the kinetic energy of all the particles would be canceled out by gravity.

I don't believe that you're a 100% correct on this, here is a link: http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Using that tidbit.
Total Energy= Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy

Well, in the link potential energy seems to have disappeared. Potential energy is treated as non-existent, and when one loses it, it's treated as the gain of negative energy.

If the net energy is to be zero, then the net force must also be zero. Because only then will you have the potential energy of the matter in reference to the force moving the particles away from where gravity is taking them, equal to the potential energy of the matter in reference to the force of gravity.

Okay... I don't really understand this... I just can't quite get my head around what you're saying.

Is it more like the potential energies are equal, and therefore the mass isn't prompted to move?

If the net force isn't zero then objects are in motion. Using the fact that the universe is expanding at a decreasing rate. You have the kinetic energy of the object + it's potential energy due to its position. As the object moves further away it's kinetic energy decreases as the potential energy grows. Now the kinetic energy only concerns the object itself and it's being in motion. That's a positive value. Considering that positive potential energy is the potential for the object to move towards gravity. (That keeps the TE=PE+KE relationship)
Then that grows greater as the object moves further away while slowing down. Reaching it's maximum whenever the object stops moving. The negative potential energy matches this. So the positive and negative potential energy values cancel out. You're left with only the kinetic energy concerning the object moving. That's positive so you're left with TE value greater than zero.

So to have a net energy of zero, nothing can be moving in the universe.

Okay, first things first. Potential energy doesn't really enter the model - it's loss is considered the gain of negative energy.

Then, the universe has been observed to be actually flat, with 0 total curvature. This means that whether you like it or not, the universe has 0 total energy, and things are in motion. Some of Einstein's equations were basically curvature = total energy.

The way I see it, in your example is, the object starts at rest with no energy. It then gains KE, while also gaining negative energy from the gravitational field. So, it gains movement without actually gaining energy.

I'll respond to Gamer4Fire a little later.

 

[Deleted member]

The point is, no net creation occurred.

This part made me wonder, if there never was a creation, the universe has no reason to not already be existing forever.
however, this implies that there also should have been both positive and negative energy from the "start", since if the entire universe had no positive or negative energy, there would be nothing that could ever start a movement of positive and negative energy so to say.

 

[AltF4]

Can you guys please stop addressing me directly from now on. It's furstrating when I come back here to look at how the debates are progressing to see people criticising me when I said I was leaving.

For someone not wanting to debate, you sure are debating a lot. What you really wanted to say was "I really just want to get the last word, guys!". But saying what you mean is apparently not in the philosopher's repertoire.

You've ignored the part where I said the only trait which would distinguish the self-necessary being from nothingness is intellect.

No, I didn't ignore this. I'm calling you out on supporting assertions with just more assertions. You give no rationale at all for the above assertion. Why is intellect the only thing that can separate the "ultimate reality" from nothing? What proof do you have that nothing else can possibly exist as such?

And what does it even mean to exist if there is no time and space? What nonsense. Define the word "exist" in the context of something outside time and space. The word itself becomes meaningless.