The Existence of God

[Dre89]

That's exactly my point. Outside of the mediums of time and space, thinking is what distinguishes existing from not existing. Complexities necessitate prior truths, so they can't exist outside of time and space. This is why the original being is simple, because only a simple being can exist outside time and space, and the only thing that can exist outside of time and space is an intellect.

 

[Deleted member]

I can agree with an intellect being the only thing that could exist outside of the boundaries of time and space, but I didn't completely follow that there also actually IS (or was, if you will) such an intellect, and that it also was capable of creation.

 

[Sieguest]

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.

How's the space between them expanding, if they aren't moving?

And yes there are other forms of energy, but unless they somehow end up negative and equal to KE, you still end up with a nonzero answer. Disregard this, my responses later in this post turn out something different.

Probably, physics against physics makes room for... more physics?

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

All right. I see your point.

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



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

Yeah, I was only conjecturing what I thought theoretical physics would most likely entail in producing an equation. I didn't really feel confident in my post either because I took a huge leap and gave potential energy a direction. Thanks for the link.

This also means that my prior take on what would be necessary for a universe to have zero net energy was wrong. In fact, the reality of it is opposite of what I first thought.

Okay, so as PE goes down, GE goes down (as in it gets more negative). So if PE=KE at a certain point, then lets use a model: I like the number 50 so we'll start from there.

50+50-50
=50

KE+PE-GE
=KE or PE

Now lets account for differences: +1
51+49-51
=49

KE+PE-GE
=PE

That's accounting for KE>PE. The difference grows less profound as KE gets larger. Essentially the answer will only be zero if there is no potential energy. But given the situation, there is no point when there will be just KE and no PE, also because it's physically impossible for an object with no method of propulsion to increase in KE and drop in PE in the presence of gravity.

Now lets look at the part of the model that more accurately displays the universe: -1
49+51-49
=51

KE+PE-GE
=PE.

Pointing out that GE will always be the opposite of KE, if I've interpreted the site you provided correctly.
Anyway, given a model that more accurately displays our universe. With KE decreasing, PE increasing, and GE decreasing. Since our answers to these equations will always be the PE value. This shows that as the galaxies and such are decreasing in kinetic energy, we're actually moving further away from zero.

So given that, if we add all the other forms of energy, we're moving even further away from zero.

Now earlier you mentioned other forms of energy. But these other forms of energy are recorded as positive. If GE is really in a direct relationship with PE. Then the more (technically less) GE you have, the further we move from zero, and the other forms of energy will just add on top of that. For zero net energy, you would need an object with no potential energy, but given the status of our universe, that is not possible.

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?

Yes, the negative and positive potential energies are equal and there is no KE. So the items in the universe wouldn't move.

But as earlier stated, my idea of was wrong at first.

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

Not exactly, this just means that as potential energy goes down, so does the negative energy of gravity. (Down as in it gets more negative)

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.

How has the universe been observed to be flat if we are not even able to leave it and see that it is flat. If you mention the idea of spherical triangle that Krauss used, then that is wrong from the start, because you're applying spherical trigonometry to a plane. The use of spherical trigonometry to find the curvature of the universe would just be confirming that the universe is curved by getting an answer.

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.

Then you're disregarding that PE is falling. KE and GE will cancel, leaving you with a number that gets closer to zero as the KE increases, but I think you may have misinterpreted my example, because I think my example includes the idea that the rate of expansion of the universe is decreasing. KE would actually being going down from a higher value, which I don't know or understand where it can come from. Which means that GE would be more (less negative) and PE would be increasing.

An extra tidbit Bob. I took this quote from the link you gave:

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called "virtual particle" pairs are known as "quantum fluctuations." Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.

Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.

Your link also acknowledges that there was a tiny volume of energy just before our universe came into emergence. And admits that the "nothing" can mean a lot of things, namely a vacuum from a preexisting universe, or nothing at all.
At the end he also admits that it's only a speculative hypothesis.

Is there any way to definitively prove it?

He goes on to explain the idea of quantum theory to show how we get something from nothing (the nothing he describes in his second definition), saying that particles and antiparticles form and annihilate each other without ruining the conservation of energy. And I believe earlier that we agreed with Krauss in saying there is energy in nothing correct? If that's the case, this whole thing collapses on itself, because that means that there was energy before this initial bit of energy that was subject to inflation. As it seems, there is actually something when quantum fluctuations happen. So if truly in the absence of everything (even energy) not even quantum fluctuations could happen.

So, what constitutes that bit of energy? Or could that "nothing" possibly mean God?

 

[rvkevin]

How's the space between them expanding, if they aren't moving?

Dark energy. In other words, we have no clue.

 

[blazedaces]

I still think this is simply a cosmological argument at its heart:

1. Everything is complex because there exists something "simpler"

2. If we keep going down to simpler and simpler things there must exist a "simplest" thing

3. That simplest thing is God, therefore, God exists

The rest of the adjectives you use to describe God, intelligent, not bound by time and space, etc. Are all unjustified, but I still think above outlines your argument very simply.

If this is a misunderstanding please let me know.

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

Dark energy. In other words, we have no clue.

So dark energy fills the space between them and starts pushing them outward. Did I get that right?

If so, then that push still gives the galaxies and stuff kinetic energy.

 

[AltF4]

Blazed:

I personally think it's closer to Anselm's Ontological argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm.27s_argument

Essentially saying that since nothing can be greater (or "simpler" in Dre's rehashing) that it must exist. Rubbish.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed:

I personally think it's closer to Anselm's Ontological argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm.27s_argument

Essentially saying that since nothing can be greater (or "simpler" in Dre's rehashing) that it must exist. Rubbish.

It essentially doesn't make sense for the same reason to me for both arguments: the concept of infinity exists.

Another words, there is no reason to believe that something is "the greatest". There can always be something greater. If I ask someone to think of the largest number I can always think of a larger one... the same applies to "greatness".

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Blazed that last analogy is incorrect.
while numbers don't have a greatest or smallest (as in both large negative and in closest to zero), thing like distance and time have, and I actually see no reason why this wouldn't be the case for "complexity".

 

[Dre89]

I can't stop posting here no matter how much I say I won't.

I still think this is simply a cosmological argument at its heart:

1. Everything is complex because there exists something "simpler"

Because they necessitate prior truths.

2. If we keep going down to simpler and simpler things there must exist a "simplest" thing

Because every complex being necessittates a prior truth, we regss until we find a being with no complexities, and therefore necessitates no prior truths.

3. That simplest thing is God, therefore, God exists

The simple being must have an intellect to distinguish it from nothingness. We know the ultimate reality wasn't nothingness, because we know there is currently existence, because something can't come from nothing. 'God' or 'deity' is the best word to describe this existence.

The rest of the adjectives you use to describe God, intelligent, not bound by time and space, etc. Are all unjustified, but I still think above outlines your argument very simply.

I've explained why the intellect is necessary. God obviously can't exist in time and space, because then He would no longer be self-necessary. If all beings need time and space to exist, then even God necessitates prior truths, meaning He is not simple and self-necessary. If time and space were the ultimate reality, you would have two complexities which are supposedly self-necessary (yet in fact they are dependant on each other) which do not encompass all being. I've already explained my issue with such a notion.

Alt first it was dualism, now it's ontological? It seems as if you just try to find ways to pdigeon-hole my argument into a straw-man so you can just attack that argument rather than my own. If anything, my argument is a variation of the cosmological argument. Stop trying to say 'his argument is onotological, and ontological arguments are flawed because of X' because then the criticisms you make have no relation to my argument at all. You've criticised the idea that the original being could have an intellect and be simple, stick with that avenue, rather than resorting to pidgeon-holeing.

 

[Deleted member]

Einstein already proved that space and time are basically the same thing.
What would there be against spacetime being the ultimate reality? I honestly can't think of anything that would be a prior truth for it, or how an intellect, abstract as it may be, could bring forth spacetime?

 

[Dre89]

Einstein already proved that space and time are basically the same thing.
What would there be against spacetime being the ultimate reality? I honestly can't think of anything that would be a prior truth for it, or how an intellect, abstract as it may be, could bring forth spacetime?

Well whether they are unified or not, God still cannot exist in space-time because His nature would then necessitate a prior truth, meaning He wouldn't be self-necessary. If God isn't self-necessary, then God probably wouldn't exist, because there is no need for such a being.

But the reason why time-space can't exist as the ultimate reality has been explained in my prior posts. If it's not fully explained here, then there also posts explaining it in the social thread.

To sum it up very quickly (you'll still need to read my previous posts) I argued that complexities necessitate prior truths. Time and space are ocmplexities, therefore they necessitate prior truths. Complexities don't encompass all being, therefore a compelxity cannot be the ultimate reality/ original being.

For example, the concept of fauna is more simple than the concept of mammals. Mammals is the particular which stems from fauna, the universal. Fauna encompasses more than mammals does, for it is simpler, in that it has a less specific form, On the same token, fauna is also a particular to animate life, which is the universal in this case. We see that the more simple or universal a being is, the more particulars that stem from it, the more it encompasses.

Eventually, we regress back to the ultimate universal being, one with no complexities at all, one that encompasses all particulars and all being. This being must essentially be almost a 'nothingness' for nothingness necessitates no prior truths.

However, it isn't just a nothingness, it is a being. We know it must be a being because given the fact that we know that things exist (such as ourselves), there must have always been a being, for something can't come from nothing.

The reason why I attribute this being an intellect is because it is the only trait that fits a simple, foundational, self-necessary being that distinguishes it from nothingness. It is the only trait that makes it something rather than nothing, yet at the same time does not comprimise its simple nature. Because the being must be immaterial (for it exists outside of time and space) it must be a mind, for any other traits would render it subject to physical laws, thus making it material, which would make it a complexity, necessitating prior truths.

That's a summed up version of the argument.

For all those people criticising the idea that a mind could actuate states of affairs, let me ask you this; do you find it impossible that an immaterial reality could precede a material one?

If you do find it impossible, then that needss some serious justification. If you believe it is possible, then that is no different to what I am saying, so I wouldn't see why you would criticise my theory.

Can you guys turn the debate onto something else now, I don't want to have to keep defending myself, I've put my position across and heard your issues, it won't go anywhere from here. Maybe you guys can address the question I just put across.

 

[Deleted member]

I suppose you already explained somewhere why spacetime is a complexity so I'll just look that up.

Just to play advocate of the devil for a second (like your argument though), what would be the least "complex" complexity, or the first complexity?

 

[Dre89]

Space-time is a complexity because it has a specific form or structure. Anything with a specific form does not encompass all being. For example, time is not responsible for redness. Time did not actuate redness, and redness is not a particular under the universal of time, whereas mammal is under the universal of matter for example.

The least complex beings are those necessitated by the least amount of prior truths. As for which being is the least complex, I can't tell you exactly, bt it would probably be other time or space, because most other complexities need time and space, so they probably necessitate the least amount of prior truths.

 

[rvkevin]

For all those people criticising the idea that a mind could actuate states of affairs, let me ask you this; do you find it impossible that an immaterial reality could precede a material one?

If you do find it impossible, then that needss some serious justification. If you believe it is possible, then that is no different to what I am saying, so I wouldn't see why you would criticise my theory.

I wouldn't say impossible, but that doesn't give credence to your idea. Your idea is no more plausible to me than saying the color blue created being, for they both represent the properties of material objects so to say that they are immaterial is nonsensical to me.

Time and space are complexities, therefore they necessitate prior truths. Complexities don't encompass all being, therefore a complexity cannot be the ultimate reality/ original being.

Have we defined complexity yet? Is it that it requires a prior truth? If so, then mathematics is not a complexity, the logical absolutes are not complex, they are both simple. There is as much a chance that the law of identity constitutes ultimate reality as your god. What does encompassing all being mean, that they make up the properties of every being or just that it applies to every being? If the former, then simplicity does not imply it encompasses all being, which would have detrimental implications in your argument. If the latter, then the logical absolutes qualify under your terms of being the ultimate reality, which is almost as absurd as the notion of a immaterial mind.

 

[Deleted member]

I spot a contradiction there

Below is a partial quote from the social thread, from the post which seemed to be the core of your argument

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.

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.

Why can't there be more SN beings?

What I find interesting is the part of infinity and change. do you have some sources on this because I (from a physics/math PoV) don't see any objection for there being change in infinity.

EDIT: oh god how could I not have thought of mathematics as the ultimate simple "being" >_>

 

[Dre89]

I wouldn't say impossible, but that doesn't give credence to your idea. Your idea is no more plausible to me than saying the color blue created being, for they both represent the properties of material objects so to say that they are immaterial is nonsensical to me.

But the colour blue does not encompass any other colour. All the colour blue can do is attribute blueness. It cannot actuate time, space, materiality, even other colours. Blueness has a limited capacity, a capacity that could not have actuated the current state of affairs in the world.

Have we defined complexity yet? Is it that it requires a prior truth? If so, then mathematics is not a complexity, the logical absolutes are not complex, they are both simple. There is as much a chance that the law of identity constitutes ultimate reality as your god.

Complexity is also having a specific form, it's that these specific forms are a result of prior truths. Mathematics has a specific form, there are several variables in mathematics.

What does encompassing all being mean, that they make up the properties of every being or just that it applies to every being? If the former, then simplicity does not imply it encompasses all being, which would have detrimental implications in your argument. If the latter, then the logical absolutes qualify under your terms of being the ultimate reality, which is almost as absurd as the notion of a immaterial mind.

Encompassing all being means it is responsible for all being. Time does not encompass blueness because time did not actuate blueness. In God being the ultimate universal, He is not any form in actuality, yet He encompasses the potentiality for all forms, that is how He encompasses all being.

 

[Deleted member]

Complexity is also having a specific form, it's that these specific forms are a result of prior truths. Mathematics has a specific form, there are several variables in mathematics.

Yes, "in" mathematics.
mathematics itself is a formless idea.

 

[AltF4]

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
-Groucho Marx

Words change their meaning depending on the context of what you're talking about. And this is why have accused you of merely playing word games, Dre. When I say the sentence "My chair exists", you know what I mean. It means I am in possession of a chair, which is made of atoms, and has a position in timespace.

We can have a conversation about whether faraway teapots or polka-dotted elephants exist. Though it would be an inane conversation, at least it's comprehensible. We both understand what we're talking about.

If we have a conversation about "Does love exist?". Now suddenly the meaning of the word "exist" means something totally different. Nowhere will you find "love" in the same way that you can find a chair. The word exist is here shorthand for "do people ever really experience love for one another".

Then you tell me that there is a "god" who "exists". But "outside of spacetime". Since "exist" doesn't mean "made of atoms". What does it mean? What on Earth are you even saying?! You're talking gibberish. Hogwash. Garbage. Nonsense. Blabber. WooWoo. Bullocks. Junk.

I don't even know what you're talking about. It's not comprehensible. It's just a long series of arbitrary words ending with "Therefore, god exists".

Now if this "ultimate simple reality" is an equation, then we can say that it "exists" in the sense that any other equation exists. "Existence" is just shorthand here for "applicable to our universe" or "our universe obeys such an equation".

We can have a conversation about whether such an equation (A "Grand Unified Theory") exists, or can exist. And maybe it's the case that it cannot exist. But at least it's a comprehensible conversation. You at least know what I'm talking about.


EDIT: I mean, seriously Think about it for just a few moments. What does it even mean to be making decisions in a world without time? An intelligence, an agent (as it is sometimes called in the AI world), a mind, an entity with free will observes the world around it, then at a later time performs actions upon that world.

If this ultimate being is ultimately simple... then what is it acting upon? Itself? If it has sub-components to act upon, then it can't be simple. And if it's perfect and is everything, then why would it make any changes to anything? Not to mention the problem of making decisions outside of time. The whole thing is nonsense.

 

[Mewter]

ba h

 

[Mewter]

I just have two questions about assumptions for Dre.

1) How do you know that minds are immaterial?
2) How do you know that space-time is a complexity and doesn't encompass all being?

They're related, of course.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

How's the space between them expanding, if they aren't moving?

It just is. They aren't moving relative to the space around them, the space between everything is expanding. They don't actually gain kinetic energy when doing this.

This also means that my prior take on what would be necessary for a universe to have zero net energy was wrong. In fact, the reality of it is opposite of what I first thought.

Okay, so as PE goes down, GE goes down (as in it gets more negative). So if PE=KE at a certain point, then lets use a model: I like the number 50 so we'll start from there.

50+50-50
=50

KE+PE-GE
=KE or PE

Now lets account for differences: +1
51+49-51
=49

KE+PE-GE
=PE

That's accounting for KE>PE. The difference grows less profound as KE gets larger. Essentially the answer will only be zero if there is no potential energy. But given the situation, there is no point when there will be just KE and no PE, also because it's physically impossible for an object with no method of propulsion to increase in KE and drop in PE in the presence of gravity.

Now lets look at the part of the model that more accurately displays the universe: -1
49+51-49
=51

KE+PE-GE
=PE.

Pointing out that GE will always be the opposite of KE, if I've interpreted the site you provided correctly.
Anyway, given a model that more accurately displays our universe. With KE decreasing, PE increasing, and GE decreasing. Since our answers to these equations will always be the PE value. This shows that as the galaxies and such are decreasing in kinetic energy, we're actually moving further away from zero.

So given that, if we add all the other forms of energy, we're moving even further away from zero.

Now earlier you mentioned other forms of energy. But these other forms of energy are recorded as positive. If GE is really in a direct relationship with PE. Then the more (technically less) GE you have, the further we move from zero, and the other forms of energy will just add on top of that. For zero net energy, you would need an object with no potential energy, but given the status of our universe, that is not possible.

I thought it was more like:

KE+GE=0

With potential energy never entering the equation. It seems you're adding Potential energy twice as two forms, because gravitational energy is actually the loss potential energy.

The other forms of energy such as heat seem to be explicable. Heat is just the minute vibrations of particles, and it's therefore kinetic energy. Mass produces gravitational energy. Light is very hard to handle and I'm no physicist, so I wouldn't really know.

But, Krauss is a physicist, and I get the feeling that physicists may know what they're on about.

How has the universe been observed to be flat if we are not even able to leave it and see that it is flat. If you mention the idea of spherical triangle that Krauss used, then that is wrong from the start, because you're applying spherical trigonometry to a plane. The use of spherical trigonometry to find the curvature of the universe would just be confirming that the universe is curved by getting an answer.

I believe he was using plane geometry. He drew up a two dimensional triangle to perform trigonometry on. He was comparing the angles produced due to the possible curvature of space. Then he matched simulated universes in a computer to the universe we have now. Spherical geometry was only taken into consideration when he was toying with the idea of a spherical universe.

Your link also acknowledges that there was a tiny volume of energy just before our universe came into emergence. And admits that the "nothing" can mean a lot of things, namely a vacuum from a preexisting universe, or nothing at all.
At the end he also admits that it's only a speculative hypothesis.

That was caused by a quantum fluctuation. These things produce energy from nowhere, and then give it back to the system. Sure it's only a speculative hypothesis, but it does seem to have some evidence on it's side and it is falsifiable. This puts it far ahead of "Go did it".

Is there any way to definitively prove it?

Well, it's fairly easy to prove that the universe is flat, figure out how much stuff is in it, and then figure out if the total amount of energy = 0. Or, you could do it like Krauss did, and check the size of the "lumps" of matter, and compare them with the simulated universes.

To see if the universe began without any input at all is a much harder if not impossible, because it involves trying to figure out what happened before the start of time.

He goes on to explain the idea of quantum theory to show how we get something from nothing (the nothing he describes in his second definition), saying that particles and antiparticles form and annihilate each other without ruining the conservation of energy. And I believe earlier that we agreed with Krauss in saying there is energy in nothing correct? If that's the case, this whole thing collapses on itself, because that means that there was energy before this initial bit of energy that was subject to inflation. As it seems, there is actually something when quantum fluctuations happen. So if truly in the absence of everything (even energy) not even quantum fluctuations could happen.

Why does it collapse on itself? I don't quite understand it. Secondly, I don't believe Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't violated in the absence of energy.

So, what constitutes that bit of energy? Or could that "nothing" possibly mean God?

A quantum fluctuation. And that could mean God, but there's no reason to believe it should.

 

[RDK]

I wish people would get off the "minds are immaterial" schtick. I've gone into great detail about why our minds are completely biological and physical.

Someone above mentioned mathematics as being a formless idea, as well as love. This is an example of what I'm talking about. Things such as these (and in the case of feelings, a chemical reaction) are all conceptual representations of a completely material act. When you feel love, either directed at yourself or towards someone, or your mind goes through a mathematical equation on the test you're studying for, a series of neurones light up in your brain. Your feelings and thoughts are waves of neural activity. We can even scan your head for this activity and have it show up on a graph.

There is nothing immaterial about these things.

To say that there is an immaterial component to our bodies that cannot be measured is silly. There's no such thing as a spirit. We are composed of working parts that cease to exist when certain parts are taken away.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed that last analogy is incorrect.
while numbers don't have a greatest or smallest (as in both large negative and in closest to zero), thing like distance and time have, and I actually see no reason why this wouldn't be the case for "complexity".

How do distance and time not extend to infinity or negative infinity? They are just numbers with units next to them. If you agree that there can be an infinitely long number series then you agree that there exists a distance infinitely far away from us... you're just putting infinite in front of the word "meters" or "seconds".

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

How do distance and time not extend to infinity or negative infinity? They are just numbers with units next to them. If you agree that there can be an infinitely long number series then you agree that there exists a distance infinitely far away from us... you're just putting infinite in front of the word "meters" or "seconds".

-blazed

Just a note.

1, 2, 3, ... is not an actual infinite, it is a potential infinite
[1, 2, 3, ...] is an actual infinite

Time and space are not actual infinities, they are potentially infinite (if that). In this sense, you can't have a distance infinitely farther away from a fixed point. As you can always pick a number greater than any previously chosen number indefinitely, you can always pick a point farther away than the previously chosen number indefinitely, but this does not mean that the distance between the two are infinite, in actuality, the distance between them is finite.

 

[Dre89]

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana"
-Groucho Marx

Words change their meaning depending on the context of what you're talking about. And this is why have accused you of merely playing word games, Dre. When I say the sentence "My chair exists", you know what I mean. It means I am in possession of a chair, which is made of atoms, and has a position in timespace.

We can have a conversation about whether faraway teapots or polka-dotted elephants exist. Though it would be an inane conversation, at least it's comprehensible. We both understand what we're talking about.

If we have a conversation about "Does love exist?". Now suddenly the meaning of the word "exist" means something totally different. Nowhere will you find "love" in the same way that you can find a chair. The word exist is here shorthand for "do people ever really experience love for one another".

Then you tell me that there is a "god" who "exists". But "outside of spacetime". Since "exist" doesn't mean "made of atoms". What does it mean? What on Earth are you even saying?! You're talking gibberish. Hogwash. Garbage. Nonsense. Blabber. WooWoo. Bullocks. Junk.

So you're going to label it rubbish without even letting me answer the question?

Also, if I'm talking gibberish, then so did the person who invented science, as well as many other great thinkers.

You keep saying 'what is existence without space and time', well I've told you, it's intellect. Intellect is the substance of being. This is where the notion 'thinking is being' comes from (I don't know who said it though).

I don't even know what you're talking about. It's not comprehensible. It's just a long series of arbitrary words ending with "Therefore, god exists".

But several other philosophies do understand what I'm saying, and alot of them would agree with me. So are we all wrong simply because you don't understand it?

And of course, the typical atheist accusation. 'No belief that opposes mine can be sensible, so his theory can't make sense, he probably just wants to believe in God then made up reasons for it after'.

Now if this "ultimate simple reality" is an equation, then we can say that it "exists" in the sense that any other equation exists. "Existence" is just shorthand here for "applicable to our universe" or "our universe obeys such an equation".

We can have a conversation about whether such an equation (A "Grand Unified Theory") exists, or can exist. And maybe it's the case that it cannot exist. But at least it's a comprehensible conversation. You at least know what I'm talking about.


EDIT: I mean, seriously Think about it for just a few moments. What does it even mean to be making decisions in a world without time? An intelligence, an agent (as it is sometimes called in the AI world), a mind, an entity with free will observes the world around it, then at a later time performs actions upon that world.

If this ultimate being is ultimately simple... then what is it acting upon? Itself? If it has sub-components to act upon, then it can't be simple. And if it's perfect and is everything, then why would it make any changes to anything? Not to mention the problem of making decisions outside of time. The whole thing is nonsense.

But you're assuming that your subjective interpretation equates to a universal problem with my argument. Do you honestly think I'm the first person to propose an immaterial being as the ultimate reality?

And why do you keep saying 'making decisions outside of time'? Didn't you read my post that spoke of God as actuality?

You're basically saying that our Theory of Everything must be emprically verifiable. That's absurd, because obviously what actuated the universe must be beyond the universe, not within it. That's like saying we can only work out what caused the egg by looking inside the egg.

 

[Sucumbio]

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tO3zXu9sFOU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x2b405b&amp;color2=0x6b8ab6&amp;border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tO3zXu9sFOU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x2b405b&amp;color2=0x6b8ab6&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

 

[rvkevin]

And of course, the typical atheist accusation. 'No belief that opposes mine can be sensible, so his theory can't make sense, he probably just wants to believe in God then made up reasons for it after'.

This is not what we're saying. We're saying something along the lines of we know what the individual words mean, but when you put them together, they convey an idea that is meaningless. Take for example what I said earlier: "Your idea is no more plausible to me than saying the color blue created being, for they both represent the properties of material objects so to say that they are immaterial is nonsensical to me." Your response was a complete non-sequitor concerning how blue couldn't encompass all being when the point was that particular combination of words don't have meaning such as something being immaterial and blue or something being an immaterial mind.

 

[Sucumbio]

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.

Actually I agree with this. -Human- intelligence is "complex." It requires a brain, chemicals, electrical signals, biology. Hell even AI is complex, it requires a mechanical "brain" (CPU), circuit boards, etc.

A disembodied "mind" however, is "pure thought" the same as which some have supposed we'll eventually evolve. It could be said that we could never evolve into this, because then we'd be gods, and there can only be one "true" god, but this is an argument made by specific religions (christian, etc).

So basically not only is God an irreducibly complex system, but he is pure thought, lacking any physical form. Yeah? I can buy this, it's possible. I also cannot relate to it whatsoever. My own thoughts are the product of biological processes. I have no clue what a thought made by a nothing-but-thought being would be like, but I'm sure it'd be snazzy.

 

[Dre89]

This is not what we're saying. We're saying something along the lines of we know what the individual words mean, but when you put them together, they convey an idea that is meaningless. Take for example what I said earlier: "Your idea is no more plausible to me than saying the color blue created being, for they both represent the properties of material objects so to say that they are immaterial is nonsensical to me." Your response was a complete non-sequitor concerning how blue couldn't encompass all being when the point was that particular combination of words don't have meaning such as something being immaterial and blue or something being an immaterial mind.

How does a mind contain physical properties?

Considering that the consciousness debate stared before Jesus, to claim that there is no separation between mind and brain as if it is indisputable fact is crazy.

Not to mention you think you can sum up the entire debate in a post.

 

[Mewter]

Dre .,

I just have two questions about assumptions for Dre.

1) How do you know that minds are immaterial?
2) How do you know that space-time is a complexity and doesn't encompass all being?

They're related, of course.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Just jumping in here, so excuse me if I missed something.

Also, if I'm talking gibberish, then so did the person who invented science, as well as many other great thinkers.

I'm sorry, I don't know why this bothers me so much, but nobody invented science. That just doesn't make any sense. You could say somebody invented the scientific method, or someone came up with a certain scientific theory, but you can't say someone invented science.

You keep saying 'what is existence without space and time', well I've told you, it's intellect. Intellect is the substance of being. This is where the notion 'thinking is being' comes from (I don't know who said it though).

Descartes.

Also, I'm sorry if you've answered this before, but I haven't seen it: How can a being whose only properties are that it exists and it has intellect create "Life, the Universe, and Everything"?

 

[Sieguest]

It just is. They aren't moving relative to the space around them, the space between everything is expanding. They don't actually gain kinetic energy when doing this.

Do you argue then that the expanding space is not pushing the galaxies? If so, then you and I both know that's simply incorrect. If the space between the galaxies is expanding, this creates a push force on the galaxies, making movement, this movement in turn is described by kinetic energy.

I thought it was more like:

KE+GE=0

With potential energy never entering the equation. It seems you're adding Potential energy twice as two forms, because gravitational energy is actually the loss potential energy.

Incorrect, to completely omit potential energy as a factor from the equation is to take away half of the total energy equation of an object and to disregard the physics behind motion.

I'll pull up the example provided from the link you posted earlier.

You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

When the ball is at rest, it has only potential energy correct?(Which is why I believe this article is iffy if it defines it as a "state of zero energy" any object that's hanging has potential energy. A more correct term would be "zero movement") That's equal to the ball's mass times the acceleration due to gravity times it's height from the surface. When the ball is released and falls towards the ground, the ball gains kinetic energy while it's potential energy drops. The gravitational energy will always be equal and opposite to the objects kinetic energy. Meaning as kinetic energy rises, gravitational energy drops (grows more negative) as well as potential energy drops. There is only one instance in which the ball will have no potential energy and all kinetic energy, and that moment is at the exact instance the ball first touches the ground.

No where is it inclined that potential energy is completely omitted from the equation.

The other forms of energy such as heat seem to be explicable. Heat is just the minute vibrations of particles, and it's therefore kinetic energy. Mass produces gravitational energy. Light is very hard to handle and I'm no physicist, so I wouldn't really know.

But, Krauss is a physicist, and I get the feeling that physicists may know what they're on about.

What about the energy from a split atom? Or nuclear energy?

I believe he was using plane geometry. He drew up a two dimensional triangle to perform trigonometry on. He was comparing the angles produced due to the possible curvature of space. Then he matched simulated universes in a computer to the universe we have now. Spherical geometry was only taken into consideration when he was toying with the idea of a spherical universe.

Hmm I don't believe so. I think it was 33 or 34 minutes into his lecture, after he claimed that the observers were wrong and that the universe was flat that he brought this up:
He first jested: "If you asked a European high school student the sum of the angles of a triangle, he would tell you 180 degrees. And that's all well and good he studied his Euclid. But you can use triangles to find the curvature of objects." He then used the earth as an example, and drew a triangle on the earth and said that you could find the curvature of the earth using this method. And that's true. He then said that if they could find a big enough triangle, they could measure the curvature of the universe, and he said that they did in fact have a triangle large enough to do so. So then he talks something about the big bang and such and finding the degree of a certain angle in the triangle, and so on and so forth.

He did try and use spherical trigonometry on a supposed plane. And that just doesn't come out right.

Also, just because he is a physicist doesn't mean that he can't be wrong, he is only human, just like you and I.

That was caused by a quantum fluctuation. These things produce energy from nowhere, and then give it back to the system. Sure it's only a speculative hypothesis, but it does seem to have some evidence on it's side and it is falsifiable. This puts it far ahead of "Go did it".

The "nothing" described by both Krauss and this physicist here acknowledge that there is a vast amount of energy in nothing. And these quantum fluctuations happen. But in the absence of everything, even the energy in "nothing". I don't believe these can happen, because there are no particles or antiparticles that participate in these fluctuations to make them happen.

Well, it's fairly easy to prove that the universe is flat, figure out how much stuff is in it, and then figure out if the total amount of energy = 0. Or, you could do it like Krauss did, and check the size of the "lumps" of matter, and compare them with the simulated universes.

I'm not so sure at this point, I'm extremely skeptical of the chain of logic Krauss has used, especially given the geometric blunder he made to get to his "lumps". Even if he is a physicist by profession, I think he's left a lot of holes in his logic. Especially with the vague terminology he uses. Do you remember the part where he said the observers came up with the wrong number? When they had taken the time to observe and record these things. And then he turns around with his reasons as to why the universe must be flat with not near as much observation. I mean what does it even mean to be "mathematically beautiful"? From my life just on this planet, I would hardly wish to judge the planet as "mathematically beautiful" much less the universe.

To see if the universe began without any input at all is a much harder if not impossible, because it involves trying to figure out what happened before the start of time.

I would think trying to find out how the universe even exists is a major problem in itself.

Why does it collapse on itself? I don't quite understand it. Secondly, I don't believe Heisenberg's uncertainty principle isn't violated in the absence of energy.

It can not be proven that quantum fluctuations happen, because nothing has energy in it, and we've not a single point in time where there hasn't been the absence of everything including energy.

A quantum fluctuation. And that could mean God, but there's no reason to believe it should.

As is there is no reason to believe it isn't either.

 

[rvkevin]

How does a mind contain physical properties?

I never said contain, but represent, such that they are emergent from the processes of material objects. For humans, that would be our brains. In the future, AI would be from microchips. These "minds", as far as we can tell, are dependent on the material to exist. To use the word "mind" in any other way would be foreign to me and would need to be redefined.

Considering that the consciousness debate stared before Jesus, to claim that there is no separation between mind and brain as if it is indisputable fact is crazy.

There have been advances in 2000 years...the supernatural explanation for consciousness seems superfluous at this point. I have one problem with it, how does the immaterial have a causal effect on the material?

 

[Dre89]

I just have two questions about assumptions for Dre.

1) How do you know that minds are immaterial?

From necessity. The fact I even have a concept of 'I', a conception which is not through any physical medium suggests materialism is wrong. I don't want this to turn into a consciousness debate though, it's not relevant to the debate. Whether God is a mind or not does not hinge on whether there is a distinctio nbetween brain and human mind, so it doesn't matter

2) How do you know that space-time is a complexity and doesn't encompass all being?

They're related, of course.

I'm not sure if you read my previous posts, but what I defined as a complexity was anything that had a specific structure, form. All complexities necessiate prior truths, meaning that no complexity can be self-necessary, for there was something prior to it.

When I say time-space does not encompass all being, I mean it is no responsible for all being. For example, time did not actuate redness.

Apart from time-space being a contingent complexity, virtually every being in existence was not actuated by time-sapce, time-space is just the medium through which they exist, there's a difference.

It was all covered in my posts where I speak of particulars and unviersals, and that essentially we regess back to the ultimate universal, which is a simple being. It's all covered in that post.

Just jumping in here, so excuse me if I missed something.

I'm sorry, I don't know why this bothers me so much, but nobody invented science. That just doesn't make any sense. You could say somebody invented the scientific method, or someone came up with a certain scientific theory, but you can't say someone invented science.

Well what I mean to say that Aristotle was the first physicist and the first to undertake 'scientific invesitigation'.

Descartes.

Oh it was him was it. I know about the 'I think therefore I am' but it never clicked to me 'thinking is being' came from him, despite how stupidly obvious that is appearing to me right now.

Also, I'm sorry if you've answered this before, but I haven't seen it: How can a being whose only properties are that it exists and it has intellect create "Life, the Universe, and Everything"?

To be honest I don't understand why calling God a mind is such a big deal. Pretty much any monotheistic conception of god posits Him as a mind. Anything immaterial can be nothing other than a mind.

Someone try give me an example of something immaterial that isn't a mind and I'll tell you why it isn't physical.

This goes for everyone as well as Krazyglue, if you have a problem with the mind idea, then that means you disagree that an immaterial reality could ever precede a physical one, which is all that I'm saying.

So just so I'm clear, are you guys actually saying you have an issue with the idea that an immaterialy reality preceded the physical?

 

[Sucumbio]

iirc in philosophical terms the state of the Real is what is affected by thought... so Ultimate thought-only God manifests its will by altering thought perception so that our perceived reality is lilewise affected. or something like that...

How do body and mind interrelate in life and in knowing? This puzzle led to the classical 'problem of interaction', a perennial philosophical conundrum which still gets dismissed generation after generation until one thinks eventually of unanswerable questions such as how thoughts can cause actions or how unconscious fantasies can cause psychosomatic illnesses such as ulcers, asthma and colitis. How do thoughts impact on particles of matter and how do material impacts cause thoughts, including the thoughts which lead from sensation to knowing? We are left wondering not only how we know anything for certain but how we have any experience at all, especially the experience of other minds. How can two sorts of basic substances which are defined so that they have nothing in common then have causal relationships in the 'having' of experience and the 'willing' of action? -source

 

[RDK]

From necessity. The fact I even have a concept of 'I', a conception which is not through any physical medium suggests materialism is wrong. I don't want this to turn into a consciousness debate though, it's not relevant to the debate. Whether God is a mind or not does not hinge on whether there is a distinctio nbetween brain and human mind, so it doesn't matter

I've already explained why this is wrong. Every single thought you had is a conceptual representation of a completely biological (therefore physical) process.

Unless you believe there is a spirit world adjacent to the material world and that such a thing is somehow verifiable.

 

[Dre89]

I've already explained why this is wrong. Every single thought you had is a conceptual representation of a completely biological (therefore physical) process.

Unless you believe there is a spirit world adjacent to the material world and that such a thing is somehow verifiable.

I don't think anyone's denying that there are biological processes acting in the brain. I think the argument would be that what's actuating these processes is the mind.

Consciousness isn't a strong point of mine, and I'm not particularly interested in it so I don't want to debate about it. It's not relevant to the debate anyway.

I heard of a study where they got someone to grab a cup and then they'd observe the biological process of the brain. Aapparently, the process began after he had already initiated the movement of his hand toward the cup. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for it, but it's not necessary to defend the existence of a mind distinct from the brain.

 

[RDK]

I don't think anyone's denying that there are biological processes acting in the brain. I think the argument would be that what's actuating these processes is the mind.

Consciousness isn't a strong point of mine, and I'm not particularly interested in it so I don't want to debate about it. It's not relevant to the debate anyway.

I heard of a study where they got someone to grab a cup and then they'd observe the biological process of the brain. Aapparently, the process began after he had already initiated the movement of his hand toward the cup. Unfortunately I don't have a reference for it, but it's not necessary to defend the existence of a mind distinct from the brain.

Electric impulses travel along the neurons in your brain, and along your nerves, at phenomenal speeds. This allows the body to react to its surroundings as quickly as survival necessitates. Your hindbrain knows what you're going to do long before you become consciously aware of it.

The type of thing you're describing where the body acts first before any neural activity going on is impossible. Your brain is the one that tells your body what to do; if there is no order from the brain, which is created using stimuli sent up our nerves from the limbs / skin, then there can be no action in any part of the body, excluding autonomous processes like breathing and your heartbeat.

If you have a link to the article though I'll read it.

 

[Dre89]

Electric impulses travel along the neurons in your brain, and along your nerves, at phenomenal speeds. This allows the body to react to its surroundings as quickly as survival necessitates. Your hindbrain knows what you're going to do long before you become consciously aware of it.

The type of thing you're describing where the body acts first before any neural activity going on is impossible. Your brain is the one that tells your body what to do; if there is no order from the brain, which is created using stimuli sent up our nerves from the limbs / skin, then there can be no action in any part of the body, excluding autonomous processes like breathing and your heartbeat.

If you have a link to the article though I'll read it.

Na I said I don't have a reference for it, but it's not essential to the argument.

I don't want to get into a consciousness debate. Maybe someone else can debate it with you, but it's not my strength and not my interest.

It's not relevant to my God argument anyway. My notion that God is an immaterial reality is not dependent on whether there is a distinction between mind and brain.