If everything has to have a cause, and everything must have a mover, then you can apply that argument to God and have the same problem. Honestly, this video is a God of the Gaps argument at its finest. The guy is basically arguing that if we don't know something, we should just place God in the gap of knowledge.Theists have to come up with better arguments than this, especially if they want to prove magic and supernatural claims. Simply produce the proof.
Hello CA,If you listen carefully, he said that anything which has a beginning must have a cause. If all physical reality (time/space/matter) trace back to the Big Bang, the reality which caused the Big Bang would not be contingent upon anything physical, not even time. Logically, we can trace any and all reality back to one unconditioned reality. The word “caused” implies a need for time, so to ask “What caused the unconditioned reality?” is a contradiction. It’s like asking “How can I make a square circle?” The question makes no senseA word about “proof. What proof are you looking for? If something is outside of physical reality, the scientific method does not apply. Try to prove morality, justice, love, beauty, goodness and the meaning of your life using the scientific method.The video is just a brief overview. If you’re really interest in intellectual rigor in physics, metaphysics, philosophy and pure logic, I’d recommend a book called “New Proofs for the Existence of God”. Here is a link (you'll need to cut/paste). Also see the "Magis Center" logo/link just to the right.Peacehttp://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
Hello Ben, Unfortunately your link is not "Proofs", they are claims without proof. Also, there is a problem with the video concerning cause for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is that a conscious state is temporal and in itself can not exist without cause to which would require the inertia of information.. In science Ben, energy and information are interchangeable as two sides of the same coin. Hence the image on your screen right now is a prime empirical demonstration of this fact. The inertia of energy is the inertia of information. No time in science Ben is a state in which there is no significant inertia in the system. Hence a static state, and that means no possibility of any conscious state of any sort. The second issue to the problem with the argument is the understanding of space and the definition of "Universe". Firstly space deals with volume and capacity. Hence you can't have an existence in a place that has no volume or capacity to contain and sustain an existence. Hence you can't have information or put a marble in a box that has no volume or spatial capacity. And in dimensional values a relative point in space is zero dimensional. Hence in an infinite volume there is no dimensions as there are an infinite number of relative points. So unless there is a fracturing of symmetry here, to which we can call the big bang, there would be no 3 dimensional spaces, or objects. Hence there must emerge a line before you can have a 1D object. However the point is here, you can't have the capacity to exist outside space, or the volume of existence itself. If you want to better understand the Big Bang and what it means in regards to the emergence of space time.. They are referring to an inflationary event from a perfect vacuum state to which is regarded in quantum physics as a highly unstable state to where the even question if a perfect vacuum can exist. Essentially we are dealing with the ground state of energy and matter. And this is suspected to be what dark energy is. And energy is it's own force to which interferes with itself. Everything including you and I are made entirely of energy. Everything is energy driven evolution.. The problem is understanding how it works, and that is what science is for.Hence it would be impossible to create that which one's self requires to exist, function, or be. And if you want to argue immateriality, I would strongly suggest looking up the definition of "Nothing" as it's claiming nothing things can magically exist when in fact they can not. Nothing can not be or have the capacity to be any literal existing person, place, object, substance, or thing. That literally means you can not by definition have the existence of immateriality .. You couldn't even describe to me a immaterial experience or world without using physical descriptors such as shape, color, dimensions, or even how you can feel and express emotions without physically feeling them and expressing them. You can not describe for me a nothing world without instantly invalidating it.
Now my next argument deals with the Existential Paradox to the concept of GOD. Under Pantheism, God is existence itself to where Existence is correctly defined as the totality of all that exists. What that means is that existence is every rule, law, force to cause, value, system cause, effect, person, place, or thing.. To shorten this, Existence is Causality itself. And it's fair to say you can not equally have causality without existence. Hence even you as a Christian are slave to require the Pantheist GOD to even have a concept of GOD, or even have a belief in any kind of god at all. You are slave to require another religions GOD while you try and argue for the "Existence" of your own. Technically speaking, you can go no higher on the totem pole in the concept of GOD than literally Existence itself.. Existence would be the totality of knowledge, power, force, and things that are. This leads to several problems, and what we call the existential paradox. A paradox I can demonstrate in a few simple questions while remembering to keep in mind that Existence is defined as "All that exists":1. What is God without Existence?2. IF existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?3. If existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?4. Can you explain Causality without Existence?Now the Answers to these questions show the Paradox to which even collapses the Pantheist argument:1. Without Existence there is no GOD.. Period!2. If existence is GOD, then everything and everyone is god by definition that existence is all that exists.3. If existence is not GOD, then there is no god by definition as Existence is all that exists. 4. You can not have Causality without existence. And that means no possibility of a conscious sentient being, you, me, or anything for that matter.And this brings up a question.. What is the Atheist answer? Well the answer has always been existence itself to which is the fundamental answer, governor, cause, and existence to everything.. And it's existence itself to which science studies, and its' existence to which is the book that holds and is all the answers at the same time. Hence there is no coherent need for the concept of God what-so-ever. The last part of the existential Paradox is that it makes no sense for existence to worship itself as GOD.. Hence you worshiping another part of existence as GOD is effectively existence worshiping itself as GOD. And it further makes no sense for existence to threaten itself to ever lasting torture in some hell if it should not.. And this doesn't even go into the opinion paradox to which will equally agree with the existential paradox. So giving Pantheism is as high as you can go in the god concept, and Atheism is the lowest you can go.. It's essentially all or nothing in either the existential paradox, or the opinion paradox. This is what we call effective deductive logic that even invalidate the Kalaam Cosmological argument entirely..
Hi Jackel,I must also refer you to the fact that nothing actually means nothing. Not something labelled as nothing. Nothing does not mean empty space. It means no time nor space. Once there's something, then you no longer have nothing.Can a universe spring from nothing? I would assert that there needs to be a non-physical "something" from which the physical universe can spring.Secondly, you misconstrue that, since God is not part of the universe (see the above), he is the SOURCE of existence and is not contingent or conditioned on anything prior to him. Therefore at your point 2 (everyone is god) your argument collapses. No one else is existence itself.
Joe that is correct, empty space is not nothing, it's a vacuum.And the definition of Universe you are using here should be the "Observable Universe" and not "Universe". "Universe" is synonymous to the definition of Existence and Reality as a whole. It's a Universal set of all sets, and it can not be created because for anything to be in and of it will require it. What you are thus referring to here is the "Observable Universe".. So to answer your question my friend I refer you to this answer:No the Observable Universe can not come from nothing. It is in fact an emergent property from Existence itself. This is irregardless if you want to argue non-physicality. The answer will always be at it's core "Existence" to which is Causality. Existence is what governs everything to which includes cognitive systems, consciousness, and determines what was, is, and what will ever become. And we are all apart of it. This is what a Universal set of all sets is. Thus remember the questions I asked above concerning the existential Paradox because the deductive logic concludes regardless of argument that Existence itself is the answer to everything, holds all the answers, and literally is all the answers to everything, and while being literally everything at the same time. So regardless if we understand Existence to which we are apart of, that is the answer you are looking for, and where we come from. We are emergent properties of existence itself, and we or anything for that matter can not exist without it :) Now concerning non-physical things, you have to try and then consider things made of nothing.. It becomes self-refuting because things of nothing can't actually exist. It becomes a self-refuting idea or concept by definition. To put this into perspective, you will have to claim nothing exists to claim things made of nothing exist (immaterial). And if nothing existed, not even nothing would exist by definition. This is why I can without further thought dismiss immateriality all together. The answer you are looking for is that energy and information are the same thing. Consciousness requires information, the inertia of, and the processing of information (energy) to be an emergent property. Thus like the image on your computer screen, consciousness is an emergent property of the processes that produce it. To put more bluntly, an unconscious state of existence requires no cause at all while a conscious state does. We can not by any means ever say anything conscious can magically exist without cause. This goes deep into information science and theory. Now if you say God is not a part of the "Universe" to which is defined as the totality of all that exists, then your GOD is not in or of existence. You cannot coherently say your GOD is the source of existence either since that is implying GOD magically creates existence from a position of non-existence. It's a self-refuting idea or concept to which is invalid by consequence of its premises. Existence itself is the source of all Existence. There is no other source of existence than existence itself. So if you want to call Existence GOD, then you are a Pantheist, and you need to refer back to the existential Paradox because that would by definition make everything, all of us, "GOD". The concept then becomes moot, and oddly existence worshiping itself as GOD. Thus my point 2 does not collapse, and we are all of existence itself. The only questions I need ask you to invalidate your argument is this:"Are you and I not in and of existence?""What can can exist without being in and of Existence"The answers to those are Yes we are, and that there is no possible way anything can exist without existence. You can not explain to me Causality without Existence as Existence is Causality. So claiming your GOD is existence itself is claiming your GOD is everything in and of Existence. That's you, me, everything..It's Pantheism
Hmmmm, granted, I am not sophisticated, nor am I a scientist, but if Existence itself (God) gifts me with my own subordinate existence (whose only source is Him), that does not make me Him. I could cease to exist (or never exist at all) and Existence Himself would still go on. Just because Existence can create others (and create matter) to share in existence, does not mean these things are Existence. Just because we have being, doesn't mean we are Being itself. Existence itself cannot not exist (how can Existence not exist?). But it's very possible for me not to exist. And for the material universe not to exist. Very, very possible. Again, sharing in existence, or being gifted with existence, is not the same as being Existence. Is my thinking wrong? Again, I am not a learned and sophisticated scientist….
Hello Leila, Ok, this is going to be in two posts due to character limits. Firstly I would like to address a few things here to which I think you have missed. One problem I see with your argument is that if you call Existence a "Him" and denote existence as it's own entity apart from yourself, there would be no females in or of existence, and you would not exist. Existence is one thing in which is the totality of everything. Yes you are a subordinate (subset) as I am, or as is any other sentient entity, but we are all a part of existence, and existence is by definition us and everything else. Now you stated the following:Quote:--Just because Existence can create others (and create matter) to share in existence, does not mean these things are Existence--They definitely are not of non-existence. Your argument here is wrong and actually self-refuting, everything existent is of existence. It can't be any other way. Hence existence is everything of itself. For you to exist, you must be of existence. Technically me and you are existence itself having a discussion with itself from 2 emergent minds. Yes existence can produce more than one emergent conscious state of being, but we are all still of existence. Next you have made the following statement:Quote:--doesn't mean we are Being itself. --I'm sorry but I was not specifically talking about "being" itself as being is just a mode of existence. Existence is a thing, to which in this case is the totality of "Being". Being in the context of a person such as you or I, Existence is you and I. It is all beings as it's also the totality of "Where" all beings reside.. Existence is both the total capacity of being, and where any being is. So I think I need to define what a Universal Set of all Sets is here:--"In set theory, a universal set is a set which contains all objects, including itself."--In the case of Existence, it doesn't just only contain all objects including itself, it is also all the objects as well. The various objects are subsets of the Universal set, or of Existence.. Existence is defined as follows:ex·ist·ence [ig-zis-tuhns] Show IPAnoun1.the state or fact of existing; being.2.continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.3.mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.4.all that exists: Universe5.something that exists; entity; being.Continued --->
Now continuing here from above, Existence is synonymous with the definition of reality and Universe. Hence, they are different terms for exactly the same thing, and here is the definition of Reality:re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)n. pl. re·al·i·ties1. The quality or state of being actual or true.2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.4. That which exists objectively and in fact:To which is just another term for "Universe" to which the following videos demonstrate:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XmtW_fIj68http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNpufW3_yVsHence Universal set theory can not be avoided here, and I can further add another more specific definition of "Universe" here:---The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.^ "Universe". Webster's New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc. 2010.^ "Universe". Encyclopedia Britannica. "the whole cosmic system of matter and energy of which Earth, and therefore the human race, is a part"^ "Universe". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2012-09-21.^ "Universe". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2012-09-21.^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2010.^ Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary.---We come from existence itself, the Universe itself. And the Universe is us in every way, and we are it. There is no GOD, and the Universe is Causality itself. And this definition of Universe gets confused with the definition of "The Observable Universe" to which is defined as:Quote--In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day—because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion.--The Observable Universe is an Emergent property of "The Universe".. Aka Existence itself. So even if one would argue a Multiverse, any subset Universe is still a part of "The Universe" or what you can call the Universal Set. Hence it doesn't matter how many places in and of existence exist as existence is every place. Existence is the totality of "where", "what", "When", "How", and "Why". Another Universal aspect of Existence is time.. All things that exist, exist at the same time.. As in they all share the universal key frame of the instant of now to where only the perception of time is relative. And time is an inherent property of existence.. Hence you must have an existential time frame of reference to exist. And zero time is just simply a static state with no inertia while still having an existential frame of reference. So to say a god exists outside of time, it would be the same as saying your god doesn't never existed, or your God doesn't exist now, or will it ever. All conscious entities of existence are bound and governed by Existence and it's rules. Thus it is Existence (The Universe) to which is causality.
So here is what is plausible Leila and Joe, or Ben.. You can argue that the "Observable Universe", this being what derived from the Big Bang, could have been induced by a higher intelligent being in and of existence.. It still falls to the existential Paradox, but that would be a plausible scenario. However, like bubbles, such things can likely happen with or without sentient intervention. Hence the Universe (Existence) can blow it's own bubbles without sentience required in any of the processes. Just as ocean waves can cause sea foam without the need of sentient help, or some child dipping a red plastic ring in a bottle of soapy water and blowing into existence a bubble. Big bangs could be as common as lightning out to sea, and for all we know, bot scenarios could be happening right now as I am sure ocean waves are making bubbles while some child somewhere on Earth is blowing bubbles. And if that is the case, how do you determine which caused our Big Bang? Well, you can't. So the only way to deal with the concept of GOD is to use deductive logic, and the Existential Paradox in relation to the Opinion Paradox essentially makes it either all or nothing when you take it to the furthest extremes either direction. Everything else is just kicking the ball around on the field while ignoring the two huge goal posts on either end of the field. And these extremes are either Atheism (No GOD(s)), or Pantheism (Existence is god (Everything is GOD). Thus all or nothing.
Hi Jackel (can I just call you Jack?),Sorry for my delay; I was out of town on business.You say: “Unfortunately your link is not "Proofs", they are claims without proof.” Did you actually read the book? Metaphysical proofs or logic proofs are kinds of proofs. Just because you reject this type of proof does not mean that they are not proofs.You say: “No time in science Ben is a state in which there is no significant inertia in the system. Hence a static state and that means no possibility of any conscious state of any sort. ” You cannot sate ANY sort unless you have experience of ALL sorts of consciousness. What evidence do you have that ALL states of consciousness are known to you or science?You say: “you can't have an existence in a place that has no volume or capacity to contain and sustain an existence.” The one unconditioned reality (which is proven in the book I mentioned) logically requires nothing for its own existence not even volume or space because it is unconditioned. All of reality consists of the material and the immaterial, physical and spiritual. Do you hold that “morality” actually exits? If you say yes, explain the material mechanism?For your 2nd comment:You paradox has a bad premise which causes it to fall apart like a house of cards. The premise that “existence” is an adequate and formal definition for God, as if we can place God in a box. Is there one word (or phrase) that adequately defines things like love or beauty or goodness in their totality? You think everyone would agree on it?We use finite words to describe the infinite because that is all we have as humans. Language is limited. We’ll say God is existence itself or God being itself or love itself or truth itself or goodness itself. We do the best we can with our limits of language. Take the ocean as a crude comparison. We generally do not say there is water in the ocean. We are more apt to say the ocean IS water, but the word “water” is inadequate to describe the ocean in its totality and the word “ocean” is inadequate to describe water in its totality.BTW, If you are trying for a formal definition of existence, I Googled this “The fact or state of living or having objective reality”, NOT what you say, “Existence is correctly defined as the totality of all that exists”If I exist, it doesn’t follow that I am existence, just like if I were to say “I live” it does not follow that I AM life.
Ben, you state the following:"Did you actually read the book? Metaphysical proofs or logic proofs are kinds of proofs. Just because you reject this type of proof does not mean that they are not proofs."You need to understand the definition of "Proof" before using it. Nothing in that book is proof, it's speculation and assumption without proof. So regardless of metaphysics to which would obviously be energy related and a product of energy driven evolution, there is no "proofs" in that book. Now I can say myself that there may be other worlds out there with sentient life, but I can't sit here and assert it without demonstrating it as a fact to which would then be considered "Proof".. The book you cite is like a Big Foot hunter taking a picture of some footprint or some blurred out image of a figure while claiming it's "Proof" Big Foot exist when in fact it's not. If you like I can sit here and go over several of them. Perhaps you can cite for me which of these supposed proofs in that book you think has the most weight.. I will be more than happy to address it :)You then state the following: ” You cannot sate ANY sort unless you have experience of ALL sorts of consciousness. What evidence do you have that ALL states of consciousness are known to you or science?Actually this involves having a fundamental understanding of information science and cognitive science. Especially in dealing with complex adaptive systems with feedback. What I am telling you ben, is a fact. Without the inertia of information, you can not have a conscious state. The same rules apply to why you can't have an image on your screen without the inertia and processing of information. No conscious state can exist without cause. You should spend some time reading up on cognitive systems theory. You then State this:--"logically requires nothing for its own existence not even volume or space because it is unconditioned. "--The fact you have "Existence" in this sentence alone defies your very argument. This is inherently as self-refuting statement. Saying something is "Unconditioned" is pure nonsense..Also saying your GOD has no place in existence to exist to which has the capacity to contain and support it's existence is directly stating your God is not in existence. Existence is the capacity and volume to which contains everything in it. You can not magically exist outside of existence. It's literally impossible. Every sentient being in existence is subject to the conditions of existence and its rules. Again I will state that it is Existence to which determines what is, what will be, and what is or isn't possible, allowable, or achievable. In fact there can only be a quarantined existence, and all things a fundamentally bound to this. You can't even create mathematics because for you to exist, you have to be 1 over zero to begin with. Next you state the following:BTW, If you are trying for a formal definition of existence, I Googled this “The fact or state of living or having objective reality”, NOT what you say, “Existence is correctly defined as the totality of all that exists”All of the definitions of existence are a part of existence. You can't have any definition of, or for anything without existence. I don't think you are understanding me when I am telling you that Existence is a universal set of all sets. The fact or sate of living is a part of reality (existence), and reality is another term for existence. It is exactly what I said.. They weren't playing a joke on you when the definition states "All that exists" to which is synonymous with "Reality" and "Universe". They literally mean "All that exists" to which includes states of living or being.. States we know are a part of existence as we are here to verify that. :)
If I exist, it doesn’t follow that I am existence, just like if I were to say “I live” it does not follow that I AM life.Actually it does.. I am of existence, and so are you.. You are a subset of existence and a literal part of existence. You are existence even if you are just a subset. However, you would be correct to say that you are not the whole of existence in it's entirety. So of course you can't say "I am existence" in the context of the whole. You can say I am existence as a subset, a living being in and of existence. And of course you live, and so do I, but we are both living entities in and of existence. So I hope the clarifies this issue :)
Proof = Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.In the book “new proofs” the author gives both evidence and arguments to establish the truth about God. So did you read it? If not, I think you would like it.Consider a criminal trial. When the prosecution in a criminal trail gives evidence and arguments about the guilt of the defendant and the defendant is found guilty, one can say they “proved” their case even though history conceals the crime. No one in the jury actually saw the crime; they were not there. I can disagree and say the defendant is innocent (not guilty), but I cannot say the prosecution did not prove their case.About existence: I think you would be much clearer if you used the word “reality” instead of “existence”. The book I referenced goes through a formal logic proof that says that there must be one unique unconditioned reality in all of reality, which needs no other reality for its own existence. I don’t have time to re-type it all here.Also,I am OF existence is not the same as saying I AM existence. Agreed, that you and I are a PART of reality (subset). More specifically, I would add that you and I are part of conditioned reality. Peace brother.
Ben, Proof is defined as:"Proof"1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.2.a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.Your link takes vague things and calls them proof, it's in reality only under the first context as regarded evidence to what you think is proof. However, none of it is proof in the definition of validation. It's still assertion and speculation without any definitive proof or validation of. Your links doesn't even tell you the methodology in how they supposedly had validated anything they are claiming as "Proof".. Most of the argument is based on the complexity argument to which they then just dishonestly insert "GOD" and call it proof. It's intellectually dishonest, and all the evidence can simply be stated as just proof of the Universe, Existence, Or Reality giving which ever term you want to use here. For example, life isn't proof or evidence of a god, it's proof of life. A rabbit doesn't prove the existence of a GOD as a rabbit is only proof of a rabbit. So unless you can validate such evidence as "proof", you really don't have anything. On Existence, the Term Reality is exactly that same thing. It's just another Term for Existence, and so is Universe. It's perplexing that you seem to not understand that. It would make no difference which term I used here for the Paradox. Reality is also defined as all that exists. Posted the definition for you already. Yes there are subsets to reality such as the microscopic world and the Marco world.. They are their own little realities, but they are none-the-less a part of Reality itself, or of the whole.. And you saying you are existence depends on your intended context. You are existence as I am, but we can not be Existence in the context of the whole. Regardless of this, Existence is literally both of us. And everything is a part of a conditioned reality as there can only be a quantized reality. The whole concept of unconditioned existence is incoherent nonsense. There is no such thing, and nor can you demonstrate or provide any evidence for any such thing. You can't even explain such a concept without abiding to conditional existence. You would literally have to try and tell me that your God doesn't need existence to exist, and that would be utterly self-refuting. You can't make the argument without literally self-refuting your own argument. For example, you can't create existence when yourself requires it and is slave to it as is everything else. That alone is already conditional. So I wouldn't even consider the idea or argument giving it's just pure nonsense. :/
If you prefer the term existence over reality, let’s roll with it.To say one needs existence to exist is basically just repeating yourself, but let’s roll with that too. Let me try to explain in a slightly different way. Think about HOW one exists.It is said in theology that God exists through himself. No outside condition is needed, no physical existence in needed, no physical laws, no “outside system”. The one unconditioned existence (God) is outside of physical existence. Also, no other spiritual existence is needed, like some angel.You and I cannot exist through ourselves. We require conditions outside of ourselves. We are contingent beings. For example, our parents needed to meet for us to be here and our grandparents before them and so on.God created physical existence in time, but His own existence (outside time) always just IS. An existence unconditioned by time is hard for human language to describe.Take care.P.S. Read the book!
Quote--To say one needs existence to exist is basically just repeating yourself--Ben, when you ignore the premise to begin with, I end up having to repeat it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself or state again the definitions of Existence and Reality ect. Now let see if you if address it:Quote:--It is said in theology that God exists through himself. --To which I as well exist through myself. Regardless of such an argument, neither me nor the concept of God you speak of can exist without existence or through existence itself. Saying there is no condition needed here is incoherent regardless if you want to argue physicality (made of something) or immateriality (made of nothing). You also seem to ignore immateriality is impossible as things made of nothing do not exist and by definition can not exist. Nothing doesn't exist to be anything. However, even if I pandered to the idea of immateriality, it doesn't invalidate anything or the existential paradox. This also doesn't invalidate the fact that no conscious state can exist without cause, or complex systems with feed back.. Many of you like to argue causality and complexity, and think a sentience and conscious thing, being, or entity can magically be the answer to causality while ignoring consciousness itself can not exist without cause or complexity.. If you think is so simple and lacking of complexity, you yourself should have no problem creating a conscious object or thing without natural reproduction. Build us a conscious snowman for example. I can build you unconscious things all day long. See the problem here Ben is when you get into cognitive science and realize why your argument holds no real credulity. It's completely subject to follow the rules of temporal quantized existence as is everything else is. You can only have a quantized existence Ben, and all laws, rules, properties, values, attributes, or states of existence are subject to the conditions of a quantized existence. Quote:--"(God) is outside of physical existence."--All you are saying here is that your GOD magically exists in a place of existence made of nothing, and that your god is made of nothing. That unfortunately is identical to non-existence, and saying your GOD doesn't exist while at the same time trying to insist it does.. Or in short, saying your god exists outside of existence to which is impossible. Worse yet, you can't describe for us "Spiritual existence" without using physical descriptors. Do explain to us what a world looks like that is made of nothing. What do you see? Yep, once you try doing that, you realize instantly it's nonsense. You can't much less feel anything without physically feeling it. You can't express anything without physically expressing it. Quote--You and I cannot exist through ourselves. We require conditions outside of ourselves. We are contingent beings. --You are only talking about causality here. No conscious state can exist without cause. Everything that has cause is an emergent property of existence, and from existence regardless if sentience was involved in the making of something or another giving itself can not exist without cause. You are missing the point that Existence itself is Causality, and that you can not explain Causality without Existence. You are missing the point that it's existence to which govern everything to which includes the rules and operation of cognitive systems capable of producing conscious beings and supporting sentience. continued -->
Quote--For example, our parents needed to meet for us to be here and our grandparents before them and so on.--And the inertia and processing of information need to happen before you can even have the most basic cognitive dynamics in a system that could even support so much as the cognitive complexity and function of an insect much less a human or higher cognitive capacity, functionality, or complexity.. Reactionary systems are even more basic and are required at the foundation of any complexity adaptive systems such as cognitive system. None of these rules or systems are a product of sentience, sentience and consciousness are product of these systems. It's literally impossible for any conscious being to represent a Universal set of all sets, or the answer to everything. Sentience does not answer causality when itself is a product of it. This is why existence itself is causality, all things that require cause are emergent properties of existence itself. This is absolute, and entirely conditional regardless if you want to argue immateriality, spirituality, or physicality. The existential Paradox is not something you can fruitfully argue against as it is literally futile to do so. Quote--God created physical existence in time--In order to claim the creation of physicality, you have to argue nothing exists and then explain how you convert nothing into a physical object and into something. Where in existence does your god get nothing from to make something out of nothing? You can't make such arguments without self-refuting.. It's nonsense, and this is why energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You can not by any definition change nothing into something, or something into nothing. You can only change Existential states, purposes, functions, or meaning. When you write a message on a chalk board, you don't literally create the message, you have to use what already exists to form the message. Nor can you destroy the message even if you took the eraser and erased it from the chalkboard. All the information is still there, and the destruction of the information is just the conversion to another state, function, or meaning. And your ability to recover it depends on either your ability to duplicate it, or take everything that made it and put it back together. A tree doesn't cease to exist even if you cut it down and burn it. You can't literally turn it into "nothing".. Quote:--An existence unconditioned by time is hard for human language to describe.--It's impossible to describe because it's literally impossible outside of one exception. And that exception is Existence itself. Existence simply exists because non-existence (Nothing) can not by definition ever literally be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Non-existence, or nothing can't even literally be an attribute of something by definition. Thus the use of the term is limited even in cosmology regarding a perfect vacuum to which is as close to nothing as you can get without actually being nothing. Cheers,And I am now reading the book ;)
Though despite the Existential Paradox Ben, this doesn't mean their aren't entities out there in and of existence to which would be far more powerful than we are. For all I know, the Big Bang could have been induced by a sentient being. However, I would not need to consider that a GOD anymore than I would consider Existence itself is a GOD.. Essentially it logically falls like this:If Pantheists can not convince me that Existence itself is GOD even though I will agree Existence is Causality, there is no hope of you or any other theist or religion could have in convincing me that anything of existence is GOD. This is just through deductible logic. And to establish otherwise, you would literally have to explain to me how one can create existence without requiring it. And we both know how futile that would be. This will give you an idea of how many Atheists see this issue. That existential paradox is a very powerful paradox, and coupling that with the opinion paradox in the fact the concept of GOD is at best a concept and title of pure opinion to where anything and everything can be considered a god, or not a god. It becomes moot in either paradox. That's a huge problem I had to deal with when I was a Christian, and when I had become a Pantheist. I couldn't simply ignore the Paradoxes.
Hi Jack…el,By saying “repeating yourself” I’m taking about redundancy. Saying I need existence in order to exist is like saying I need movement in order to move or I need laughter in order to laugh. It is grammatically correct, but also redundant.Contingency is not just about causation, it is also about sustainability. You need the existence of other things in order to exist yourself in the first place and in order to sustain your existence going forward. You are contingent upon realities OTHER THAN yourself. An unconditioned reality needs no other reality outside of itself. Yes, it would need itself, but no outside system.You say:“All you are saying here is that your GOD magically exists in a place of existence made of nothing, and that your god is made of nothing.” What I’m saying is God is pure spirit (nothing PHYSICAL). The immaterial is part of reality. Morality, love, justice, rights, goodness are not just human concepts (thoughts in the brain). They exist as part of reality outside of humanity and until you accept the immaterial as real, you are not living in reality.You say:“you would literally have to explain to me how one can create existence without requiring it. And we both know how futile that would be.” The word “create” assumes time. If God is an unconditioned reality outside of time, his existence and essence is one in the same or just IS. One would not need to come before the other because there is no “before” and there is no “after”; no beginning and no end.This will be my last comment on this post, but you may find another web site interesting. It’s a place made specifically for Catholics and Atheists to have a respectful dialog. It’s called STRANGE NOTIONSPeace.
Quote:--By saying “repeating yourself” I’m taking about redundancy. Saying I need existence in order to exist is like saying I need movement in order to move or I need laughter in order to laugh. It is grammatically correct, but also redundant.--And yet you are missing the point. Through all the redundancy, you missed the point and how it invalidates your arguments. Especially concerning your argument of being "unconditioned". Quote:--Contingency is not just about causation, it is also about sustainability. You need the existence of other things in order to exist yourself in the first place and in order to sustain your existence going forward.--Other things of existence... Anything conscious is going to fall to this argument. You need information and the inertia of information to have a cognitive system, and a conscious state (being) requires these things of existence to be. Yep, just like we do. And existence itself is a thing. It's irrelevant if I need other things of existence to exist, in the end, the answer is Existence itself. You don't seem to grasp that here. Existence is causality and causality is what sustains anything to which includes the existence and functionality of cognitive systems and anything reliant on them to exist. Yes that literally means no conscious being can be the origin of existence when itself is caused by existential systems and processes. Quote:--You are contingent upon realities OTHER THAN yourself. An unconditioned reality needs no other reality outside of itself. Yes, it would need itself, but no outside system.--No, I am solely contingent on existence itself. You don't seem to understand what a Universal set of all sets means here. It's irrelevant how many subset realities of Reality (of existence) you think I am contingent on. You're ignoring the elephant in the room here Ben. Nor have you answered my questions in the existential paradox as you spend your time trying to use semantic arguments looking to circumvent them.. You are also avoiding the intended context. Quote:--An unconditioned reality needs no other reality outside of itself. Yes, it would need itself, but no outside system.--We are all a part of the same quantized system we call Existence. There is no outside to this system and everything that does exist is in and literally a part of this system. Everything is reliant on this system.. There is no other reality, and other realities are just subsets of the same system. You don't seem to grasp this. Every conscious being in existence will be contingent on Existence and it's rules. They will all be contingent to the laws and rules of complex adaptive systems with feedback, reactionary systems, and cognitive systems.. No conscious being can exist without these systems, or cause. No conscious being can be the answer to causality Ben. And yes I am repeating this because you are no understanding the problem with your argument. Quote:-- If God is an unconditioned reality outside of time, his existence and essence is one in the same or just IS.--Time is an inherent property of existence itself. Your argument here is nonsense. There is no existential key frame of time outside of existence. Everything that exists in existence shares the same universal key frame of "now". If your god is not in existence "now", it doesn't exist. The only thing that is relative in concerns with time is the perception of time to which does not effect the universal key frame what-so-ever. This tells me you have no fundamental understanding of time. Telling us your god exist outside of existence is not the best argument for trying to suggest your God exists.And existence itself is the essence of everything to which include me. And I will tell you this, Existence itself comes before any emergent property of itself. Hence again I repeat that no conscious being can exist without cause.
Quote-- The immaterial is part of reality. Morality, love, justice, rights, goodness are not just human concepts (thoughts in the brain). --There is nothing non-physical about these. You can not express or feel any of these things without physically doing so.
Hi CA,See the Kalaam Cosmological argument.This short video reveals the dogmatism of atheism (as in Susskind's quote) and the willingness to believe anything except supernaturalism. This prejudice against the possibility excludes any data that may lead in that direction. Unfortunately, fair minded scientists will logically believe that there IS no evidence for the supernatural since that evidence is not permitted to be in their data. Also, reliance on the scientific method as the ONLY way to gather real knowledge of the universe limits the conclusions to which humans can come.
Ben said: If you listen carefully, he said that anything which has a beginning must have a cause.Okay, then apply that argument to your God."If all physical reality (time/space/matter) trace back to the Big Bang, the reality which caused the Big Bang would not be contingent upon anything physical, not even time."Just because you don't understand how something happened, doesn't mean you can insert God. Scientists such as Lawrence M. Krauss and Stephen Hawking have already written scientific books about how the universe may have began, and no God is needed."A word about “proof. What proof are you looking for?"I don't know. Something that's testable. However, your God would know and be able to produce it within an eye blink of time. That's the miracle that he forgot to perform. Instead, his master plan included doing nothing for 190k years, then producing a primitive book as proof, and then performing a blood sacrifice. "If you’re really interest in intellectual rigor"I am and thank you for the link. :)Joe said: "This prejudice against the possibility excludes any data that may lead in that direction. Unfortunately, fair minded scientists will logically believe that there IS no evidence for the supernatural since that evidence is not permitted to be in their data."It sounds like you think there is somehow a grand conspiracy within the scientific community. Of course there is no evidence. It's not like all the scientists got together and made a pact to not produce any evidence of your God.Even if I granted what you and Ben are saying as true, you would still have a long way to go. Suppose evidence of a God were to appear tomorrow; what makes you two so sure that this God would be your God?
CA,God did not begin to exist, therefore the first premise does not apply.Please understand that what Ben's statement says implies something outside the physical universe. That's all you can prove from it. To leap to the Judeo-Christian God is something else. The point is that there has to be SOMETHING other than material.What my statement meant to convey is that if you have a filter, all you will get is stuff that passes the filter. If you have a methodology that works well for gathering certain kinds of data but not others, one should not expect to get that other data using that methodology. If one's eyes can only see light in certain wavelengths, then the absence of light should not yield an unconditioned statement that there is no light.The scientific method is not the only methodology that can yield knowledge. It works very well for observable, physical phenomena, but it has limitations. Being unaware of the limitations of a methodology is a mistake and can lead to other mistakes. Hence my statement about fair-minded scientists. Your last point is a good one. I can only follow the data I have. Once a God is established it is certainly possible that this God has no interest in being known by us at all. In that case, we'd be wrong. The God of Christianity has actually broken in on humanity and revealed itself to be a someone. First things first, though. Dr Kreeft was explaining the greater rationality of Theism over Atheism. Do you agree?
Side Note:I have not read Stephen Hawkings book, but I have watch his show about the origin of the universe on the Science Channel. The conclusion at the very end of the show is that the universe comes from nothing (literally). I kid you not. I find it amazing that a scientist accustom to the scientific method would accept this as a reasonable conclusion.
Ben, they are not saying it literally comes from nothing. They would be talking about a perfect vacuum. A state as close to nothing as you can get. This deals with quantum field theory, and you are most likely dealing with a associated zero-point energy to which is the lowest energy state of quantum system to which is often also referred to as the ground state. The vacuum is the ground state of all the fields, and is considered the ground state of energy and matter. Thus the state they are in reference to is a perfect vacuum state to where there are no stars, galaxies, atom, or particles. It is the fracturing of symmetry of this state that likely caused the inflationary event you know as the big bang.. The big bang is not a magical poof into existence from nothing, it's an inflationary event.. Hence just like the birth of a bubble in a bubble bath is an inflationary event. So what science is trying to figure out is exactly how that event likely happened. But in short, The Universe gave birth to the Observable Universe. This doesn't mean an intelligence wasn't involved, but the science shows it is not required for the same reason a bubble doesn't necessarily need a little kid blowing bubble as natural processes and forces are perfectly capable of doing so on their own.
"God did not begin to exist, therefore the first premise does not apply"Then you're an atheist. God doesn't exist. "Please understand that what Ben's statement says implies something outside the physical universe."That's just a neat way of saying you have no evidence and never will have any evidence."The point is that there has to be SOMETHING other than material."Why? Because theists say so?" If one's eyes can only see light in certain wavelengths, then the absence of light should not yield an unconditioned statement that there is no light."That's why science uses tools and develops tools. You can't see a certain wavelength, you use a tool. "The scientific method is not the only methodology that can yield knowledge. It works very well for observable, physical phenomena, but it has limitations. Being unaware of the limitations of a methodology is a mistake and can lead to other mistakes."Yes, but it is the BEST methodology we have. You're literally using it to read this message right now. My point being, religion is NOT the best method. It's faulty and relies on no evidence. " I can only follow the data I have"Which you've basically said is none. You have no data. You only have faith."Once a God is established it is certainly possible that this God has no interest in being known by us at all. In that case, we'd be wrong. The God of Christianity has actually broken in on humanity and revealed itself to be a someone."If he's broken in, then there should be evidence that he has interacted with the physical universe, whether he is physical or not. Therefore, science should be able to detect him using observation.Nada. So far nada on that front."First things first, though. Dr Kreeft was explaining the greater rationality of Theism over Atheism. Do you agree?"Definitely not. I emphatically disagree for all of the reasons mentioned above. Having faith in something is the opposite of rational. It's like me telling you I believe in something supernatural and then telling you it's rational. Would you think it's rational for me to believe in dragons, ghosts, invisible gnomes?Of course not! And you'd be absolutely right. You've even said you have no basis whatsoever for believing in one God over another. Your belief is basically due to your upbringing, social conditioning and geographic location. "I kid you not. I find it amazing that a scientist accustom to the scientific method would accept this as a reasonable conclusion."And yet he does! He's won several science awards. The guy is basically the Einstein of our age, and you think a bunch of primitives writing an ancient book is a better source of knowledge. We've established you have no way of proving your position. You've admitted you have no way of figuring out which God myth is true, and merely chose one that was comfortable to you. You guys sound like you're smart and I enjoy talking with you. You should see where this is leading if you could only see past your religious blinders. At the very least, you should be a deist or pantheist if you're honest with yourselves.
CA,I can't tell if you are not getting what I am saying because1) I am not explaining it well2) You are getting it but being sarcastic3) You are not getting itIt seems clear that, at this level, we are not communicating.Basics:1) The law of noncontradiction applies in all possible universes2) Something cannot come from nothing.Do you agree with both, one or neither of these? We can work back to the details of this conversation once we both agree on these. If we don't, I have to conclude we have no basis for understanding.Your move.
"The point is that there has to be SOMETHING other than material."Why? Because theists say so?Canadian Atheist, no, because apparently some atheists say so, ;)Check it out...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeSZN5l61F8
"2) Something cannot come from nothing."Yes, I've explained to you that scientists aren't saying something can come from nothing. You're using that argument probably because Christian apologists use it. It isn't even close to the truth.For example, Lawrence had this to say about this:Nothing is far more subtle than you might imagine, for the Bible for example, nothing would have been a vast, eternal empty universe. That would have been, you know, a void. Well that kind of nothing we now understand--namely empty space if you get rid of all the particles and all the radiation--that kind of nothing is actually quite complicated. In the modern universe it’s a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a timescale so short you can’t see them. So there’s nothing there but actually lots of stuff is happening. You just can’t see it, and that kind of nothing, one of the remarkable things we’ve learned is that kind of nothing is unstable. Empty space is unstable.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/lawrence-krauss-universe-from-nothing_n_1681113.htmlAgain, you can't just stick God in wherever or whenever you don't understand something or science doesn't know the answer. And yes, I'm not contradicting myself. I just don't think you can find a way to refute what I said.Just produce some proof. Rationality does not start with believing stuff before it's proven to be true.
CA,You said "I've explained to you that scientists aren't saying something can come from nothing. You're using that argument probably because Christian apologists use it. It isn't even close to the truth."I will refute what you said in the simplest possible way.Lawrence (and you) are misusing the word "nothing".Specifically, what was there before the complicated "something" that you are calling nothing? Nothing means nothing. Not something that is invisible or empty or unstable. Space is not "nothing" either. For it to be nothing, there need be no time nor space.Can you work with that? Insisting that nothing means something is too late and a misnomer. Go back further.