Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

So you are proposing a universe which doesn't run by entropy so we dont need a God who doesn't run by entropy?

No.

If so
Can you see the obvious problem here?
That's right the universe does run by entropy.

With your straw man? Yes, lots. Maybe though there is isn’t “the universe” but rather multiple universes that have suffered heat death only for new ones to pop up and suffer heat death in turn and we just happen to be part of one such, or maybe anything. That’s the thing when evidence runs out – we hit a “don’t know” and trying to drawn meaningful meta-conclusions on the basis if that is pointless.     

Now you could argue that there might be part of the universe that doesn't ru.n by entropy.

I could, but I haven’t.

But wouldn't this be beyond space and time?
Also because it was not subject to entropy . It would be unaffected by the entropic part.

No idea – it’s your speculation, you tell me.

Because it is non entropic it would not be subject to the laws of nature. Hillside......you could very well have proposed something supernatural there.

Er, you proposed it remember – not me.

If you arent proposing a universe which is non entropic. Why did it not experience heat death an infinitely long time ago.

Perhaps it did and we live in a more recent one. Perhaps countless such have suffered heat death. Perhaps countless new universes are bubbling into being all the time. Who can say?

Whatever the conjecture though, none it is provides one jot of an iota of a tittle of a justification for “therefore god”. You should by now have grasped the god of the gaps is a very bad argument surely?   

If God was entropic then as far as his existence is concerned heat death wouldn't affect his existence per se.

Er, yes it would – that’s what “entropic” implies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

No.

With your straw man? Yes, lots. Maybe though there is isn’t “the universe” but rather multiple universes that have suffered heat death only for new ones to pop up and suffer heat death in turn and we just happen to be part of one such, or maybe anything. That’s the thing when evidence runs out – we hit a “don’t know” and trying to drawn meaningful meta-conclusions on the basis if that is pointless.     

I could, but I haven’t.

No idea – it’s your speculation, you tell me.

Er, you proposed it remember – not me.

Perhaps it did and we live in a more recent one. Perhaps countless such have suffered heat death. Perhaps countless new universes are bubbling into being all the time. Who can say?

Whatever the conjecture though, none it is provides one jot of an iota of a tittle of a justification for “therefore god”. You should by now have grasped the god of the gaps is a very bad argument surely?   

Er, yes it would – that’s what “entropic” implies.

As far as I recall you proposed an infinitely old universe.
Any previous universe should still exist in a heat dead state.
If they still exist in what sense can they said to precede our universe?
They cannot produce us since they are heat dead and cannot even randomly reorder.

If they did reorder it would not be random but done by something not prone to entropy.

So Hillside so far you have suggested the supernatural and now it looks like some kind of resurrection has occurred.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also Hillside if you propose a previous universe it makes us a subsequent universe and that suggests a universe which has a beginning rather than one that is infinitely old.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

As far as I recall you proposed an infinitely old universe.

“Proposed” as in a “maybe”, one of many maybes known and unknown.

Any previous universe should still exist in a heat dead state.

Why, and even if that was right why should it be observably there to us?

If they still exist in what sense can they said to precede our universe?

What would “precede” mean when spacetime itself is a property of this universe?
 

They cannot produce us since they are heat dead and cannot even randomly reorder.

No-one said they could.

If they did reorder it would not be random but done by something not prone to entropy.

A dubious claim, but irrelevant in any case.

So Hillside so far you have suggested the supernatural and now it looks like some kind of resurrection has occurred.

Just explain how you got to “supernatural” from anything I said, or is that just something else you’ve made up?
 

Also Hillside if you propose a previous universe it makes us a subsequent universe and that suggests a universe which has a beginning rather than one that is infinitely old.

Again, what would the time-related term “previous” even mean here?

The fundamental point you just ignored though is that, in addition to various conjectures about possible answers, the paucity of our knowledge just now means we quickly run up against a “don’t know”. You cannot however just use that gap to assert “therefore god” as if that had any explanatory force at all. You should know this by now.

[ippy]

Also Hillside if you propose a previous universe it makes us a subsequent universe and that suggests a universe which has a beginning rather than one that is infinitely old.

Could it be that gaslighting isn't the the problem it used to be since the introduction of safety measures such as the thermocouple where the gas lighter is automatically cut off if it's becoming a problem?

I suppose there must be quiet a few places where theromcouples have saved the day, stopped problems?

ippy
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

“Proposed” as in a “maybe”, one of many maybes known and unknown.

Why, and even if that was right why should it be observably there to us?

What would “precede” mean when spacetime itself is a property of this universe?
 
No-one said they could.

A dubious claim, but irrelevant in any case.

Just explain how you got to “supernatural” from anything I said, or is that just something else you’ve made up?
 

Again, what would the time-related term “previous” even mean here?

The fundamental point you just ignored though is that, in addition to various conjectures about possible answers, the paucity of our knowledge just now means we quickly run up against a “don’t know”. You cannot however just use that gap to assert “therefore god” as if that had any explanatory force at all. You should know this by now.

Nice to see you dropping your objections against things being beyond time and space.
Unless other universes have any contribution to make to our universe then they are of less use to anyone than even the most deistic of creators.
Heat dead universes dont do anything in particular and a heat death an infinitely long time ago is what would have happened to our universe were it infinitely old.
A heat dead multiverse doesn't seem to explain our universe neither does an infinitely old universe..........where else can we go?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Nice to see you dropping your objections against things being beyond time and space.

I haven’t. What I said was that time and space themselves become meaningless terms when spacetime itself is a property the universe. You can’t be “before” time; you can’t be “beyond” space. If you want to posit spooks and ghoulies to which these properties don’t apply you’re on your own for ways of describing whatever state you think they’re in.   
 

Unless other universes have any contribution to make to our universe then they are of less use to anyone than even the most deistic of creators.p

No-one said they were of any “use” for anything. What was actually said was that there may have been any number of such with internal spacetime continuau of their own. That’s all.

Heat dead universes dont do anything in particular and a heat death an infinitely long time ago is what would have happened to our universe were it infinitely old.

What are you even trying to say here?

A heat dead multiverse doesn't seem to explain our universe…

No one said it would. All that was said was that there may be any number of such. 

…neither does an infinitely old universe..........

Why not?

…where else can we go?

Plausibly to lots of places. And if all the currently plausible options are one day shown to be implausible, then we'd have just a don’t know. And when we have a don’t know, that’s all we have. There’s no logical next step that says, therefore Zeus/Ra/God/Wodin/leprechauns/whatever.

That’s your mistake that you keep ducking. Even if every possibly explanation we happen to have just now was shown to be wrong, and you were daft enough to think that to be a justification for the claim “god” still all you’d have is a god of the gaps. I’ve explained this to you before (oftentimes), and yet still you return to exactly the same mistake over and over again. Why?

Yet again: imagine two Norsemen in a thunderstorm. Ug hears the thunder and says to Od, “how do you explain that then?”. Od says, “No idea”. Ug responds with, “See. It must be Thor then”. 

Would Ug’s reasoning be sound? Why not?   

[Sebastian Toe]

....where else can we go?

...we could go to the Energy Omniverse speculation.
That is, pure energy premiates everything in existence.
Our universe is a result of an eddy or spark within that unending, eternal, infinite "pool".
There may or may not be other "universes" caused or yet to be caused by similar means.
That we will never know.
The heat death of our universe could simply be likened to a melted ice cube in a vast unending ocean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...we could go to the Energy Omniverse speculation.
That is, pure energy premiates everything in existence.
Our universe is a result of an eddy or spark within that unending, eternal, infinite "pool".
There may or may not be other "universes" caused or yet to be caused by similar means.
That we will never know.
The heat death of our universe could simply be likened to a melted ice cube in a vast unending ocean.

...we could go to the Energy Omniverse speculation.
That is, pure energy premiates everything in existence.
Our universe is a result of an eddy or spark within that unending, eternal, infinite "pool".
There may or may not be other "universes" caused or yet to be caused by similar means.
That we will never know.
The heat death of our universe could simply be likened to a melted ice cube in a vast unending ocean.

I'm keen to get there.
Some points to be getting on. E=MC squared so how can everything be permitted with energy when it is energy or rather energy undergoing entropy?

Secondly in the heat death of a universe it isnt that energy escapes anywhere it's that it is spread out to such an extent that no more useful work is possible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

I'm keen to get there.
Some points to be getting on. E=MC squared so how can everything be permitted with energy when it is energy or rather energy undergoing entropy?

Secondly in the heat death of a universe it isnt that energy escapes anywhere it's that it is spread out to such an extent that no more useful work is possible.

Given your track record, it seems highly unlikely you want to “get there” at all. If you do have any interest in the science though then there’s a perfectly serviceable area for that on this mb. If – as seems more likely – you just want to continue with your god of the gaps schtick however then you’re in the right place, albeit that you must expect it to be detonated every time you try it.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm keen to get there.
Some points to be getting on. E=MC squared so how can everything be permitted with energy when it is energy or rather energy undergoing entropy?

You could speculate that the original pure energy has transformed into matter and light etc as we "see" it in our universe where E=MC squared.
However, in the Omniverse that is still and always will be, energy.
Nothing has changed there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could speculate that the original pure energy has transformed into matter and light etc as we "see" it in our universe where E=MC squared.
However, in the Omniverse that is still and always will be, energy.
Nothing has changed there.

I think we are looking at then potential energy. If this energy was uniform then there would be no potential energy because there would be no potential difference or energy gradient.

Thing only start happening where there is an energy gradient. No gradient no happening.

In short then to change this eternal nothingness something has to enter in to create the gradient.

[Gordon]

I think we are looking at then potential energy. If this energy was uniform then there would be no potential energy because there would be no potential difference or energy gradient.

Thing only start happening where there is an energy gradient. No gradient no happening.

In short then to change this eternal nothingness something has to enter in to create the gradient.

Spock: "It's physics, Captain, but not as we know it - we must have drifted into the Twilight Zone.

Kirk: "Scotty, go to warp factor z1 - let's get out of here before our thinking is compromised - engage!"

[Sebastian Toe]

I think we are looking at then potential energy. If this energy was uniform then there would be no potential energy because there would be no potential difference or energy gradient.

Thing only start happening where there is an energy gradient. No gradient no happening.

In short then to change this eternal nothingness something has to enter in to create the gradient.

Nope, you are stuck in Einsteinian/Newtonian thinking here.
I speculate that Omnivesal rules could be completely different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spock: "It's physics, Captain, but not as we know it - we must have drifted into the Twilight Zone.

Kirk: "Scotty, go to warp factor z1 - let's get out of here before our thinking is compromised - engage!"

I'm sorry Gordon but you've always struck me as having enough science to keep your moped going and that's about it.

[Sebastian Toe]

..anyhoo we are digressing from a far more important topic on this thread.
The ...forces of evil....
Alan is yet to disclose how to recognise them, how they actually influence us and what we should do with that knowledge .... once he has imparted it upon us.


After all, our eternal souls are at risk and he seems reticent in helping!

I am beginning to be suspicious of his motives!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, you are stuck in Einsteinian/Newtonian thinking here.
I speculate that Omnivesal rules could be completely different.

Well they don't seem to have an 'r' in the word universal for starters so anything is possible. I might be Prime minister,Hillside could be interesting and you could be funny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Well they don't seem to have an 'r' in the word universal for starters so anything is possible. I might be Prime minister,Hillside could be interesting and you could be funny.

You can only be interesting to someone with sufficient grasp of the issues to find them interesting. That's you out. 

Anyway, you’re still confused: this is the Christian Topic area. Unless you’re still peddling a god of the gaps, you’re in the wrong place.

You’re not are you?     

[Sebastian Toe]

Well they don't seem to have an 'r' in the word universal for starters so anything is possible. I might be Prime minister,Hillside could be interesting and you could be funny.

I couldn't be r'sed!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you do have any interest in the science though then there’s a perfectly serviceable area for that on this mb.

Yes you would like unfalsifiable stuff like Cosmogony multiverses under science When it's perfectly obvious that science doesn't have the answers.

It's rather like Waterstones stocking The God Delusion in the science section. If that had to go in a science section Masturbatory scientism would have been a more appropriate section. But if you insist let's transfer some of this to the science section.

[Outrider]

I maybe should have said that they become aware of their freedom to choose between right and wrong at a certain age.

Fair enough.

There are two possibilities: either the universe made itself, or it was made.

Depends on your interpretation of 'made' - if it occurs naturally, like rain, without a conscious input is that 'made'?  There is an outside possibility that it's in some way infinite and didn't 'start' at all, although I'm not in that camp mysefl.

Some people would say 'order' points to the latter.

I don't see how that follows. Rain falls, consistently, which is an example of 'order' but isn't indicative of a conscious controlling influence.  Order is necessary for something to be stable enough for us to emerge within it, but that's not evidence for a conscious creator, it's just evidence that the current stability of natural laws has been the case for some time.

I wasn't talking about what you believe, but what you know. Like you can know that smoking is bad for you but still smoke.

I've heard this argument from believers of a number of stripes, that at some level there are some (in some formulations, all) atheists who actually 'know' that it's true but somehow push it down?  Quite apart from how patronising that is to level at someone, I've not come across anyone who admits fitting into that category; there are believers who follow what they feel are the precepts of their faith, believers who think they should but admit that they fail to one degree or another, and non-believers.  I don't know of anyone who describes themselves as a believer that deliberately flouts the rules.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Perce,

Yes you would like unfalsifiable stuff like Cosmogony multiverses under science When it's perfectly obvious that science doesn't have the answers.

It's rather like Waterstones stocking The God Delusion in the science section. If that had to go in a science section Masturbatory scientism would have been a more appropriate section. But if you insist let's transfer some of this to the science section.

Well that was stupid. Science proceeds on the basis of conjectures, hypotheses and theories. It starts though from known principles, and seeks to propose ways to validate or to invalidate its ideas. Thus its ideas are plausible.

Religion on the other hand says, “god is a fact and he he works by magic” and that’s it. Thus its one idea is implausible.

If it helps you: scientific conjectures and hypotheses are the beginning of enquiry; religious assertions are the end of it.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perce,

Well that was stupid. Science proceeds on the basis of conjectures, hypotheses and theories. It starts though from known principles, and seeks to propose ways to validate or to invalidate its ideas. Thus its ideas are plausible.

Religion on the other hand says, “god is a fact and he he works by magic” and that’s it. Thus its one idea is implausible.

If it helps you: scientific conjectures and hypotheses are the beginning of enquiry; religious assertions are the end of it.     

Masturbatory scientism.

[Alan Burns]

..anyhoo we are digressing from a far more important topic on this thread.
The ...forces of evil....
Alan is yet to disclose how to recognise them, how they actually influence us and what we should do with that knowledge .... once he has imparted it upon us.


After all, our eternal souls are at risk and he seems reticent in helping!

I am beginning to be suspicious of his motives!

These digressions highlight many things humanity does not know or does not understand.
We do not know how the universe began.
We do not know what is beyond our universe.
We do not comprehend the existence of infinity in time and/or space.
We do not know how conscious awareness can emerge from material reactions.
We do not know what conscious awareness is.
We do not know how anything can come into existence from nothing.

It would appear that the more we try to make sense of our existence, the more we discover that we do not know.

So I stick to the things I do know:
I know that I exist.
I know I have a will of my own.
I know God loves me.
I know God made Himself known to me through Jesus Christ.
I know God suffered and died to take away my sin and bring me eternal life.

[Outrider]

These digressions highlight many things humanity does not know or does not understand.
We do not know how the universe began.
We do not know what is beyond our universe.
We do not comprehend the existence of infinity in time and/or space.
We do not know how conscious awareness can emerge from material reactions.
We do not know what conscious awareness is.
We do not know how anything can come into existence from nothing.

It would appear that the more we try to make sense of our existence, the more we discover that we do not know.

So I stick to the things I do know:
I know that I exist.
I know I have a will of my own.
I know God loves me.
I know God made Himself known to me through Jesus Christ.
I know God suffered and died to take away my sin and bring me eternal life.

Wow, classic case of selective interpretations - we 'know' what conscious awareness is to at least the same degree that you 'know' you have a will of your own, and certainly with far more certainty than anyone can claim to 'know' about Jesus, sin or Gods.

You keep failing to differentiate between the profundity of your belief and knowledge - it's not about how certain you are, but whether that certainty is in any way justifiable.

O.