Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

One explanation.

Just to be clear, that is your view also ?

[ProfessorDavey]

My inabilities or otherwise are non sequitur to the claim by Bertrand Russell et al that the universe just is.

Well you'll have to ask Russell his views - but as with Broad and Godel that is going to be tricky as they are all dead.

Do you think the universe just is?

I have no idea. Firstly because I don't think we know nearly enough yet about the universe to come to such conclusions. But secondly - I don't know what this actually means. It implies to me that the universe has always existed (i.e in the past) and will always exist (i.e in the future). But that brings us back to the notion of time and that sort of comment again seems predicated on the notion that time somehow always exists, runs in one direction only and at a set speed. Those assumptions don't seem particularly robust.

So until you can be much more clear on what you (or Russell, but you can't get clarity from him as he's dead) mean by 'the universe just is' then it is impossible to provide an answer, even were we to have enough information, which we don't.

[Outrider]

I'm glad you asked.
I am indebted for part of my argument to an atheist internet philosopher who was trying to debunk the Thomist argument from change. The 'debunking ' went something like this. Modern science leads us to support the B theory of time and the block universe in which all of existence the whole of space time exists as a block in which there can be no change as such since past present and future are all 'blocked.

viewed in all their dimensions then, things which change are really kinds of static lumps representing there existence in the block universe. Like raisins in a cake.

Since change then is an illusion, then so is science, evolution, emergence anything that involves change.

So nothing actually changes and therefore process and mechanisms are illusions.

Since there is no mechanism there can be no actual thinking.

But hang on, something is experiencing change. Change is being percieved. It cannot be the brain percieving it since the brain doesn't change.

One explanation is that what is percieving change cannot be part of this block universe must be scanning through the lump in blocked  existence that equates to our bodies' history.

So our consciousnesses must be as you say, outwith the blocked universe our bodies inhabit but there must be a specific connection with our blocked brains and it's blocked history with this consciousness which is doing the scanning and has to be outwith the universe.

The dilemma now is, for the brain functionists among you who see consciousness as an emergence out of brain processes, Does all that have to be dumped.....or do you have to dump the block universe model you use when arguing cosmologically?

The universe then in a block universe is not  a scientifically observed process or processes but more like a piece of art.

Finally, now it looks as though Alan Burns has an argument I expect his detractors to grovel apologetically before him. Perhaps you Seb should eat a plate of luverly English eel pie and Mash and Hillside, an essex chap made to publicly declare Alan a 'Diamond Geezer'
and maybe those who think I can only think in terms of time's arrow should be grovelling to me. So get on those knees Davey.

There is a misinterpretation here, in that the block-time concept does not mean that, from one point in time to another there is no change, but rather that at the moment of change there is no real 'choice' about what that change will be. At the point in time changes are occuring, but you can't change your mind and make things go a different way, because where the universe is going is not just already determined but already in existence further along that dimensional axis.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you think the universe just is?

Do you think that god just is?

If so, please show your workings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

I have no idea. Firstly because I don't think we know nearly enough yet about the universe to come to such conclusions. But secondly - I don't know what this actually means. It implies to me that the universe has always existed (i.e in the past) and will always exist (i.e in the future). But that brings us back to the notion of time and that sort of comment again seems predicated on the notion that time somehow always exists, runs in one direction only and at a set speed. Those assumptions don't seem particularly robust.

So until you can be much more clear on what you (or Russell, but you can't get clarity from him as he's dead) mean by 'the universe just is' then it is impossible to provide an answer, even were we to have enough information, which we don't.

I’ve always taken Russell’s "I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all"* not to be a claim of an explanation, but rather to be a statement of all we can legitimately say given our current knowledge and means of enquiry. 

Vlad thinks that gives him licence to insert a universe-creating god, but of course that just restates the position as "I should say that God is just there, and that is all" as if that answers anything.       


*Bertrand Russell BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God, Bertrand Russell v. Frederick Copleston (1948)

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi Prof,

I’ve always taken Russell’s "I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all"* not to be a claim of an explanation, but rather to be a statement of all we can legitimately say given our current knowledge and means of enquiry.

That seems to make sense - effectively that in the absence of evidence to the contrary we may presume that the universe is there and we should base our understanding of the nature of things within the universe on that basis. Seems sensible and doesn't preclude continuing to strive to understand the nature of the universe better which may require us to revise our presumption.

Vlad thinks that gives him licence to insert a universe-creating god, but of course that just restates the position as "I should say that God is just there, and that is all" as if that answers anything.

Which, of course, it doesn't - we either need to go further in infinite regress or the need for special pleading - noting of course that a useful real-world working presumption, which allows you to understand other things, is not the same as a firm and unchangeable conclusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to be clear, that is your view also ?

Well there are several theories of time, dynamic universes with time, block universes and growing block universes.
Now here's the thing The same people who advocate the block universe in which the past present and future all exist as we speak advocate the universe as a collection of processes and increasing complexity from which consciousness arises and there is an integral contradiction there. I suppose that's holding the B theory for your keeping the integrity of scientific thought but the A theory for the sake of keeping your scientific job.

 Alan plumps for a universe whereby consciousness is outside the universe and one way that can be is if the universe is a block universe because a block universe cannot possibly give rise to anything let alone consciousness. Consciousness  must be outside the universe but connected to it somehow. In this respect then Alan is right and you are wrong since you suggest a change that is impossible leading to a consciousness that doesn't satisfy the physics of the universe, only the illusion of physics in our consciousness.

The dilemma is yours the A theory of time and being right, perhaps, about consciousness or the B theory and Alan being right in believing that consciousness is without the universe.

In neither eventuality though is God disproved or change disproved. And if modern science plumps for the B theory then who am I to argue?

[Sebastian Toe]

Well there are several theories of time, dynamic universes with time, block universes and growing block universes.
Now here's the thing The same people who advocate the block universe in which the past present and future all exist as we speak advocate the universe as a collection of processes and increasing complexity from which consciousness arises and there is an integral contradiction there. I suppose that's holding the B theory for your keeping the integrity of scientific thought but the A theory for the sake of keeping your scientific job.

 Alan plumps for a universe whereby consciousness is outside the universe and one way that can be is if the universe is a block universe because a block universe cannot possibly give rise to anything let alone consciousness. Consciousness  must be outside the universe but connected to it somehow. In this respect then Alan is right and you are wrong since you suggest a change that is impossible leading to a consciousness that doesn't satisfy the physics of the universe, only the illusion of physics in our consciousness.

The dilemma is yours the A theory of time and being right, perhaps, about consciousness or the B theory and Alan being right in believing that consciousness is without the universe.

In neither eventuality though is God disproved or change disproved. And if modern science plumps for the B theory then who am I to argue?

All very well but back to the question,  is it your view also?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Prof,

I’ve always taken Russell’s "I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all"* not to be a claim of an explanation, but rather to be a statement of all we can legitimately say given our current knowledge and means of enquiry.

Evidence? or wishful thinking on your part? After all doesn't the term brute fact come into Russell's thinking or commentary of it?

Vlad thinks that gives him licence to insert a universe-creating god, but of course that just restates the position as "I should say that God is just there, and that is all" as if that answers anything.

I don't think that gives me licence but the argument from contingency and the PSR might.

 God is the name for the necessary entity that explains the contingency of all things we observe in the universe. If there is something necessary we haven't observed then that is er, the necessary entity so that is unavoidable. So the necessity entity has sufficient reason within the PSR.

Sean Carroll knows that for Russell to be right, I.e. the universe just is and there's an end to it, the argument from contingency and PSR which support the necessary being have to be disproved and announces that he is embarking on that quest (embarking mad if you ask me)

Infinite regress is no explanation of course and the universe as a whole being necessary endangers your resultant idea of emergent properties.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All very well but back to the question,  is it your view also?

What Arsehattedness is this Seb?

I've said I wouldn't argue with the Block universe model of modern science and that say's Alan is closer to the truth than you types.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a misinterpretation here, in that the block-time concept does not mean that, from one point in time to another there is no change, but rather that at the moment of change there is no real 'choice' about what that change will be. At the point in time changes are occuring, but you can't change your mind and make things go a different way, because where the universe is going is not just already determined but already in existence further along that dimensional axis.

O.

If the universe past, present and future is already here then process is an illusion caused by a non physical mind scanning a physical block. If it were physical it would be as static and as incapable of change as the block physical universe. Your argument is self contradictory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence? or wishful thinking on your part? After all doesn't the term brute fact come into Russell's thinking or commentary of it?

Evidence for what? So far as I know BR never claimed we had sufficient knowledge to answer every question so “brute fact” is where we have to stop sometimes until and unless better knowledge and methods do arrive. Hardly controversial I’d have thought.   

I don't think that gives me licence but the argument from contingency and the PSR might.

God is the name for the necessary entity that explains the contingency of all things we observe in the universe. If there is something necessary we haven't observed then that is er, the necessary entity so that is unavoidable. So the necessity entity has sufficient reason within the PSR.

Except of course this fails at the first step because you’d have to show ab initio that “the universe” itself can’t be it's own “necessary entity”.

Sean Carroll knows that for Russell to be right, I.e. the universe just is and there's an end to it, the argument from contingency and PSR which support the necessary being have to be disproved and announces that he is embarking on that quest (embarking mad if you ask me)…

Naturally you’ll be providing some citations for this claim?

Infinite regress is no explanation of course and the universe as a whole being necessary endangers your resultant idea of emergent properties.

Gibberish. Whatever it is you’re trying to say here though would apply just as much to a god as to a universe would it not? How is it that you just special plead your way out of that (essentially, “cos god’s magic") and deny the same answer to the universe?             

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...then process is an illusion caused by a non physical mind...

WTF? How on earth did you make that jump, and what in any case would "non-physical" even mean here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

WTF? How on earth did you make that jump, and what in any case would "non-physical" even mean here?

If the universe is a block then where you have a past, present and future all existing in the same block makes change non physical. Since our perceptions change then our consciousness cannot be physical. If it was there would be no perception of change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gibberish. Whatever it is you’re trying to say here though would apply just as much to a god as to a universe would it not? How is it that you just special plead your way out of that (essentially, “cos god’s magic") and deny the same answer to the universe?             

So Hillside you won't give evidence but you expect it...same old Gaslighting essex shitas per usual.

God is the necessary entity. The universe shows contingency. That's why your argument fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you'll have to ask Russell his views - but as with Broad and Godel that is going to be tricky as they are all dead.
I have no idea. Firstly because I don't think we know nearly enough yet about the universe to come to such conclusions. But secondly - I don't know what this actually means. It implies to me that the universe has always existed (i.e in the past) and will always exist (i.e in the future).

It implies to me that it is a block. The existence of consciousness means that it is not the only existent thing and that whatever it sits in contains observers of it, so I don't see how you can obtain a notion of time or duration from a block, duration cannot be derived from a block where all of time is fixed.

It seems to me more like a piece of art.

[ProfessorDavey]

God is the necessary entity.

Blimey - that's one humdinger of a positive claim. And as we all know the onus is on you to justify a positive claim Vlad. And to do so without resorting to circular arguments, unevidenced presumptions or special pleading.

So let's break this one down, shall we:

1. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that god exists - onus on you to prove this claim Vlad.

2. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that necessary entities are a thing - onus on you to prove that there are things that are necessary but not contingent.

3. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that there is only one necessary entity - noting the above onus on you to prove that there is exactly one necessary entity - not zero or more than one, but only one.

And once you have done all that, and only once you have done all that can we return to:

"God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim - onus on you to prove that god is the necessary entity - of course this cannot be done until you have proved steps 1-3 above.

Good luck with that - and don't forget no circular arguments, no unevidenced presumptions and no special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blimey - that's one humdinger of a positive claim. And as we all know the onus is on you to justify a positive claim Vlad. And to do so without resorting to circular arguments, unevidenced presumptions or special pleading.

So let's break this one down, shall we:

1. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that god exists - onus on you to prove this claim Vlad.

2. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that necessary entities are a thing - onus on you to prove that there are things that are necessary but not contingent.

3. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that there is only one necessary entity - noting the above onus on you to prove that there is exactly one necessary entity - not zero or more than one, but only one.

And once you have done all that, and only once you have done all that can we return to:

"God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim - onus on you to prove that god is the necessary entity - of course this cannot be done until you have proved steps 1-3 above.

Good luck with that - and don't forget no circular arguments, no unevidenced presumptions and no special pleading.

This isn't the argument from contingency though is it and so isn't one I could put me name to.
The argument from contingency starts with contingent things......That is why it is called the argument from contingency.

In it's Thomist form it ends ''and that is what we call God''. Namely having established a necessary entity the argument ENDS with the necessary entity being called God.) Further consideration reveals his sovereignty(His independence and rule). Other attributes are implied or derived from other arguments. No temporality is required for this so the argument from contingency stands even if the universe is eternal or not. The argument concerns existence. 

[Outrider]

If the universe past, present and future is already here then process is an illusion caused by a non physical mind scanning a physical block.

No, process is the viewpoint of a constant movement through the dimension of time.

If it were physical it would be as static and as incapable of change as the block physical universe.

In the instant it is, but we aren't talking about being restricted to an instantaneous moment. Just a Moscow is still there, but out of sight in the distance, so the future is still there.

Your argument is self contradictory.

No, there is a difference in viewing reality as a block of time and viewing reality change with respect to time.

O.
[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

In it's Thomist form it ends ''and that is what we call God''.

I'm not interested in what Aquinas claims - you have made the claim, the onus is on you to justify it - not some long dead monk.

And here is a tip - you cannot use a positive claim that presumes god exists as justification that ... err ... god exists. Perhaps you don't understand what a circular argument is Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, process is the viewpoint of a constant movement through the dimension of time.

That though perfectly describes a mind scanning through a block universe where past present and future are all in a static block. Since each moment is there already there is no process, no transition, no change unless from a perspective that cannot be subject to the physics entailed in and by a static block. In other words your statement doesn't demonstrate incorrectness in my statements. Anything in the block is subject to being as if in a block.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not interested in what Aquinas claims - you have made the claim, the onus is on you to justify it - not some long dead monk.

And here is a tip - you cannot use a positive claim that presumes god exists as justification that ... err ... god exists. Perhaps you don't understand what a circular argument is Vlad.

I only make the same claim. So I have not presumed that God exists since God is what I call the necessary entity that the argument FROM contingent things CONCLUDES with. I argue God from contingency and if you wish to refute that then you have to since I'm not in a position to.

I don't have to do anything more than what I have done.

[ProfessorDavey]

I only make the same claim.

Then it is your claim - onus on you to justify it Vlad. Given that Aquinas has been dead for centuries I cannot challenge him on this can I.

So I have not presumed that God exists ...

Yes you have as you have asserted that:

"God is the necessary entity."

That undoubtedly is a positive claim that god exists - therefore the onus is on you to prove this Vlad.

Waiting for you (not some long dead monk) to justify that:

1. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that god exists - onus on you to prove this claim Vlad.

2. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that necessary entities are a thing - onus on you to prove that there are things that are necessary but not contingent.

3. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that there is only one necessary entity - noting the above onus on you to prove that there is exactly one necessary entity - not zero or more than one, but only one.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't have to do anything more than what I have done.

But you haven't justified any of your claims - there are four as far as I can see - which is a lot of claims in a statement of just five words.

You can of course 'fold' and refuse to justify you claims, which is what you appear to be doing. But they are your claims and for you to justify. If you fail to do so then we will assume, therefore, that there is no justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then it is your claim - onus on you to justify it Vlad. Given that Aquinas has been dead for centuries I cannot challenge him on this can I.
Yes you have as you have asserted that:

"God is the necessary entity."

That undoubtedly is a positive claim that god exists - therefore the onus is on you to prove this Vlad.

Waiting for you (not some long dead monk) to justify that:

1. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that god exists - onus on you to prove this claim Vlad.

2. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that necessary entities are a thing - onus on you to prove that there are things that are necessary but not contingent.

3. "God is the necessary entity."

Positive claim that there is only one necessary entity - noting the above onus on you to prove that there is exactly one necessary entity - not zero or more than one, but only one.

I'm not getting you or what can be provided more than anything that has already been provided(sufficient reason).

Why can't there be more than one necessary entity because there would have to be a framework or context in which there could be more than one  and that framework would be the necessary entity on which the number of multiple necessary entities would be dependent. Necessary entities are not dependent on anything.

You cannot have contingency without necessity, you cannot have more than one necessary entity. There is no zero option because that would be the necessary and patently isn't A necessary entity is not subject to anything including zero. You would need a framework in which there was either a non existant zero or a necessarily existing god.