Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

My own view is that there must be a reason and if that reason which as we all know exists, exists then it has always existed. Stranger says it is the space time manifold I call it God

Please stop lying about what I have said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it isn't, not literally anyway. As I already pointed out, it is defined entirely with reference to a single observer.

Of course it could have been created, although we have zero evidence for it and you would need some sort of meta-time (again something we have no evidence of) for the act of creation to take place in. My point was in response to Alan's claim (#48293) that "Anything which is created must exist in time because it cannot have existed before it was created."

The manifold does not exist in time (because time is an observer dependant direction within it), so take it up with him.

Do you think three-dimensional space or a two-dimensional surface are made of components?

Mathematically space-time is one single four-dimensional Pseudo-Riemannian manifold. As I explained before, and you seem to have ignored, a particular observer will identify one direction through the manifold as time, but that will not in general correspond what some other observer will see as time. How then can you call time a component?

Locally (i.e. at one point in space-time) you can divide it into timelike and spacelike regions but, again, these will not extend indefinitely in the general case beyond the local region. I mentioned black holes before, and, in that case, the space and time coordinates seen by a distant observer (and in fact the whole spacelike and timelike regions they see) will completely break down at the event horizon (a coordinate singularity) but the actual manifold at that point is still smooth and has finite curvature. It you were actually there (and somehow avoided getting ripped apart by the tidal forces) you would notice nothing. You would still have your own local version of time and space. Once inside the horizon, your time coordinate will point towards the centre. What is space to the distant observer would become time to an observer inside the horizon.

This is all far better defined and more coherent than any explanation I've seen for the bizarre claims of a triune god and hence I'm on far more solid ground in claiming space-time is not made of components.

This just tells me you haven't properly understood the argument from contingency.

Triunity or components. Is the space time manifold what we would call the universe?
Triunity is not a mechanistically based idea. Component is. The parts of a machine are contingent on each other and also the number of the parts is also probably contingent also.

I see no corroboration of your idea that the space time manifold is uncreated as yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

spacetime manifold means that this unitary entity spacetime has a shape which is contingent on objects within it. That it is contingent weakens the case for it being ultimate or fundemental.

[Stranger]

This just tells me you haven't properly understood the argument from contingency.

I'm not even talking about it.   

Triunity or components. Is the space time manifold what we would call the universe?

Not exactly, no. It's a kind of background or container for everything.

Triunity is not a mechanistically based idea. Component is.

Sounds like a meaningless cop-out.

The parts of a machine are contingent on each other and also the number of the parts is also probably contingent also.

Who's talking about machines?

I see no corroboration of your idea that the space time manifold is uncreated as yet.

Did you even read my post? As I said, it was Alan's claim that created things must exist in time. The space-time manifold doesn't exist in time.

Alan kind of has a point in the sense that for something to have been created, there kind of has to be some time at which it wasn't there, but that cannot be true of the space-time because (unless you just make up some kind of meta-time) it doesn't exist within time so there can be no time at which it didn't exist.

[Stranger]

spacetime manifold means that this unitary entity spacetime has a shape which is contingent on objects within it. That it is contingent weakens the case for it being ultimate or fundemental.

Yes, the shape of space-time depends on what's in it and what's in it couldn't exist without the space-time, so what? There is no indication that the system depends on anything else.

The whole argument from contingency is incoherent because it lacks any explanation for how it is logically possible for something to exist which couldn't have failed to exist. Absent such an explanation, any claims you make about it (like it can't have components) is just you making shit up. Without the missing explanation, they are baseless, unargued assertions.

I could play the same game. Are not the parts of the trinity contingent on the whole notion of your god, and vice versa?

[Alan Burns]

Blind faith in an old book of myths and a rejection of reason and logic. But only the bits of that book you like, eh?

You seem intent on dismissing the divine revelations of the Christian bible which comprise the most scrutinised books ever written.

To use an illustration given by mathematician professor John Lennox -

No amount of scientific investigation of a cake will reveal who made it or what it was intended for.
You would have to rely on auntie Mable herself to reveal that she made it and for what purpose.

Science can certainly be used to discover what things are made of and how things work, but science will never discover the ultimate source of existence or any meaning or purpose behind our existence.   There have been many conflicting claims on divine revelations in mankind's search for God, so we need to carefully discern what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God.

[Stranger]

Blatant evasion noted.

You seem intent on dismissing the divine revelations of the Christian bible which comprise the most scrutinised books ever written.

Yes, and it's riddled with obvious contradictions.

To use an illustration given by mathematician professor John Lennox -

No amount of scientific investigation of a cake will reveal who made it or what it was intended for.
You would have to rely on auntie Mable herself to reveal that she made it and for what purpose.

You have provided no evidence or reasoning to support the idea that the universe was made, let alone that it was made for anything.

Science can certainly be used to discover what things are made of and how things work, but science will never discover the ultimate source of existence...

Since you claim your god exists, it cannot possibly be the "ultimate source of existence". What about its own existence?

...or any meaning or purpose behind our existence.

See above.

There have been many conflicting claims on divine revelations in mankind's search for God, so we need to carefully discern what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God.

Isn't it strange that pretty much everybody who believe ends up at the conclusion that it is god(s) of their own culture that is/are true? Answer: no, not really. It all being just made up and blind faith explains it perfectly.

[Outrider]

You seem intent on dismissing the divine revelations of the Christian bible which comprise the most scrutinised books ever written.

They don't come across as 'divine revalations', they come across as self-contradictory fairy stories. They have been scrutinised in excessive detail, and there is still no consensus amongst believers exactly what they mean, which bits are literal history and which bits are allegory and which bits are important edicts and which bits are filler. That's before you even start talking about the scrutiny of people who don't believe that it's divinely sourced or inspired.

To use an illustration given by mathematician professor John Lennox -

No amount of scientific investigation of a cake will reveal who made it or what it was intended for. You would have to rely on auntie Mable herself to reveal that she made it and for what purpose.

Absolute nonsense. If Auntie Mabel claims she made it for someone's anniversary but Uncle Frank has the packets from the ingredients and it has 'Happy Birthday' in his handwriting on it, Auntie Mabel's probably lying. Likewise if reality doesn't match up to the claims of your book, your book can be considered to be a work of fiction.

Science can certainly be used to discover what things are made of and how things work, but science will never discover the ultimate source of existence or any meaning or purpose behind our existence.

A) Why not?
B) What makes you think there is an 'ultimate source' or any meaning or purpose?

There have been many conflicting claims on divine revelations in mankind's search for God, so we need to carefully discern what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God.

Or, alternatively, we can carefully discern whether ANY of it has come from a god, or if it has all come from human attempts to claim to know the will of a god. If it can be a hundred times, it can be done one hundred and one.

O.

[torridon]

Science can certainly be used to discover what things are made of and how things work, but science will never discover the ultimate source of existence or any meaning or purpose behind our existence.   There have been many conflicting claims on divine revelations in mankind's search for God, so we need to carefully discern what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God.

And how would you discriminate 'what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God' ?  Ultimately all such claims come from humans, God doesn't write books, humans write them.

[Alan Burns]

And how would you discriminate 'what is from God and what may be from human attempts to source God' ?  Ultimately all such claims come from humans, God doesn't write books, humans write them.

Have you ever contemplated how the messages from the New Testament conflict with what may be considered logical and reasonable by human thinking?
Why do the vinyard workers who joined at the last hour get the same reward as those who worked all day?
How unreasonable is it to love your enemies and do good to those who hate you?
Why does the prodigal son get more praise and reward from his father than his devoted brother?
I could go on ...

The messages and teachings of the NT turn human reasoning and logic upside down because they derive from God - not from our earthly values.

[Outrider]

Have you ever contemplated how the messages from the New Testament conflict with what may be considered logical and reasonable by human thinking?

That's sort of the point.

The messages and teachings of the NT turn human reasoning and logic upside down because they derive from God - not from our earthly values.

Or because they're nonsense. Either or...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Since you claim your god exists, it cannot possibly be the "ultimate source of existence". What about its own existence?

Why can you not understand that there must be an ultimate source of existence?

Do you honestly believe that the universe could somehow bring itself into existence?

The only time line we know of exists and begins in our perceivable universe - we have no knowledge of what could possibly exist outside this time line.

But we do know that something must have caused us to exist - we call it God.

[Stranger]

The messages and teachings of the NT turn human reasoning and logic upside down because they derive from God - not from our earthly values.

Okay, so your 'argument' is that if it seems illogical and mad, it's from god...?

Right, so I can conclude from this 'reasoning' that every religion and superstition is true, despite contradiction each other, including Satanism, demon worship, witchcraft, and the like, that the moon landings were fake, that aliens abduct people to stick probes up their bottoms and draw pretty patterns in fields, the earth is flat, vaccines are a plot by Bill Gates to implant chips in people, Covid was due to 5G, I could go on...

[Stranger]

Why can you not understand that there must be an ultimate source of existence?

This is kind of contradictory because if said 'source' exists, then it's part of what exists itself, and thus needs a 'source' for its existence.

Do you honestly believe that the universe could somehow bring itself into existence?

As I said before, as far as we can tell from current evidence, the whole of space-time is a four-dimensional manifold that contains time. It appears to just be. There is no possibility of it starting to exist, because it is not embedded in a time dimension, so no question of it bringing itself into existence.

The only time line we know of exists and begins in our perceivable universe - we have no knowledge of what could possibly exist outside this time line.

Yet you claim such knowledge all the time.

But we do know that something must have caused us to exist...

No, we don't. I mean we know why humans came to exist within the universe, but any cause for the universe is problematic for the reasons I stated above.

...we call it God.

Even if we accept the questionable premiss, what caused this cause to exist (without using a special pleading fallacy)? Why call it 'god'? How do you know it has anything to do with any religion?

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you honestly believe that the universe could somehow bring itself into existence?

Did God bring itself into existence?

[Outrider]

Why can you not understand that there must be an ultimate source of existence?

Because you've not demonstrated it. Why can reality not be infinite?

Do you honestly believe that the universe could somehow bring itself into existence?

No, I think it was caused by something prior. Why can you honestly not believe that something we know exists (the universe) can be spontaneous, but something we don't know exists (a god) can be?

The only time line we know of exists and begins in our perceivable universe - we have no knowledge of what could possibly exist outside this time line.

And yet you claim to know. You claim to know that there can be nothing natural that could exist outside of the universe that could create it, in order to be able to claim that there must be 'an ultimate source'.

But we do know that something must have caused us to exist - we call it God.

You call it God. I call it physics.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

The only time line we know of exists and begins in our perceivable universe - we have no knowledge of what could possibly exist outside this time line.

Hold on there cowboy.
Is it not your very self that has stated that "you" as in your "soul", exists outwith this time line.
Thus you have claimed such knowledge.
Please explain this apparent contradiction.

P s. "Magic", not an explanation!

[jeremyp]

You seem intent on dismissing the divine revelations of the Christian bible which comprise the most scrutinised books ever written.

The scrutiny of the Bible has shown that it isn't what many fundamentalists claim it to be.

It wasn't written when fundamentalists claim it was written. It wasn't written by who the fundamentalists claim wrote it. Frequently it doesn't say what fundamentalists claim it says. It isn't inerrant and fundamentalists claim.

To use an illustration given by mathematician professor John Lennox -

No amount of scientific investigation of a cake will reveal who made it or what it was intended for.
You would have to rely on auntie Mable herself to reveal that she made it and for what purpose.

There might be traces of human DNA in it that identify Auntie Mabel.

Science can certainly be used to discover what things are made of and how things work, but science will never discover the ultimate source of existence or any meaning or purpose behind our existence. 

What evidence do you have for that claim?

[Alan Burns]

Hold on there cowboy.
Is it not your very self that has stated that "you" as in your "soul", exists outwith this time line.
Thus you have claimed such knowledge.
Please explain this apparent contradiction.

I do not claim to have any specific knowledge of what exists beyond our material universe.
It is my knowledge of what exists in our universe and how it behaves which leads me to the conclusion that the human soul is not a material entity.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not claim to have any specific knowledge of what exists beyond our material universe.
It is my knowledge of what exists in our universe and how it behaves which leads me to the conclusion that the human soul is not a material entity.

Yet you have stated earlier that the "soul" exists outwith our universe, you have also stated they exist outwith time.
You have also stated that in order to be created, an object/entity must exist within time.
Thus following those(your) rules...."souls" are either not created or you are mistaken regarding where they reside.

It's almost as if you are making stuff up as you go along or you have not really thought through your version of reality or "truth"..

Yet somehow you seem to want people to believe your assertions.

For someone who seemingly worked in a logic based environment, you are failing miserably in making a case!

IMO

[Alan Burns]

Yet you have stated earlier that the "soul" exists outwith our universe, you have also stated they exist outwith time.
You have also stated that in order to be created, an object/entity must exist within time.
Thus following those(your) rules...."souls" are either not created or you are mistaken regarding where they reside.

I have previously clarified that these were speculations on the possible nature of human souls - not claims of fact.
Our material bodies were certainly created and exist within the timeline of our material universe.
We do not know how, when or if our spiritual selves were created - or whether they simply exist outside the timeline of our universe.

What is abundantly clear (from many previous posts) is that the conscious control of my thought processes which I am currently employing to compose this post is incompatible with the time related cause and effect scenario observed in material entities - which must lead to the conclusion that the source of control (our conscious self - our soul) is not subject to the same time related constraints as material reactions.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have previously clarified that these were speculations on the possible nature of human souls - not claims of fact.
Our material bodies were certainly created and exist within the timeline of our material universe.
We do not know how, when or if our spiritual selves were created - or whether they simply exist outside the timeline of our universe.

Well, if they are not created (and according to your logic, they cannot have been) then logically God cannot be the ultimate uncreated being, can it?
Following that, just how many souls are there, drifting outwith our  universe, awaiting an unknown amount of humans to be born in order to link to them in our physical universe?
Have you really, really thought this through?
Your wild imaginings seem to be running out of control!

[torridon]

What is abundantly clear (from many previous posts) is that the conscious control of my thought processes which I am currently employing to compose this post is incompatible with the time related cause and effect scenario observed in material entities - which must lead to the conclusion that the source of control (our conscious self - our soul) is not subject to the same time related constraints as material reactions.

No evidence to support this assertion.  It is abundantly clear that our thought processes are indeed compatible with time related cause and effect. Our thoughts and actions always arise in reaction or response to something prior.

[Stranger]

Our material bodies were certainly created and exist within the timeline of our material universe.
We do not know how, when or if our spiritual selves were created - or whether they simply exist outside the timeline of our universe.

If our "spiritual selves" were outside of time then they couldn't do anything at all. They couldn't make choices, they couldn't think, they couldn't control anything, and so on. They would be useless.

What is abundantly clear (from many previous posts) is that the conscious control of my thought processes [undefined gibberish] which I am currently employing to compose this post is incompatible with the time related cause and effect scenario observed in material entities - which must lead to the conclusion that the source of control (our conscious self - our soul) is not subject to the same time related constraints as material reactions.

More dimwitted nonsense that again tells us that even if you once thought deeply about things and had an inquiring mind (as you claimed) you have lost both traits and are now content to post utterly daft and undefined claims like this. You can't even be arsed to define your terms FFS!

This kind of repetitive post is intellectually lazy and lacking anything remotely like deep thought. As I pointed out above, something that is not within time cannot possibly control anything. Control is an activity and an activity requires time. And as I pointed out before, it is impossible to show that something is impossible within this universe without claiming omniscience because we know that we don't know everything about it.

You can show something is logically impossible and hence physically impossible, but then you either have to claim that your god can do the self-contradictory, like drawing square circles, and abandon all claims to evidence and reasoning and admit to blind, irrational faith, or give up on that approach.

[Stranger]

It is my knowledge of what exists in our universe and how it behaves which leads me to the conclusion that the human soul is not a material entity.

Yet you seem completely unable to provide even the first hint of the slightest suggestion of any reasoning or evidence to support this assertion. You just mindlessly repeat it, along with endless fallacies and avoidance of any difficult questions.