Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not absolute nonsense at all. Where for instance does it fall down? You haven't said.

All you are saying is it isn't the way the universe is working this instant. To which I say, in all this see of actualised potential we observe what where or whom is the actual actualiser?

It falls down because:

1. You haven't defined what an actualiser is.
2. Even if you are able to answer 1, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser exists
3. Even if you are able to answer 2, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser is necessary

So you are a million miles away from justifying that the actualiser is god, which would also require you to demonstrate that god actually exists - which, of course, you haven't and you can't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It falls down because:

1. You haven't defined what an actualiser is.
2. Even if you are able to answer 1, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser exists
3. Even if you are able to answer 2, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser is necessary

So you are a million miles away from justifying that the actualiser is god, which would also require you to demonstrate that god actually exists - which, of course, you haven't and you can't.

An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual. Please demonstrate a potential that has become an actual without an actualizer. If you manage somehow to do that then we have something self actualised which is at worst a ridiculous notion or at best just another term for an actual actualizer which has never not existed....since it actualised itself.

[ProfessorDavey]

An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual.

Please define potential and actual in this context. Given that we are talking about the universe then I guess we are discussing energetics and therefore potential energy, which is just one state of energy that can readily convert into other states of energy and vice versa.

[Stranger]

An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual.

Still meaningless gibbering.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still meaningless gibbering.   

Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.

Science is based on cause and effect, where potential is actualised so these notions should not be foreign to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please define potential and actual in this context. Given that we are talking about the universe then I guess we are discussing energetics and therefore potential energy, which is just one state of energy that can readily convert into other states of energy and vice versa.

Potential is the potential to become or be. To become is to become an actual thing rather than a potential thing.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.

Science is based on cause and effect, where potential is actualised so these notions should not be foreign to you.

Come on Vlad - you've still failed to demonstrate what you mean by potential and actual - in energetics terms potential energy is no less actual than, say, kinetic energy. And of course one can convert into the other and vice versa - so you'd need not just an actualiser, but also a de-actualiser. Or, well, let's cut to the chase ... you are just talking non-sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

Potential is the potential to become or be. To become is to become an actual thing rather than a potential thing.

Nope - in energetics (which let's face it is pretty governing in universe terms) potential energy is no less actual than kinetic energy. The energy merely takes a different form (and in reality our descriptions of those forms is largely nominal and for the purposes of human explanation of phenomena).

Back to the drawing board old chap.

[Stranger]

Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.

Science is based on cause and effect, where potential is actualised so these notions should not be foreign to you.

So, according to this, an 'actualizer' is just a cause. Which runs us right into all the things that are wrong with first cause 'arguments'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Come on Vlad - you've still failed to demonstrate what you mean by potential and actual - in energetics terms potential energy is no less actual than, say, kinetic energy. And of course one can convert into the other and vice versa - so you'd need not just an actualiser, but also a de-actualiser. Or, well, let's cut to the chase ... you are just talking non-sense.

Of course it's not nonsense. You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there. On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person. It's as straight forward as that. Why you cannot derive that knowledge from what you know of potential and other energy I know not. Your intellectual shortfall here is what happens when you deliberately position yourself as the man who will argue nothing but science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, according to this, an 'actualizer' is just a cause. Which runs us right into all the things that are wrong with first cause 'arguments'.

There is nothing wrong with first cause arguments if you wish to correct me you may try. That the first cause is not observed in science is just a limitation of science, not  the non existence of first cause.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person.

Anthropocentric non-sense - there is no difference in fundamental energetics terms between a person and a potential person - all that happens is that the relevant energy is configured in a slightly different manner. We are all, when it comes down to it, defined by chemistry, which is in itself defined by physics.

That distinction may feel incredible significant to us, but in fundamental terms it is merely energy conversion. If we start to try to define the universe as being inherently about us, well we know where that leads - made made gods. You need to get those theistic, anthropocentric blinkers off Vlad and start to develop a little perspective.

[Stranger]

Of course it's not nonsense. You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there. On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person. It's as straight forward as that. Why you cannot derive that knowledge from what you know of potential and other energy I know not. Your intellectual shortfall here is what happens when you deliberately position yourself as the man who will argue nothing but science.

Stuff in the universe changes form. Wow, big deal. And....? Where is your argument?

There is nothing wrong with first cause arguments if you wish to correct me you may try.

I can't correct something you haven't posted. All the first cause arguments I've seen are absurd and obviously flawed. But by all means post one you think sound...

[ProfessorDavey]

You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there.

But the energy therein may be potential energy - I can observe a rock on the edge of a ledge - it has potential energy, but that is no less real (nor is the rock) than if that rock begins to roll down the hill with conversion of one energy form to others (kinetic, heat, vibration/sounds) etc.

[Stranger]

But the energy therein may be potential energy...

TBH I don't think Vlad is talking about energy. It looks like he's trying to use one of Edward Feser's arguments. The problem is that he's not very good at it and it's a crap argument anyway.

[Outrider]

Maths doesn't do Gods. Maths doesn't produce universes.

Exactly. Maths does do universes, though, and unlike claims of gods you can check the working.

Why does a created universe make free will impossible.

Because all of time exists as one; our subjective understanding is from moving point of reference in the dimension of time, but the entirety of the past and future are there, now. If this was created, it was created whole, and therefore it was created from the innumerable possible realities to be this exact one. All those perceived choices that are ours were preselected by a God that chose this iteration of reality to make rather than any of the others.

The important choice to accept or reject God is not about the universe.

You're absolutely correct, it's about the credibility - or lack of credibility - of the claim, when viewed against the available evidence.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

TBH I don't think Vlad is talking about energy. It looks like he's trying to use one of Edward Feser's arguments. The problem is that he's not very good at it and it's a crap argument anyway.

Sure - I get that - but he is unable to explain what he means except in an incredible narrow and anthropocentric manner. Anything really fundamental about the universe should remain just as valid regardless of whether humans (or indeed any life form) exists.

[jeremyp]

Because He cannot not be.

Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.

Can one say that of the universe.

Quite easily

"Because the Universe cannot not be."

See. It's very easy to say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.
Quite easily

"Because the Universe cannot not be."

See. It's very easy to say.

I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.

Is the universe that being? well, because what we see could conceivably have been different. Different constants etc. It seems unlikely. Could there be something hidden somewhere in the universe that is the necessary thing? Why would it be hidden? and if we could affect it in anyway then it would be dependent on us for it's condition and therefore unlikely to be the actual actualizer which is ever existent. The only thing concievably that could be seen by it's action are the laws of nature which cannot be changed,(But even then they could be concieved of as possibly being different), but that is what we are claiming for God and God's unchangeability.

So there is a lot about the universe that doesn't lend itself to being the necessary being.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.

No you haven't - and your use of the term being is achingly biased toward some notion of an intelligence, i.e. god - as being necessary for the universe. It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist. Likewise there may not be. However to infer that this entity, if such a thing even exists, is a being demonstrates how unable you are to think beyond your theist blinkers - you cannot see beyond some kind of intelligent creator.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.
Quite easily

"Because the Universe cannot not be."

See. It's very easy to say.

Yup easy to state, albeit less easy to prove. However the difference between saying the universe cannot not be and god cannot not be is that we can, at least, demonstrate, through evidence that the universe does exist - whether it has to exist is another matter. We have no evidence that god even exists, let alone cannot not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you haven't - and your use of the term being is achingly biased toward some notion of an intelligence, i.e. god - as being necessary for the universe. It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist. Likewise there may not be. However to infer that this entity, if such a thing even exists, is a being demonstrates how unable you are to think beyond your theist blinkers - you cannot see beyond some kind of intelligent creator.

Alright I don't mind if you call it the necessary thing, entity, concept or fundemental principle, your reluctance to even accept the notion of intelligence to it is redolent of Goddodging aka you'll accept anything except God. You've been Caught Davey, bang to rights and projecting your bias onto me too, You naughty academic.

[Stranger]

I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.

You're confusing assertion with explanation again. 

Is the universe that being? well, because what we see could conceivably have been different.

Same goes for any god you dream up.

The only thing concievably that could be seen by it's action are the laws of nature which cannot be changed,(But even then they could be concieved of as possibly being different)...

Same goes for any god you dream up.

You've neither made a sound argument that a 'necessary being' must exist nor have you managed to distinguish some god you might make up from the universe according to the criteria that you've also (apparently) just made up.

Comical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist.

Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're confusing assertion with explanation again. 

Same goes for any god you dream up.

Same goes for any god you dream up.

You've neither made a sound argument that a 'necessary being' must exist nor have you managed to distinguish some god you might make up from the universe according to the criteria that you've also (apparently) just made up.

Comical.

No. The necessary entity has to be what it actually is since there is nothing comparable external to it to make it be one thing or another.