God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[ProfessorDavey]

My turn to apologize for misreading. I actually thought the person who didn't notice my sarcasm was you! Senility.

Thanks - so lovely when we are all playing so nicely together

[Dicky Underpants]

No,he wasn't. His association with Montanism may be why he was never canonised, but neither was he condemned as a heretic. From that fount of all wisdom and knowledge, Wikipedia:

Seems a bit unstable in his beliefs to be the chap who is credited with giving the first formulation of the Trinity, though (however much it may be argued to be scriptural).
I think neither of us need to perform the juggling act of trying to reconcile "the necessary entity" with a threefold something or other. Fortunately.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really cannot get beyond your anthropocentricness can you.

, It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so.

You seem unable to even comprehend that 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' etc etc are largely features of higher neurological processes rather than fundamental physics which may have driving mechanisms (e.g. energetics) but have no 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' in the manner you seem obsessed that everything must have.

God is not proposed as something physical, but rather that which creates physics and the laws of physics.

As I've also said many times, you also don't seem to be able to see beyond the notion that time is constant and unilinear - in other words that from a fundamental perspective before/after, recent/long ago etc are are objective, rather than being a subjective perception of time from a particular observational standpoint. So we might (as humans) perceive that time runs in one direction only at a constant rate, but that doesn't mean that it actually does.

No, time could be variable and contain hair pin bends, or be a surface rather than a line or whatever but we are still left with two modes of being, that which is dependent on something else for it's existence and that which is not.

Will, intent, consciousness etc are all analogues of what is going on with the necessary entity,

Whereas you see something unconscious as not having the neurological chops. I see it as something which cannot have agency and were the necessary being be unconscious nothing would occur since nothing would be there to compel it.
So while consciousness might be a bad analogy unconsciousness definitely is as piss poor as it gets.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so.

Only to ask how you would eliminate these possibilities, not to propose them as hypotheses. And yes, it is anthropomorphism because you’re modelling your (supposed) god in your image.   

God is not proposed as something physical, but rather that which creates physics and the laws of physics.

But even if you had an argument that wasn’t for shit to justify your assertion “god”, do you not think a god capable of creating a universe would itself have to be highly complex? 

No, time could be variable and contain hair pin bends, or be a surface rather than a line or whatever but we are still left with two modes of being, that which is dependent on something else for it's existence and that which is not.

Maybe, but you still have no argument to indicate the universe must be the former of the two. Try to remember this.

Will, intent, consciousness etc are all analogues of what is going on with the necessary entity,

So you assert. You do love just making shit up and treating it as a fact to suit your purposes don’t you.

Whereas you see something unconscious as not having the neurological chops. I see it as something which cannot have agency and were the necessary being be unconscious nothing would occur since nothing would be there to compel it.

Do you not think you have “agency” to keep breathing when you’re asleep?

So while consciousness might be a bad analogy unconsciousness definitely is as piss poor as it gets.

Non sequitur and – again – an unconscious creator hasn’t been proposed. You were just asked how you would eliminate the possibility so as to arrive at the god of your choice like a game Cluedo. It would help if you stopped lying about this.

Also by the way after you just crashed and burned re Occam’s razor, do you not think a period of quiet reflection about now would be fitting? 

[Outrider]

I am told there are different infinities Outrider, so the question would then be, why this infinity rather than that infinity.

That there are infinities of different scale doesn't mean that there are different options for which infinity this one is - why presume that's the case? You've still not explained how a 'cause' or 'reason' for such a thing makes sense.

If the universe is infinite, why is it that it’s components occupy time and space finitely?

Do they? Matter is just another form of energy, and so far as we can tell energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply changed from one form to another. Our prospects for a heat death of the universe are for an infinitely dispersed arrangement of that energy.

Now if you suggest that something persists infinitely, you would be making the same argument as me but it cannot be a finite thing obviously

I'm reasonably confident we're rarely making the same argument - I'd be more confident if I had a clue what your argument was from one moment to the next.

You could I suppose put energy as a candidate. The problem here though is if the universe is infinite then it would be possible at one particular time for the universe to be in a state where all energy is potential energy and that in effect would be the equivalent of non existence since there would be no possibility of energy transfer.

Why would it? All you'd need is for various potential energies to interact. Or one of them to spontaneously undergo variation. Or any one of a potentially infinite number of other things to happen to destablise that equilibrium.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

, It was Steve who brought up Unconsciousness and purposelessness. Is suggesting something might be conscious and purposeful, necessarily "anthropomorphism"? I don't think so. 

I said anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic - they are not the same thing, albeit somewhat related.

Anthropomorphic is when you ascribe human-like characteristics to something that isn't human (as is achingly obvious when one looks at the claimed attributes of the Christian god).

Anthropocentric is when someone is unable to see beyond the confined of how humans thinks, interact (the things which are important to humans) to explain stuff. These things may be entirely irrelevant outside of the narrow confines of a single species on one of billions of planets in the universe, that has been around for the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. So anthropocentric thinking cannot get beyond the notion of 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' - as these are highly relevant to the human experience, but may have no ... err ... meaning in cosmic terms.

Bottom line - is it a requirement for the universe to exist that humans (and human-like attributes) also exist. I think not - we (and our human-like attributes) could just as easily not exist and the universe would still exist (as if has done for almost its entire duration) - that being the case why are human-experience attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' relevant to understanding the universe. I'd argue that they are entirely irrelevant to understanding the universe.

[jeremyp]

No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.

You have literally denied the divinity of Christ.

Well done.

[Steve H]

You have literally denied the divinity of Christ.

Well done.

He means God the father, not the son or the trinity.

[jeremyp]

He means God the father, not the son or the trinity.

But Jesus is claimed to be God. If Vlad is correct that God  cannot have limbs, Jesus cannot be God.

[Steve H]

.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That there are infinities of different scale doesn't mean that there are different options for which infinity this one is - why presume that's the case? You've still not explained how a 'cause' or 'reason' for such a thing makes sense.

Not sure this is right. Even assuming it IS an infinity is it an infinity with a beginning?, is it an infinity without a beginning. I don’t have a problem with an infinity, neither does the argument from contingency but infinity has problems one of which I’ve covered. If there are 2 possible types of infinite universe, one with a beginning and one without we are faced with the question, why it’s one and not the other?Secondly what is it that is infinite, If it’s energy you are suggesting, it is hence subject to the laws of thermodynamics, in which case it should have reached heat death an infinite length of time ago. What you are suggesting then is a perpetual motion machine.

Do they? Matter is just another form of energy, and so far as we can tell energy can neither be created nor destroyed, simply changed from one form to another. Our prospects for a heat death of the universe are for an infinitely dispersed arrangement of that energy.

OK , so you agree that the universe can’t be a perpetual motion machine. So at the start of it, why did it start rather than not start?

I'm reasonably confident we're rarely making the same argument - I'd be more confident if I had a clue what your argument was from one moment to the next.

I accept no responsibility for any intellectual impairment on the part of readers

Why would it? All you'd need is for various potential energies to interact.

If all energies were potential, a possibility in an infinity, then they are merely, as the name suggests, potential rather than actual so how could they interact?

Or one of them to spontaneously undergo variation

If everything is merely potential then what is actual and can actualise? In fact it seems exactly like non existence.

It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said anthropocentric, not anthropomorphic - they are not the same thing, albeit somewhat related.

Anthropomorphic is when you ascribe human-like characteristics to something that isn't human (as is achingly obvious when one looks at the claimed attributes of the Christian god).

Anthropocentric is when someone is unable to see beyond the confined of how humans thinks, interact (the things which are important to humans) to explain stuff. These things may be entirely irrelevant outside of the narrow confines of a single species on one of billions of planets in the universe, that has been around for the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. So anthropocentric thinking cannot get beyond the notion of 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' - as these are highly relevant to the human experience, but may have no ... err ... meaning in cosmic terms.

Bottom line - is it a requirement for the universe to exist that humans (and human-like attributes) also exist. I think not - we (and our human-like attributes) could just as easily not exist and the universe would still exist (as if has done for almost its entire duration) - that being the case why are human-experience attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' relevant to understanding the universe. I'd argue that they are entirely irrelevant to understanding the universe.

So I am to understand that I am unable to talk in the fashion of Zarquon of Threbes from Altair 4 or sing with the wisdom of 12864 from the Barking spider nebula?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.

Potentially eternal things wouldn't need to "come from" anything, and your entire post could be written with "God" substituted for "the universe". When will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Potentially eternal things wouldn't need to "come from" anything,

So far, so good

and your entire post could be written with "God" substituted for "the universe".

Oh dear you are treating several entities as a single entity again. How are you going to reconcile contingency with eternity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So far, so good

Then why lie about what Outy actually said (ie, you're favourite "popped out of nothing" straw man)?

Oh dear you are treating several entities as a single entity again. How are you going to reconcile contingency with eternity?

I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.

Oh, and as you just ignored it. Again: when will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?   

[ProfessorDavey]

So I am to understand that I am unable to talk in the fashion of Zarquon of Threbes from Altair 4 or sing with the wisdom of 12864 from the Barking spider nebula?

I've no idea.

But what you seemingly fail to be able to do is to consider the universe from a perspective other than a narrow human-centric one, in which human attributes such as 'purpose', 'intention', 'meaning' have to play some role. That's why you come across as anthropocentric - to you, everything seems to revolve around attributes that humans find important, but, of course, why should any of these attributes have any relevance for understanding the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then why lie about what Outy actually said (ie, you're favourite "popped out of nothing" straw man)?

I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.

Oh, and as you just ignored it. Again: when will it occur to you that just relocating the same unanswered questions about the universe to "God" doesn't resolve anything?

”Outy” unfortunately mentioned spontaneous change in a potential energy. Since potential is not actual, he is suggesting getting something from nothing.

You are still treating the universe as a single eternal entity. It isn’t. And if it was it has changed, giving rise not only to the “why this and not nothing” question but “why does it change, what is changing it?”

If the universe had no beginning it would have reached heat death an infinite time ago. It looks like it might be an infinity with a beginning and a future heat death then and there is an argument about things beginning that we are all familiar with.

Then of course there is the issue of you actually producing something physical which is eternal and can be verified as such.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’ve corrected you on this several times now. Why are you just repeating the same mistake? There’s nothing to reconcile if the universe is infinite - it wouldn’t be contingent on anything.

And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

”Outy” unfortunately mentioned spontaneous change in a potential energy. Since potential is not actual, he is suggesting getting something from nothing.

Try to focus here. When someone posits an infinite universe they’re not thereby proposing that this universe also “popped out” of anything. Such a universe would need no contingency on something else. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Can we at least agree that you’ll stop lying about this now?

You are still treating the universe as a single eternal entity. It isn’t. And if it was it has changed, giving rise not only to the “why this and not nothing” question but “why does it change, what is changing it?”

What the fuck is wrong with you? The universe is a “single entity” - the single entity is called the universe. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. My car is a single entity – that single entity is called a car. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. If you want to conjure up a god that’s a single entity, and then assert it also not to have constituent parts than you have all your work ahead of you to explain how such a thing could have created an entire universe. Or indeed anything at all.

And no - “it’s magic innit” doesn’t come close.     

If the universe had no beginning it would have reached heat death an infinite time ago. It looks like it might be an infinity with a beginning and a future heat death then and there is an argument about things beginning that we are all familiar with.

Or an endless process of recycling, or etc etc. The point here is that you STILL HAVE NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER TO JUSTIFY YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF.

Why not at least ty to tackle that problem before you continue with your endless bait and switch tactics? 

Then of course there is the issue of you actually producing something physical which is eternal and can be verified as such.

No there isn’t. The universe being necessarily contingent on something else is YOUR claim remember so it’s YOUR job to justify it. Just shifting the burden of proof (again) is dishonest. 

Can you do that or not? Finally, just put up or shut up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

  And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.

Yes, you have relied on the fallacy of composition frequently before now. It’s still a fallacy though.

[jeremyp]

And I’ve said before that there is more than just a temporal hierarchy of dependency. You depend on Your tissues, which depend on cells, which depend on the existence of organelles, which depend on etc.

I don't think "depend" is the right word to use in that context. "composed of" is better.

It's interesting though. Here is Vlad, a single entity, composed of organs and tissues and cells and molecules. It's almost as if a single entity being multiple entities at the same time is not contradictory.

Fancy that: your "Universe is multiple entities" argument is as much bolloacks as all of your other arguments.

[Outrider]

Not sure this is right. Even assuming it IS an infinity is it an infinity with a beginning?

Given that it's being suggested as a possible explanation for why there doesn't need to be an uncaused cause, implicitly the idea we're considering is a reality which goes back infinitely, yes.

I don’t have a problem with an infinity, neither does the argument from contingency

It does - if something doesn't start, doesn't begin, how can it be said to be dependent on something else. If it's not dependent on something else, how is it contingent upon anything?

...but infinity has problems one of which I’ve covered.

Not that I've noticed, you haven't.

If there are 2 possible types of infinite universe, one with a beginning and one without we are faced with the question, why it’s one and not the other?

What makes you think 'why' has any meaning? It simply is. It is what everything else happens in, there is no 'why' to it. In order for there to be a 'why' there would have to have been something else occuring for this to be the result of, and implicit in the model is that that's not the case.

Secondly what is it that is infinite, If it’s energy you are suggesting, it is hence subject to the laws of thermodynamics, in which case it should have reached heat death an infinite length of time ago.

Thermodynamics is a property of this universe, we have no idea if it's a facet of the broader reality outside of our universe. Even if it is, our universe could be one of the 'eddies' of energy coalescing and condensing and the spreading over time that is part of that process.

What you are suggesting then is a perpetual motion machine. OK , so you agree that the universe can’t be a perpetual motion machine.

I'm positing that energy is, only the form changes.

So at the start of it, why did it start rather than not start?

What 'start'? There is no 'start', it goes back forever.

I accept no responsibility for any intellectual impairment on the part of readers  If all energies were potential, a possibility in an infinity, then they are merely, as the name suggests, potential rather than actual so how could they interact?

'Potential' energy is still energy, it's not disappeared, it's just not in a form that we can actively use at that moment. Matter is potential energy.

If everything is merely potential then what is actual and can actualise?

You are conflating the use of the word potential in the phrase 'potential energy' with 'potential' in a philosophical sense - they are not synonyms.

It seems you are suggesting that something can come from absolutely nothing.

It doesn't. I don't have a problem with that notion, but that's not what I'm suggesting here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think "depend" is the right word to use in that context. "composed of" is better.

It's interesting though. Here is Vlad, a single entity, composed of organs and tissues and cells and molecules. It's almost as if a single entity being multiple entities at the same time is not contradictory.

Fancy that: your "Universe is multiple entities" argument is as much bolloacks as all of your other arguments.

I think you answered your own question. It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity. When you come up with something in the universe which is eternal and necessary, then We can sit up and take notice.
Depend is the correct word. That chap in Japan that took the highest dose of radiation broke down to the molecular level. He doesn't exist as a single entity anymore.

[Outrider]

I think you answered your own question. It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity.

You are positing a 'God' which is made up of three parts as the alternative so you can already accept that something can be a 'necessary entity' whilst still having component parts.

Depend is the correct word. That chap in Japan that took the highest dose of radiation broke down to the molecular level. He doesn't exist as a single entity anymore.

But while he was there each of those 'parts' - each individual atom - was replaced multiple times over his lifetime, and he was still him, so his existence isn't a facet of those atoms. He is not the sum of his parts - when he dies, those parts are still there (briefly) but he is not.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try to focus here. When someone posits an infinite universe they’re not thereby proposing that this universe also “popped out” of anything. Such a universe would need no contingency on something else. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

Feel free to demonstrate that it isn't there by dint of something else, in other words demonstrate that it isn't contingent. After all if it was infinite it should have suffered heat death an infinitely long time ago and after all do we have any evidence of any physical thing that isn't contingent?
The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.