Do you believe in a creator of the universe/universes?

[ratiocinator]

It makes sense that a God would be self existing, since God is the first cause. The law of cause and effect means that everything must be self existing. A singularity sounds like an aspect of nature it doesn't sound divine or supernatural. That's why God being the self existing first cause makes more sense.

Why does it make more sense? What does "divine or supernatural" mean other than giving you an excuse to say that it then doesn't need a cause?

Time and causality are internal to the universe (the space-time) why do you think that they would apply to the space-time as a whole? Recognising that simple fact actually does make more sense.

 

[Skywalker]

Why does it make more sense? What does "divine or supernatural" mean other than giving you an excuse to say that it then doesn't need a cause?

Time and causality are internal to the universe (the space-time) why do you think that they would apply to the space-time as a whole? Recognising that simple fact actually does make more sense.

The Law of Cause and Effect is universal and indisputable. Every material effect has a cause. There is nothing that doesn't have a reason. If you go back far in time, there is no infinite regression. There is the law of infinite regress. The first cause is uncaused and it created that first effect.

 

[ratiocinator]

The Law of Cause and Effect is universal and indisputable.

It isn't, actually. There are many events (such as the decay of a specific radioactive nucleus) that don't have causes (at least in the usual sense of the word).

If you go back far in time, there is no infinite regression.

How do you know?

The first cause is uncaused and it created that first effect.

Again, how do you know? Even if we accept that everything we observe today has a cause, how do you know there was only one uncaused cause?

You also ignored my point about the space-time as a whole. Relativity tells us that space-time is a manifold, and time is just an observer dependant direction through it. Causality and time would be entirely internal to it - there is no reason to think it can apply to the manifold as a whole.

So, you haven't taken account of the fact that there are things that happen without causes, you haven't eliminated infinite regress, you haven't addressed the possibility of multiple uncaused causes, and you haven't taken into account our best scientific model of the nature of space-time.

 

[Skywalker]

It isn't, actually. There are many events (such as the decay of a specific radioactive nucleus) that don't have causes (at least in the usual sense of the word).



How do you know?



Again, how do you know? Even if we accept that everything we observe today has a cause, how do you know there was only one uncaused cause?

You also ignored my point about the space-time as a whole. Relativity tells us that space-time is a manifold, and time is just an observer dependant direction through it. Causality and time would be entirely internal to it - there is no reason to think it can apply to the manifold as a whole.

So, you haven't taken account of the fact that there are things that happen without causes, you haven't eliminated infinite regress, you haven't addressed the possibility of multiple uncaused causes, and you haven't taken into account our best scientific model of the nature of space-time.

How can you say that the decay of nucleus doesn't have a cause?

Infinite regression sounds like a self contradiction.

For the first cause not to be caused would be a self contradiction. There would have to be one uncaused cause to not have infinite regress. Time is real. Time is not an illusion. Multiple uncaused causes sounds like polytheism, and what we see in creation doesn't seem to reveal a polytheistic God.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can you say that the decay of nucleus doesn't have a cause?

Because it doesn't. The relevant theory (quantum mechanics) can tell us the statistics but there is literally no reason at all why one nucleus decays rather than another.

Infinite regression sounds like a self contradiction.

Where's the contradiction?

There would have to be one uncaused cause to not have infinite regress.

Why only one? Why not five, or 100,000,005?

Time is real. Time is not an illusion.

What do you mean? The best theory we have (the one that makes predictions that have been comprehensively tested) tells us time is an observer dependant direction through space-time. There is no reason to think that causality exists externally to it or can apply to the manifold as a whole.

Multiple uncaused causes sounds like polytheism, and what we see in creation doesn't seem to reveal a polytheistic God.

You haven't even made a connection between uncaused causes and god(s) yet. Why do you think that what we see in "creation" indicates any gods, let alone just one?

 

[Skywalker]

Because it doesn't. The relevant theory (quantum mechanics) can tell us the statistics but there is literally no reason at all why one nucleus decays rather than another.



Where's the contradiction?



Why only one? Why not five, or 100,000,005?



What do you mean? The best theory we have (the one that makes predictions that have been comprehensively tested) tells us time is an observer dependant direction through space-time. There is no reason to think that causality exists externally to it or can apply to the manifold as a whole.



You haven't even made a connection between uncaused causes and god(s) yet. Why do you think that what we see in "creation" indicates any gods, let alone just one?

There is still a mechanism for nucleus decaying. It's not self existing like the singularity.

Infinite regress is a self contradiction because time cannot go backwards.

There only needs to be one God for everything to exist and why would there be creators of different aspects of nature?

Time is not an illusion but because we are limited we can't fully understand it.

What we see in creation reveals that there is a God because there's too much order for the design to be because of a singularity.

 

[ppp]

There is still a mechanism for nucleus decaying. It's not self existing like the singularity.

The physicists say that radioactive decay and virtual particles are causeless.

 

[Skywalker]

The physicists say that radioactive decay and virtual particles are causeless.

Saying that radiation decay is causeless is like saying that bacteria growing on food is causeless.

 

[rational experiences]

When science quotes world. To be motivated for a thesis involving laws to copy it always involves as said to self God O the planet mass.

For eventuation is for a new invention which is taken directly out of that mass body.

So as you always used God terms in science, seeing machine as origin of energy in space as all of its own laws as stone x mass and also how it became held to form by spatial conditions, then all science laws are discussing first the presence of God our planet, to advise self how they believe God held form....to then abstract information as a design to then design a reactive machine all from the planet.

Coercive word usage was an actual taught relative warning to the Sophist terminology if you cared to read about it in the statement of WORDS.

 

[ppp]

Saying that radiation decay is causeless is like saying that bacteria growing on food is causeless.

Well, according to you, sure. But according to physicists, saying those two things are not alike.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, according to you, sure. But according to physicists, saying those two things are not alike.

There's a difference between not knowing what causes radiation decay and evidence that it's causeless.

 

[ppp]

There's a difference between not knowing what causes radiation decay and evidence that it's causeless?

Your point being?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is still a mechanism for nucleus decaying.

What do you mean? The best theory we have tells us that there is no cause for the specific nucleus decaying. Are you saying you know better? If so, publish and claim your Nobel Prize for physics.

It's not self existing like the singularity.

What do you mean by self-existing? The singularity isn't/wasn't a thing, it's what happens to the equations when we extrapolate backwards. There's a singularity in the function 1/x at x = 0. What it's telling us is that the theory is inadequate and we need a way to combine general relativity with quantum theory, which we don't yet know how to do.

Infinite regress is a self contradiction because time cannot go backwards.

Why would time have to go backwards?

There only needs to be one God for everything to exist and why would there be creators of different aspects of nature?

Yet again: you have given no argument that goes from uncaused causes to gods. As for the number of gods (if they exist) how could you possibly know?

Time is not an illusion but because we are limited we can't fully understand it.

Are you after another Nobel for physics? The best theory we have says that time is a direction though the space-time manifold. Time isn't an illusion but the passage of time probably is.

What we see in creation reveals that there is a God because there's too much order for the design to be because of a singularity.

How do you know? You also seem to be trying to explain the order we observe by inventing something which has even more order and for which there is no explanation. Do you not see the tiny little problem with that?

 

[viole]

No, I never denied that. I already admitted that “at micro level, MAYBE unconscious mechanisms are playing out” and “I might agree with you when it comes to small changes due to evolutionary processes acting at micro level [even though we can’t know that for sure].” I only reason I added “maybe” in the first statement and “might” in the other one is because we can’t know for sure whether there was or was not a conscious agent inducing these mutations which we consider to be random.

But aren't those little changes, which cause macroscopic changes in the phenotypes?

But there are induced mutations, which we can be sure of are through conscious efforts. And these, in my humble opinion, are what can be truly considered “highly-complex and highly-sophisticated”. I already talked about emotions like fear.

Fear? What makes you think fear is not the product of natural selection, too?

n our daily life, I haven’t heard of something AS complex as, say, something like brain [or anything close to it] just forming due to random mutation and sequences of such random mutations in absence of conscious efforts .

So, you do not accept evolution by natural selection, after all. Like all theists who claim they do, until they realise what that entails.

Not at all, like I said, I agreed you to some extent. There may or may not have been conscious efforts, we don’t know. Perhaps at micro-level, there were just unconscious mechanism. But even if I agree at micro-level, I can argue otherwise at macro-level based on what we see in our real life where complexity usually arises in greater magnitude through conscious mechanism. But let’s say I agree with you and no, our common ancestor never consciously decided that it was time to split. Fine, but who’s to say that there was no conscious effort to INDUCE the splitting? What if there was a conscious, deliberate forced which caused the splitting?

Can you make me an example of how you can change our genome because of a conscious effort to do exactly that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It makes sense that a God would be self existing, since God is the first cause. The law of cause and effect means that everything must be self existing. A singularity sounds like an aspect of nature it doesn't sound divine or supernatural. That's why God being the self existing first cause makes more sense.

The law of cause and effects fails at microscopic level. Because it is an emergent property of macroscopic/statistical systems. As we have been known for more than a century now. Some theists need to get their scientific knowledge upgraded, as it seems.

The question is why they need to use science at all. Or philosophy. Considering how usually devastating for their cause is. Looks a bit masochistic to me.

Are the miracles of Jesus jumping on water, or turning it into wine not enough evidence? My suggestion is to stick with those tales, instead of venturing into endeavours which require a much higher level of understanding.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skywalker]

Your point being?

The law of cause and effects fails at microscopic level. Because it is an emergent property of macroscopic/statistical systems. As we have been known for more than a century now. Some theists need to get their scientific knowledge upgraded, as it seems.

The question is why they need to use science at all. Or philosophy. Considering how usually devastating for their cause is. Looks a bit masochistic to me.

Are the miracles of Jesus jumping on water, or turning it into wine not enough evidence? My suggestion is to stick with those tales, instead of venturing into endeavours which require a much higher level of understanding.

Ciao

- viole

The law and cause effect is similar to why you believe in the singularity. Whether the cause was God, there had to be a cause for this universe to exist.

 

[Skywalker]

What do you mean? The best theory we have tells us that there is no cause for the specific nucleus decaying. Are you saying you know better? If so, publish and claim your Nobel Prize for physics.



What do you mean by self-existing? The singularity isn't/wasn't a thing, it's what happens to the equations when we extrapolate backwards. There's a singularity in the function 1/x at x = 0. What it's telling us is that the theory is inadequate and we need a way to combine general relativity with quantum theory, which we don't yet know how to do.



Why would time have to go backwards?



Yet again: you have given no argument that goes from uncaused causes to gods. As for the number of gods (if they exist) how could you possibly know?



Are you after another Nobel for physics? The best theory we have says that time is a direction though the space-time manifold. Time isn't an illusion but the passage of time probably is.



How do you know? You also seem to be trying to explain the order we observe by inventing something which has even more order and for which there is no explanation. Do you not see the tiny little problem with that?

Nuclei decay because they lose energy over time.

The singularity is what people believe caused the universe to exist.

Time would have to go backwards because that's what the universe going on forever in the past sounds like.

Because a singularity wouldn't have the mind to create everything with such precision and order. You could know that there's one God because one God explains all of nature existing. A self existing God would be the God of everything, not the God of certain parts of nature.

How can the passage of time be an illusion but not time?

God exists outside of time and space. He told Moses I am that I am. Jesus told the Pharisees I am that I am. A self existing God has more explanation than the order of everything we see coming from a singularity.

 

[ppp]

The law and cause effect is similar to why you believe in the singularity.

This is not an explanation of your point in saying, "There's a difference between not knowing what causes radiation decay and evidence that it's causeless?" I guess you abandoned that as pointless.

Whether the cause was God, there had to be a cause for this universe to exist.

Don't you mean whether or not the cause was a god, there must be a cause for this universe to exist in its current state?

 

[ppp]

Nuclei decay because they lose energy over time.

The physicists say that radioactive decay and virtual particles are causeless.

The singularity is what people believe caused the universe to exist.

Random people in the grocery store, perhaps.

Time would have to go backwards because that's what the universe going on forever in the past sounds like.

It wouldn't. But even if it did, so what?

Because a singularity wouldn't have the mind to create everything with such precision and order.

There is no evidence that a mind is necessary, or even vaguely relevant to the existence of precision and order. So, this assertion fails.

 

[viole]

The law and cause effect is similar to why you believe in the singularity. Whether the cause was God, there had to be a cause for this universe to exist.

And, as I told you, that law fails at fundamental level. Therefore, cannot be used to study fundamental physics. Or to determine the ontology of things at those regimes.

Ciao

- viole