First cause of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

You require proof from deists but not from science, which by it's nature cannot prove anything?

Doesn't seem logical.
Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for the soul. None of these are necessary for function and survival of the human race.
Prove you exist. Proof really isn't a thing, it's wishful thinking... anything can be debatable.

You just refuted your own claim by running away..

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's incorrect. We are told how and why God created.

Which God? Told by whom?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You require proof from deists but not from science, which by it's nature cannot prove anything?

Doesn't seem logical.
Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for the soul. None of these are necessary for function and survival of the human race.
Prove you exist. Proof really isn't a thing, it's wishful thinking... anything can be debatable.

No they're not. Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for compassion and love and friendship. I would say they are necessary for function and survival of the human race, as we have evolved as a social species.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which God? Told by whom?

Told by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Told by God.

Where?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Told by God.

Which God? And how do we know that God "told us" anything?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The real questions are "why" and "how"? If you can't answer those you can understand why most people choose God over nothingness.

I understand why most people believe in gods. Their numbers are not an endorsement of the belief, but a statement on how minds work before they are trained in critical thought. If by nothingness, you mean agnosticism, then choosing a guess is a symptom of cognitive bias and the desire for a definite answer even if wrong. This can be overcome. When we don't know, the educated mind recognizes that and accepts it. It has learned how to deal with uncertainty.

We are told how and why God created.

But these are just guesses, not knowledge.

And no to the how part. You have no mechanism for gods doing anything.

Nevermind that science cannot even tell us why the universe is here.

You keep posting comments like that as if you think they help one decide if gods exist. You imply that these are not merely problems to be investigated, but existential problems for science itself and threats to its legitimacy. They are not.

You just can't imagine an infinite being because you are bound by imagination that has to fit into " scientific" parameters.

Imagination should be restricted to generating new ideas for consideration. A different process is needed to decide which imaginings correlate with reality. If you let your imagination tell you what is true, you are back in the world of faith, which is not a path to truth, since all wrong ideas that one imagines can then be believed rather than be subjected to critical scrutiny.

it's the only question that really matters to the human soul. Why are we here? Why is anything here?

Really? Not to me. I guess that makes me soulless, but I'm good with that. I assume it's the case already, and not just for me.

As long as you believe that you will be restricted by your religion of secular thinking which is a form of willful ignorance.

Once again, that restriction of paths of thought is a feature of critical thought, not a limitation of shortcoming. Eschewing critical thought for faith is actually the example of willful ignorance. The latter is for those unable to do the former. People trained in critical thinking don't generally deliberately suspend it when trying to decide what is true about the world unless they choose to suspend disbelief for a purpose. A rational person does this for a time, not indefinitely, which would be faith. Doing it for a limited time as a trial is actually empiricism - an appeal to experience - not faith.

Compassion and love and friendship are evidence for the soul.

Not at all. Evidence for a soul would be a finding better explained by the existence of souls. You have no such finding because none exists. All mental phenomena are as well or better explained using psychology than theology.

Souls are the illusion seeing death creates, a kind of subtraction: living body minus dead body = soul.

But it's an illusion, like thinking the music from a turned-off radio has ascended from the radio, like thinking that the flame of an extinguished candle flew off somewhere: burning candle minus dark candle = flame, therefore, flames must have independent existences away from candles where they go when candles die. It's probably not a coincidence that fire is part of many soul metaphors, as in the fire in his eyes being extinguished as he died. Do you recall phlogiston, "a substance supposed by 18th-century chemists to exist in all combustible bodies, and to be released in combustion." Sound familiar?

Soul is also similar to the life force imagined to exist as a disembodied principle that organizes matter to come alive, or evil imagined as a disembodies principle that promotes malice and chaos. These are all examples of the same cognitive bias of subtraction. If something has stopped living, or playing music, or burning, something has left it that continues to exist separately.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I understand why most people believe in gods. Their numbers are not an endorsement of the belief, but a statement on how minds work before they are trained in critical thought

Are you trying to imply that people who believe in a deity aren't critical thinkers? How biased of you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And no to the how part. You have no mechanism for gods doing anything.

Incorrect.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

"The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

We aren't told everything but there's information as to how God created.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Time is inherent to the universe. So is space. Which is why the universe is also referred to as space-time.

This is patently and absurdly false. Firstly, it should be obvious that for Newton and for physicists after Newton, both time and space were "inherent" to the universe (things are rather more subtle, but as this remains the case after Einstein we can gloss over that for now), and it was and remains possible to speak about spacetimes that are not relativistic or that satisfy Galilean relativity in which the time dimension is completely separated from those of space.

Second, when Minkowski introduced spacetime after Einstein introduced special relativity, Einstein was initially rather vehemently opposed to what he saw as an unnecessary introduction of geometry and the corresponding spacetime it introduced into what were better seen as algebraic derivations from his two postulates (he did change his mind on this). The point being that the relevance of spacetime was not seen by the founder of relativity nor was it initially a pleasing result (still less a reason to refer to the intermingling of space and time in relativistic physics as "spacetime").
Third, the importance of spacetime in physics is not at all due to the fact that "Time is inherent to the universe" and that "[ so ] is space." Ohanian puts this more concisely than I probably can:

"As a physicist, I think that philosophers of science have overstated their case for a real 4D world. By mistake or by exaggeration, they have endowed the theory of relativity and the inertial coordinates commonly used in this theory with deep layers of meaning that are not justified by the physics. On the basis of physics, it can be asserted that space-time is a 4D manifold with a 4D geometry, but whether the real world – that is, the totality of all the material things that inhabit spacetime – is 4D or 3D, cannot be decided by physics. Both 4D and 3D descriptions of material systems are possible in physics, and physicists use both of these modes of description interchangeably." (p. 81)
Ohanian, H. C. (2007). The Real World and Space-Time. In V. Petkov (Ed.). Relativity and the Dimensionality and the World (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 153) (pp. 81-100). Springer.

In fact, demanding that, because spatial and time coordinates in relativistic physics become "intermingled" (e.g., transformations from one reference frame to another cannot be done in terms of some absolute, Newtonian time) creates a number of problems in "spacetime" physics as well as fundamental physics more generally. In relativistic physics, one consequence (not really a problem) is that we need time in order to have kinematics and dynamics (and more importantly the equations of motion of any particular theory cast in whatever formulation and in terms of whatever entities it is). So immediately in special relativity after introducing a new geometry with either of the two signatures one has to introduce a dynamical parameter like "proper time" which is outside of spacetime. This becomes vastly more complicated in GR, where one relies on parallel transport, covariance, and so forth to make use of the tangent and cotangent bundles for what used to be a simple linear transformation.

For me, the bigger issue is (unsurprisingly) the way in which one cannot simply demand that

Time is inherent to the universe. So is space.

and think the physics will follow. This is because (as I have emphasized repeatedly elsewhere) that in quantum mechanics as in classical (non-relativistic) physics time is a parameter while space is treated fundamentally differently via algebras of observables as an operator. It turns out to be basically impossible to treat time as an operator, so in "do" quantum theory in spacetime one must demote "position" from an operator. Then the problem becomes what the resulting relativistic quantum mechanics is a theory about. In order to avoid causal violations even when performing local measurements, or even just to make sense out of the formalism, one has to give up on notions rather central to quantum mechanics (such as particle number conservation, or position measurements, or more basically the idea that there exists quantum systems that can be modeled experimentally by state preparation and some observable of interest represented by the appropriate operator).

In cosmology and the QFT(s) of particle physics (and QFT more generally) one reinterprets the operators as being the particles or physical entities, so that they can act locally on some spacetime which is itself reinterpreted in terms of a vacuum state that the newly minted operators-as-particles act on. What, in NRQM, is typically called raising and lowering (along with the operators of the same name) becomes creation and annihilation. These now act on "fields" which by virtue of being fields need not follow the same conservation laws but must necessarily be local (just as their classical analogues) and by acting on the "fields" (which is where we manage to finagle things in order to get space and time on some sort of equal footing) we can make the operators act locally and reconceptualize as well as reinterpret the entire scheme in terms of "particles" acting local spacetime "states".

We still require time to exist outside of this spacetime approach in a myriad of ways (just recall, for example, the need for time-ordering exponentials in canonical quantization). The path integral approach differs, naturally, in how "dynamical" time is treated in relativistic quantum theory, but an "outside" time is still necessary and, moreover, the entire process is still lacking a rigorous mathematical definition for most of its uses anyway and relies more on heuristics that we are fine with but which are disturbing or nonsensical to mathematicians.

Finally, it is only the assumptions of certain symmetries that most be obeyed by any theories that require the use of spacetimes of any type in physics in the first place. While I can't really imagine how one could do physics without these, it is important to keep in mind that it is not experiment but the demand that one should not have to e.g. pick out a preferred basis or that one should be able to set initial conditions and so forth that lead to the need for space and time to be on the same footing. Then, as per the quote above, one should again keep in mind that just because some geometry, topology, space, spacetime, etc., is used in physics does not mean it should be taken to be reality. I rarely encounter anybody arguing that we must live in an infinite-dimensional complex-valued vector space equipped with an inner product that is complete in the norm just because the whole of quantum theory requires such spaces.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How would you know? Perhaps it's exactly the path to truth.

If you let your imagination tell you what is true, you are back in the world of faith, which is not a path to truth,

 

[Wildswanderer]

Once again, that restriction of paths of thought is a feature of critical thought, not a limitation of shortcoming.

You have to be extremely close minded to think this way. Ironic since I'm sure you claim to be more open minded than people of faith.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But it's an illusion, like thinking the music from a turned-off radio has ascended from the radio, like thinking that the flame of an extinguished candle flew off somewhere: burning candle minus dark candle = flame, therefore, flames must have independent existences away from candles where they go when candles die. It's probably not a coincidence that fire is part of many soul metaphors, as in the fire in his eyes being extinguished as he died. Do you recall phlogiston, "a substance supposed by 18th-century chemists to exist in all combustible bodies, and to be released in combustion." Sound familiar?

Soul is also similar to the life force imagined to exist as a disembodied principle that organizes matter to come alive, or evil imagined as a disembodies principle that promotes malice and chaos. These are all examples of the same cognitive bias of subtraction. If something has stopped living, or playing music, or burning, something has left it that continues to exist separately.

Your thoughts here are actually outdated by science itself.

Apparently your scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence. That's been shattered by quantum physics.
You know the new reality.. if no one observes a particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through two slits at the same time, But if you or anyone observe it, it behaves different.
Think about the implications of this for a second.
mere knowledge in a person's mind is enough to convert possibility to reality.
Now scientists are saying this doesn't only happen on the quantum level.
I'm sure you would agree with Kant that everything we experience are nothing but representations in our mind.
But do you realize that these rules make existence itself possible?
This implies that that a part of the mind (or soul) exists outside of space and time.
We aren't completely confined by the laws of the physical universe, rather we exist independent of it and effect reality itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Incorrect.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

"The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

We aren't told everything but there's information as to how God created.

Faith is not an explanation or even a pathway to the truth. It is a mere belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And no to the how part. You have no mechanism for gods doing anything.

Incorrect.
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

"By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

"The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

We aren't told everything but there's information as to how God created.

There is no mechanism there.

Evolution offers a mechanism, which is a combination of interacting processes that generate change in living populations over generations. First, a variety of mechanisms add new alleles and genomes to the gene pool. These are used to generate individuals that compete for scarce resources, those best adapted to their environments replacing those less well adapted. Rinse, lather, repeat over geological time and you have the tree of life. That's a mechanism.

"Let there be light" is not, but the Big Bang theory delineates a mechanism for the advent of light.

This is not a mechanism:

But this is:

How would you know [that faith is not a path to truth]? Perhaps it's exactly the path to truth.

A path to truth needs to reliably take one to truth just like a path home takes one to his front door. Faith will take you anywhere you want to go. It allows you to believe wrong ideas. There are orders of magnitude more of them than correct ideas. Even if one did stumble onto a correct idea by faith, he couldn't know he had until he has evidence that he guessed correctly. Truth is always tied to empiricism, which is why we can't call ideas correct without it.

A path constrains the direction of movement, like a road. This describes critical thought, which is highly constrained like the movements possible on a road. Follow the rules of reason applied to evidence, and you will arrive at a sound conclusion every time. Deviate from them with a fallacy, and you've gone off the road.

Faith is more like sailing the open seas without navigational aids. You are unlikely to arrive at your desired destination. If your port is the truth - sound conclusions - you're going to be a lost sailor for a long time before you stumble onto it.

Spoiler: related but off-topic digression

This is the Grateful Dead's Lost Sailor. He's not on a path. He's drifting and dreaming: "Where's the dog star? Where's the moon?" You might like the song it transitions into as well, Saint of Circumstance, a related theme ("Was it you I heard singing, oh, while I was chasin' dreams? Driven by the wind, like the dust that blows around"). He's a victim of circumstance, not the captain of his ship.

I'll turn to the Beatles for the path lyrics:

The long and winding road
That leads to your door
Will never disappear
I've seen that road before
It always leads me here
Lead me to you door

Thanks for indulging me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that restriction of paths of thought is a feature of critical thought, not a limitation of shortcoming.

Are you trying to imply that people who believe in a deity aren't critical thinkers?

I say it explicitly. One cannot believe that gods exist without faith. Faith is antithetical to critical analysis.

You have to be extremely close minded to think this way.

Open- and closed-mindedness refer to the willingness to evaluate evidence impartially. Critical thought refers to the method that does that. There is no place for faith in it. Rejecting faith and faith-based beliefs is not closed mindedness. It is the result of an open-minded evaluation of faith-based claims. Reason informs us to reject them, not a closed mind.

your scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence.

No. My worldview doesn't depend on there being anything outside of my mind. Of course, I proceed as if there were, and don't seriously doubt that such a world exists, but if I were presented with incontrovertible evidence that things outside of my mind are very different from how they appear, nothing changes. Whatever is on the other side of conscious content takes its importance only insomuch as it modifies conscious content. In the past, I thought that the pain of my finger burning was because I stuck an actual finger into an actual flame. But now I know that no such things exist. Nevertheless, if I will this nonexistent finger into the nonexistent flame, I expect to feel the pain of a burning finger. The entirety of "objective reality" has been tossed out, yet nothing changes for the conscious agent. It turns out the rules of experience are the truth, not the metaphysical model imagined to underlie it.

I'm sure you would agree with Kant that everything we experience are nothing but representations in our mind. But do you realize that these rules make existence itself possible?

Disagree, and I don't know why you think so. I just explained that even if I knew that there was nothing in reality apart from my consciousness, it wouldn't change anything, including the fact of my existence as a conscious agent.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Faith is not an explanation or even a pathway to the truth. It is a mere belief.

Apparently science isn't either, since it leads us nowhere, in regards to why we exist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The entirety of "objective reality" has been tossed out, yet nothing changes for the conscious agent. It turns out the rules of experience are the truth, not the metaphysical model imagined to underlie it.

You are even more closed minded than I previously imagined... what you described is the perfect formula to live in a fake reality, simply only believing what your mind tells you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I say it explicitly. One cannot believe that gods exist without faith. Faith is antithetical to critical analysis.



Open- and closed-mindedness refer to the willingness to evaluate evidence impartially. Critical thought refers to the method that does that. There is no place for faith in it. Rejecting faith and faith-based beliefs is not closed mindedness. It is the result of an open-minded evaluation of faith-based claims. Reason informs us to reject them, not a closed mind.



No. My worldview doesn't depend on there being anything outside of my mind. Of course, I proceed as if there were, and don't seriously doubt that such a world exists, but if I were presented with incontrovertible evidence that things outside of my mind are very different from how they appear, nothing changes. Whatever is on the other side of conscious content takes its importance only insomuch as it modifies conscious content. In the past, I thought that the pain of my finger burning was because I stuck an actual finger into an actual flame. But now I know that no such things exist. Nevertheless, if I will this nonexistent finger into the nonexistent flame, I expect to feel the pain of a burning finger. The entirety of "objective reality" has been tossed out, yet nothing changes for the conscious agent. It turns out the rules of experience are the truth, not the metaphysical model imagined to underlie it.



Disagree, and I don't know why you think so. I just explained that even if I knew that there was nothing in reality apart from my consciousness, it wouldn't change anything, including the fact of my existence as a conscious agent.

So now you are content to ignore the science that says what you see affects actual reality because it's scary and against logic.

Faith can certainly be entirely reasonable and a lot of people who were once atheist have found this to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently science isn't either, since it leads us nowhere, in regards to why we exist.

What are you talking about? How do you think that we are communicating right now? The problem appears to be that you want all of the answers right now and are willing to accept answers that have been proven to be wrong, but comforting. Through the sciences we continually learn more and more about our world. That is far better than believing that the Earth is Flat.