Is God's existence necessary?

[Gambit]

I hope you indulge me if I do not consider the psychological illusions of observers, that evolved a brain for mere survival, as fundamental.

And since you seem to like to quote Einstein, here is one for you:

"people who understand physics know that the distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion" (A. Einstein)

Both you and Einstein have failed to explain what cannot (sanely) be denied, namely, that our experiences are undergoing some kind of change.

Yes.

Then I guess you have no causal explanations, just correlations and observations.

By the way, what is non-local causality?

The first cause, the last cause, the uncaused cause (a.k.a.God).

Augustine of Hippo wrote that God is outside of time—that time exists only within the created universe. Thomas Aquinas took the same view, and many theologians agree. On this view, God would perceive something like a block universe, while time might appear differently to the finite beings contained within it.[22] (source: Wikipedia: Eternalism)

 

[Gambit]

We're making progress on that, though.

Interesting. Perhaps I stand corrected.

"Wormholes are just quantum entangled black holes, says new research"

 

[prometheus11]

Not yet.

Are you suggesting that, as of this date, no more scientific discoveries will be made?

Also, since there is precisely ZERO evidence, aren't "first cause" and "infinite regression" equally absurd and equally plausible?

Why or why not?

Gambit, why have you not answered this question?

 

[Gambit]

Are you suggesting that, as of this date, no more scientific discoveries will be made?

No. I'm not suggesting that.

Also, since there is precisely ZERO evidence, aren't "first cause" and "infinite regression" equally absurd and equally plausible?

There have been attempts by prominent physicists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss, see link below) to explain the mystery of existence.

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"

 

[Sonofason]

Is God's existence (metaphysically) necessary?

I think it is important, with regard to God's overall plan that his existence from our perspective is purely metaphysical.
If His existence were completely physical, there would be no reason for anyone to rely upon faith.

 

[prometheus11]

No. I'm not suggesting that.



There have been attempts by prominent physicists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss, see link below) to explain the mystery of existence.

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing"

Oh good, your post implied that because science hadn't found an explanation that it never could.

When did Krauss do that? I had thought he was seeking to expand our understanding of sub atomic particles and what they can do and how that helps us understand the Big Bang.

 

[Gambit]

When did Krauss do that? I had thought he was seeking to expand our understanding of sub atomic particles and what they can do and how that helps us understand the Big Bang.

January 10, 2012

 

[prometheus11]

January 10, 2012

Please provide a quotation that confirms your claim that he was looking for "the mystery of existence."

 

[Gambit]

Please provide a quotation that confirms your claim that he was looking for "the mystery of existence."

I have already provided you with the link.

 

[viole]

Both you and Einstein have failed to explain what cannot (sanely) be denied, namely, that our experiences are undergoing some kind of change.

I think we did explain it. It is a psychological illusion, a pretty stubborn one. Things do not change. We just see things that were already there. In the same way a landscape does not change when you watch it from a moving train.

Then I guess you have no causal explanations, just correlations and observations.

Causality is overrated. I suspect only philosophers really need it. For starters, it arbitrarily introduces an asymmetry (cause/effect) that is nowhere to be seen at fundamental level. If I show you a movie of a fundamental interaction (e.g. two antiparticles generating a photon) you have no way to say what is the cause and what the effect. You could say that the particles are the cause and the photon the effect, but then I can say: oops, I am not sure in which direction the movie should be played. Maybe it is the photon that caused the two particles. Who can say?

You can make sense of causality if you have an asymmetry already in place. E.G. a closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium. In this case you can give a direction of time but only as long as the unbalance is present. You can define what "before" and "after" mean. But I doubt you can apply this to the Universe as whole which, we can assume, is not itself embedded in closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium.

In other words, if you insist that the Universe began and we assume that there was no pre-existing arrow of time at that moment, then you have show me why God is the cause and the Universe is the effect, and not the other way round. Without begging the question, if possible.

The first cause, the last cause, the uncaused cause (a.k.a.God).

a.k.a. a superfluous hypothesis.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IOW, nonlocality points to something transcendental.

No it doesn't, that's just wishful thinking. It's like equating mysticism with quantum mechanics, it's just pseudo-science.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Nonlocal" (in the context of physics) actually means not located in space and time.

No it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality

 

[prometheus11]

I have already provided you with the link.

Lol!!!!!

The link describes a book. Nowhere on that link does it describe Krauss looking for "the mystery of existence".

Please provide evidence for your claim that Krauss is concerned with "the mystery of existence."

 

[Gambit]

Lol!!!!!

The link describes a book. Nowhere on that link does it describe Krauss looking for "the mystery of existence".

Please provide evidence for your claim that Krauss is concerned with "the mystery of existence."

It would behoove you to do your homework before you post. The book is entitled "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing." In that book Krauss is attempting to answer the mystery of existence by answering the question "why there is something rather than nothing" - hence, the the title and subtitle of the book!

 

[prometheus11]

Not accepted.

And I've "done my homework" when it comes to Krauss. Obviously you haven't or your reply would have listed certain paragraphs and pages. Duh.

YOU are the one insisting on your terms like "mystery of existence" to achieve your biased perspective. Kraus is trying to learn about the nature of reality, whatever it is. You'd do well to become a disciple of his and his methodology. Why don't you?

 

[Gambit]

I think we did explain it. It is a psychological illusion, a pretty stubborn one. Things do not change. We just see things that were already there. In the same way a landscape does not change when you watch it from a moving train.

That the train is MOVING implies that something is undergoing change. That change requires a causal explanation.

By the way, space and time are relative to the reference frame of an observer in MOTION.

Causality is overrated. I suspect only philosophers really need it. For starters, it arbitrarily introduces an asymmetry (cause/effect) that is nowhere to be seen at fundamental level. If I show you a movie of a fundamental interaction (e.g. two antiparticles generating a photon) you have no way to say what is the cause and what the effect. You could say that the particles are the cause and the photon the effect, but then I can say: oops, I am not sure in which direction the movie should be played. Maybe it is the photon that caused the two particles. Who can say?

Although a movie (film) can be running backwards or forwards, the fact still remains that someone or something is determining what direction it is running. You can argue that a movie is some kind of illusion (of course a movie is an illusion in one sense, it's the moving photo frames of real people and things, not the real people and things in the themselves). But you cannot argue that the moving of the frames themselves (whether the frames are running forwards or backwards) is an illusion. That movement requires a causal explanation. The bottom line is that we are clearly undergoing changing experiences. To call it an illusion is simply to evade the issue.

You can make sense of causality if you have an asymmetry already in place. E.G. a closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium. In this case you can give a direction of time but only as long as the unbalance is present. You can define what "before" and "after" mean. But I doubt you can apply this to the Universe as whole which, we can assume, is not itself embedded in closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium.

The materialistic world must ultimately be a "closed system" for materialism to hold true.

In other words, if you insist that the Universe began and we assume that there was no pre-existing arrow of time at that moment, then you have show me why God is the cause and the Universe is the effect, and not the other way round. Without begging the question, if possible.

To use your analogy, either the universal observer (God) or the individual observers (e.g. you and I) or some combination thereof are causing which way the movie is running. IOW, it comes back to consciousness.

a.k.a. a superfluous hypothesis.

You are only saying this because you don't have any hypothesis. By dispensing with causality, you have no causal explanation for any natural phenomena (whether in part or in whole) whatsoever. All you have are observations and correlations.

 

[Thief]

If we were members of a society where no one one was indoctrinated into a God believing society it would mean absolutely nothing ! Which is what it means to me now.

you will be assimilated.....resistance is futile.

 

[prometheus11]

you will be assimilated.....resistance is futile.

Absolutely perfect reply. It is the religious goal and mantra.

 

[Thief]

You are begging the question here.
How do you know that the the Uni or Multiverse, or the laws of Nature are contingent?

Suppose I tell you: the laws of nature accunt for everything that exists. They are necessary and sufficient to explain everything. Since they are sufficient, there is no supernatural world. Since they are necessary, they do not need to be accounted for and they explain why there is something instead of nothing.

You see. A bit of chair phylosophy and I can justify whole existance and naturalism at the same tme without using more assumptions than you.

Can you pinpoint a fault in my reasoning that is not present in yours?

Ciao

- viole

a good thing Newton didn't think in such a manner.....

 

[Thief]

Absolutely perfect reply. It is the religious goal and mantra.

I was quoting a nonbelieving character of science fiction fame.....the Borg