Is God's existence necessary?

[Gambit]

And I've "done my homework" when it comes to Krauss.

No, you haven't.

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by (and largely ignored in) the book, physicist Sean M. Carroll asks "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don’t see how they could."[6]
(source: Wikipedia: "A Universe from Nothing")

 

[viole]

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

He should have. He would have been even greater. We know today that his theories are wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

He should have. He would have been even greater. We know today that his theories are wrong.

Ciao

- viole

had he abided by the status quo before him.....we might be living with lesser ideas

 

[prometheus11]

No, you haven't.

Yes I have. Kraus would laugh at your insistence of your choice of terms. You lose.

 

[prometheus11]

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

Doesn't change the meaning or my approval.

 

[Shad]

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

Yah he just couldn't explain why planets moved so thought angels moved each. Seems like when it came down to an issue he couldn't solve he went straight to God of the Gaps, or angels in this case.

 

[Thief]

Yah he just couldn't explain why planets moved so thought angels moved each. Seems like when it came down to an issue he couldn't solve he went straight to God of the Gaps, or angels in this case.

I was speaking of his questioning.....about gravity.....

you're actually setting yourself above Newton?

 

[viole]

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.

That was an analogy. BTW, do you think that if you observe the scenery changing (from your train window), does that entail that it is changing? Or isn't it an illusion?

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.

So, can you say what caused what, if you do not know how the movie should be played? Remember, there is no preferred direction of time in fundamental physics. Can you make a case for causation without a preferred direction of time? I am all ears (or eyes).

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

And it must be open for theism to be true. So? Is that a rebuttal of naturalism?

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.

Do you think that causality depends on consciousness?

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.

And? If you define for me what causation means in a timeless and eternal block Universe, then I might change my mind.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

Yes I have. Kraus would laugh at your insistence of your choice of terms. You lose.

I see you're in denial. Here's more documentation that supports my claim.

Similarly, physicist George F. R. Ellis, when asked whether Krauss has "solved the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing", notes that the "belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy ... Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence)."[7]
(source: Wikipedia: "A Universe from Nothing")

 

[prometheus11]

I see you're in denial. Here's more documentation that supports my claim.

Lol.

No.

It seems that you can't read.

I can't imagine a better quote yo support MY position against your misunderstanding of Krauss.

Kraus is clearly saying that we can't answer those questions yet and that he hasn't answered them either!!

Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol.
THANKS!!

 

[Shad]

I was speaking of his questioning.....about gravity.....

you're actually setting yourself above Newton?

No, just that even people like Newton seem unable to say "I do not know" and used the same catechism of his time of "God did it". So while Newton produced amazing work he was just as capable of stating arguments from incredibility. You were pointing out a failure in reasoning by mentioning Newton but as stated above he had his own failures

 

[Gambit]

And it must be open for theism to be true. So? Is that a rebuttal of naturalism?

I will remind you that you previously argued that the universe is not a closed system. So, I guess you're arguing against materialism. Concerning the rest of your post, you didn't address any of the issues I raised in my previous post. And until you decide to do that (rather than evading the issues), then there is nothing more to debate.

 

[Gambit]

Kraus is clearly saying that we can't answer those questions yet and that he hasn't answered them either!!

I can see that you're not amenable to an honest debate.

 

[prometheus11]

I can see that you're not amenable to intelligent debate.

Well, that's as good an excuse as any to deny the obvious. (Obviously false accusation)

When Disengaging by way of an excuse, remember that any excuse will do.

 

[viole]

I will remind you that you previously argued that the universe is not a closed system. So, I guess you're arguing against materialism.

And when did I do that?

Concerning the rest of your post, you didn't address any of the issues I raised in my previous post. And until you decide to do that (rather than evading the issues), then there is nothing more to debate.

That is probably because they beg the question and are based on things (causality) that you fail to define and very likely do not exist. Like your God (a cause Himself, apparently).

You are, I think, perfectly aware that the relativistic block Universe theory utterly obliterates all of your philosophical necessity arguments that strongly rely on origins and causality of the universe. The reason is simple: it provides a coherent framework, compatible with relativity, that does not require origins, causes and all those things you seem to be obsessed with.

No beginning, no causes, no something "coming" from nothing, no infinite regress. All your "weapons" defused with a fell swoop.

All you have left against the theory, is reliance on our psychological experiences, which is not much. If I relied on the experiences of people, I would believe in basically everything. Including Vishnu, Allah, Jesus, Elvis alive and kicking, aliens abductions or homeopathy, among other things.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gambit]

And when did I do that?

Here:

"But I doubt you can apply this to the Universe as whole which, we can assume, is not itself embedded in [a] closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium."

If we cannot assume the Universe as whole is embedded in a closed system, then we must assume that it is embedded in an open system.

That is probably because they beg the question and are based on things (causality) that you fail to define and very likely do not exist. [

Let me know when you actually have some kind of counterarguments to the issues I raised previously.

By the way, someone who is "begging the question" is begging the question because he or she is caught in a vicious infinite regress. (The positing of a first cause is to end the vicious infinite regress.)

 

[viole]

Here:

"But I doubt you can apply this to the Universe as whole which, we can assume, is not itself embedded in [a] closed system not in thermodynamical equilibrium."

If we cannot assume the Universe as whole is embedded in a closed system, then we must assume that it is embedded in an open system.

Nope. There is a third alternative. It is not embedded in anything.

My point, really.

Let me know when you actually have some kind of counterarguments to the issues I raised previously.

Let me know when you acquired some knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity. And knowledge about what it means for a manifold/system to be or not to be embedded in an another manifold/system.

Using armchair philosophy without having a grasp of the physics underlying this subject is like going to a gun fight with a knife.

By the way, someone who is "begging the question" is begging the question because he or she is caught in a vicious infinite regress. (The positing of a first cause is to end the vicious infinite regress.)

Nope (again). Someone is begging he question when it assumes the existence of things without evidence (like causality for the Universe) to prove other things without evidence.

And there is neither the need of a cause nor of infinite regress in the relativistic block Universe. Where do you see them?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unification]

Nope. There is a third alternative. It is not embedded in anything.

My point, really.



Let me know when you acquired some knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity. And knowledge about what it means for a manifold/system to be or not to be embedded in an another manifold/system.

Using armchair philosophy without having a grasp of the physics underlying this subject is like going to a gun fight with a knife.



Nope (again). Someone is begging he question when it assumes the existence of things without evidence (like causality for the Universe) to prove other things without evidence.

And there is neither the need of a cause nor of infinite regress in the relativistic block Universe. Where do you see them?

Ciao

- viole

In your opinion, if alpha constant not being constant holds up... which so far it has passed all of the variables thrown at it.... How would it affect the block universe/eternalism?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

http://m.phys.org/news/2010-09-variations-fine-structure-constant-laws-physics.html

 

[Thief]

No, just that even people like Newton seem unable to say "I do not know" and used the same catechism of his time of "God did it". So while Newton produced amazing work he was just as capable of stating arguments from incredibility. You were pointing out a failure in reasoning by mentioning Newton but as stated above he had his own failures

we all fail (physically).....we are dust.

I don't know..... is not a stance of discussion.
it is a stance of ignorance.

You may insist ....you don't know.....
I will insist I am certain.

Cause and effect.
God is the Cause and the universe is the effect.
(science)

 

[prometheus11]

Every effect is also a cause; every cause is also an effect. You may say, if you like, that "God" is that which encompasses all these cause/effects, but you have no good reason to make such a claim while I may say that the universe is that which encompasses all cause and effect, and that's at least somewhat apparent.