The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)

[Ben Avraham]

You see? You are bagging the question, again. You assume the Universe was caused by a who. How do you come to this conclusion after we have ascertained that causality takes place in space and time and, therefore, there is no logical warrant to apply it to spacetime itself?

Of course I am trying you on this one. By acting on a computer and writing posts you change the physical state of the Universe. So, let's focus. Maybe we found a candidate of that thing popping out form the magician's hat.

Where does the causal chain of events, if any, that led you to write that post, begin? No spiritual fuzzy smoke, please. Just a straight answer, if possible.
Somewhere between now and the birth of the Universe? In that case, what caused it?

Ciao- viole

Well, you have not given me any answer yet. That's the reason why I must keep bagging until you hear my call wherever you are. I have a reason to assume that the universe was caused by intelligent consciousness. Hence, a Who. Yes, Causality takes place in space and time but, what is space and time? If you ask me, space is an accident of matter, the distance between matter and matter; and time, an accident of matter in motion. If matter is not in motion, scientists will not be able to figure time. But before matter aka the universe, there was neither space nor time. Hence, there was no Logic warrant to apply.

Agreed! No religious faith here because I have come to the conclusion myself that faith is the end of knowledge. I have explained to you already why I have decided to write that post. Can we expand?

Someone gifted with conscious intelligence caused the universe to exist and, I am sure you cannot refute that. You might deny it though, but perhaps because you feel you must stand for what you represent. But as "what" is concerned, you are going to need much more than that to explain. BTW, that question is mine; yours is the answer that I am still begging for. Remember though, the universe is composed of matter and matter cannot cause itself to exist. Now, go
ahead and tell me "what" caused the universe to exist. I am all ears. If you can't, I hope you will
be at least half ears for me to explain "Who" caused the universe to exist.

 

[viole]

Well, you have not given me any answer yet. That's the reason why I must keep bagging until you hear my call wherever you are. I have a reason to assume that the universe was caused by intelligent consciousness. Hence, a Who. Yes, Causality takes place in space and time but, what is space and time? If you ask me, space is an accident of matter, the distance between matter and matter; and time, an accident of matter in motion. If matter is not in motion, scientists will not be able to figure time. But before matter aka the universe, there was neither space nor time. Hence, there was no Logic warrant to apply.

No sequitur. All this does not matter. What matters is that causality is applicable, at best, within time and space, as you correctly observed. And since spacetime is physical, your argument is moot.

As a matter of fact, that is not enough. There must be a spacetime context with a defined arrow of time too, ergo a Universe which is not in thermodynamical equilibrium.

And causality even vanish, if we consider the fundamental level. I challenge you to differentiate between causes and effects at fundamental level. So, you are using a word that might apply only to macroscopic systems anyway, which our Universe probably "was" not.

Agreed! No religious faith here because I have come to the conclusion myself that faith is the end of knowledge. I have explained to you already why I have decided to write that post. Can we expand?

I am not sure what you are referring to, here. Maybe you should use the quote feature.

Someone gifted with conscious intelligence caused the universe to exist and, I am sure you cannot refute that.

I cannot refute something which is not even wrong. Like W. Pauli would put it.

You might deny it though, but perhaps because you feel you must stand for what you represent. But as "what" is concerned, you are going to need much more than that to explain. BTW, that question is mine; yours is the answer that I am still begging for. Remember though, the universe is composed of matter and matter cannot cause itself to exist. Now, go
ahead and tell me "what" caused the universe to exist. I am all ears. If you can't, I hope you will
be at least half ears for me to explain "Who" caused the universe to exist.

As I told you, causality is not applicable. On top of that, I am an eternalist, which does aways nicely with things like beginning of the Universe, while being supported by relativity.

But if you ask me how the Universe exists instead of non existing, I have no clue.

I feel like an ignorant Viking discussing with a wise Viking. i have no idea where lighnings come from, while the wise man tells me they can only come from Thor. Where else could they originate since I have no clue? Do you think I should buy it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Avraham]

No sequitur. All this does not matter. What matters is that causality is applicable, at best, within time and space, as you correctly observed. And since spacetime is physical, your argument is moot.

As a matter of fact, that is not enough. There must be a spacetime context with a defined arrow of time too, ergo a Universe which is not in thermodynamical equilibrium.

And causality even vanish, if we consider the fundamental level. I challenge you to differentiate between causes and effects at fundamental level. So, you are using a word that might apply only to macroscopic systems anyway, which our Universe probably "was" not.

I am not sure what you are referring to, here. Maybe you should use the quote feature.

I cannot refute something which is not even wrong. Like W. Pauli would put it.

As I told you, causality is not applicable. On top of that, I am an eternalist, which does aways nicely with things like beginning of the Universe, while being supported by relativity.

But if you ask me how the Universe exists instead of non existing, I have no clue.

I feel like an ignorant Viking discussing with a wise Viking. i have no idea where lighnings come from, while the wise man tells me they can only come from Thor. Where else could they originate since I have no clue? Do you think I should buy it?

Ciao

- viole

I am sorry Viole, but I don't think you have what it takes to discuss Atheism with a Jew. No offense meant but we have not left even the first page of the dialogue. If you are afraid to tell me what caused the universe to exist, I don't think we have much to learn from each other. Pity!

 

[viole]

I am sorry Viole, but I don't think you have what it takes to discuss Atheism with a Jew. No offense meant but we have not left even the first page of the dialogue. If you are afraid to tell me what caused the universe to exist, I don't think we have much to learn from each other. Pity!

Well, of course we are still on square one. I am not afraid to tell you what caused the Universe. I am challenging you to show me how causality applies, I am afraid.

Do you really think I should concede your assumptions and unjustified question begging so that we can move on? That is not how it works.

I told you. There is no concept if causality that trascends time and space, I am aware of. You seem to have recognized that, as well. I don't think we can even make sense of causality outside macroscopic contexts in a particular physical state.

All your intuitions of causality are inferred by experiences done on this Universe. A Universe with a well defined time arrow. That is, with a Universe already in place having these properties. And there is no logical warrant to extend our experiences to the whole Universe.

That would also be a logical fallacy. Namely, the fallacy of composition. The properties of the contained do not extend necessarily to the properties of the container. Obviously.

So, what else have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Avraham]

Well, of course we are still on square one. I am not afraid to tell you what caused the Universe. I am challenging you to show me how causality applies, I am afraid.

Do you really think I should concede your assumptions and unjustified question begging so that we can move on? That is not how it works.

I told you. There is no concept if causality that trascends time and space, I am aware of. You seem to have recognized that, as well. I don't think we can even make sense of causality outside macroscopic contexts in a particular physical state.

All your intuitions of causality are inferred by experiences done on this Universe. A Universe with a well defined time arrow. That is, with a Universe already in place having these properties. And there is no logical warrant to extend our experiences to the whole Universe.

That would also be a logical fallacy. Namely, the fallacy of composition. The properties of the contained do not extend necessarily to the properties of the container. Obviously.

So, what else have you got?

You are making too big a deal about causality when I have it the easier way. For instance, who caused you to exist? Of course, your parents. And your parents? Their parents. And their parents? You know what I am doing. Working within a chain of causality. Expansion as the universe was concerned and human growth in the case of man. That's how I apply Causality. Now, it is your turn. If you don't want to get into the discussion, there is nothing else I can do. I think you don't have an answer to any of my questions. I don't think you should get embarrassed because I have had a lot of experiences with atheists. They are afraid to try an answer and be unable to defend it.

Where did you think I would find the material to work with Causality, outside the universe? I have no other way but through matter which is the composition of the only universe we have. If you are expecting an area to work outside the universe, you will lose what life has in its agenda for you or even yourself. I think all atheists are loners, jumping from theories to theories in the hope that they won't cease to keep changing so that you have some thing newer to pass the time with. That's the analogy I find available to them all. That's what is called in my honest opinion, logical fallacy that only makes them lose their grip with reality.

 

[Coder]

Hi, if I can pitch in here. Ben I think Viole is sincere in her question about the difficulty of discussing anything related to cause-effect outside of space-time. What's ironic is that you both share this in common. I think we're all actually somewhat on the same page here.

Physicists are discussing membranes and parallel universes and membranes spawning universes. So when Viole uses the analogy of Thor as explanation for lightning, she is saying we may discover the scientific "cause" of the universe. Got it. So Viole, even if there are dimensions or other realities outside space-time or the universe, that themselves may have scientific explanations, what theists do is they look at the whole thing (even beyond what we may not know scientifically yet) and we believe that ultimately all existence of anything is from a Being who knows what "I am" means (if you know what I mean ). The explanations of science are often amazing, useful, and worthy of respect. However, science is not an ultimate answer to "what is this all about?, and what are we all about?, and what is the purpose of life?..." and science admits that it does not answer that question. Also, I'm referring to this ultimate question/search that we all have (and not just the fairies in the garden ).

Also, as I mentioned I believe that faith in God is a gift from God.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hi, if I can pitch in here. Ben I think Viole is sincere in her question about the difficulty of discussing anything related to cause-effect outside of space-time. What's ironic is that you both share this in common. I think we're all actually somewhat on the same page here.

Physicists are discussing membranes and parallel universes and membranes spawning universes. So when Viole uses the analogy of Thor as explanation for lightning, she is saying we may discover the scientific "cause" of the universe. Got it. So Viole, even if there are dimensions or other realities outside space-time or the universe, that themselves may have scientific explanations, what theists do is they look at the whole thing (even beyond what we may not know scientifically yet) and we believe that ultimately all existence of anything is from a Being who knows what "I am" means (if you know what I mean ). The explanations of science are often amazing, useful, and worthy of respect. However, science is not an ultimate answer to "what is this all about?, and what are we all about?, and what is the purpose of life?..." and science admits that it does not answer that question. Also, I'm referring to this ultimate question/search that we all have (and not just the fairies in the garden ).

Also, as I mentioned I believe that faith in God is a gift from God.

There is nothing to discuss outside of the space-time system. Matter is included in all discussions about the universe and, space-time is an accident of matter. Space as the distance between matter and matter, and time, when matter is in motion. Now, the purpose of life is to live. That's what we all have been born to.

 

[Coder]

There is nothing to discuss outside of the space-time system. Matter is included in all discussions about the universe and, space-time is an accident of matter.

Yes, that's the point. For those who believe (as you and I do) in God, and that God is a spiritual being (Shekinah), God is beyond all scientific concepts such as matter, universe, space-time. Granted, we don't "understand", except by faith, yet those of faith contend that it (faith) is actually the highest level of understanding. At the same time, we have to respect science and not try to assume that everything we don't understand doesn't have a scientific explanation as Viole points out (Thor and lightning).

 

[Ben Avraham]

Yes, that's the point. For those who believe (as you and I do) in God, and that God is a spiritual being (Shekinah), God is beyond all scientific concepts such as matter, universe, space-time. Granted, we don't "understand", except by faith, yet those of faith contend that it (faith) is actually the highest level of understanding. At the same time, we have to respect science and not try to assume that everything we don't understand doesn't have a scientific explanation as Viole points out (Thor and lightning).

Great post Coder! I would like only to breath a little on faith which, as you remind us of, "those of faith contend that faith is the highest level of understanding." They are truly mistaken for not reading their own bible aka the NT. Paul said in II Cor. 5:7 that his disciples were to walk by faith and not by sight, and that, by juxtaposing faith with sight, he created opposites; faith versus sight. If to walk by sight, one walks with understanding, it is only obvious that to walk by faith, one walks in the dark without the understanding required to know where he or she walks to. Definitely, Paul meant that his followers did not need to understand where they walked to as long as they walked by faith and left the understanding with him.

 

[viole]

You are making too big a deal about causality when I have it the easier way. For instance, who caused you to exist? Of course, your parents. And your parents? Their parents. And their parents? You know what I am doing. Working within a chain of causality. Expansion as the universe was concerned and human growth in the case of man. That's how I apply Causality. Now, it is your turn. If you don't want to get into the discussion, there is nothing else I can do. I think you don't have an answer to any of my questions. I don't think you should get embarrassed because I have had a lot of experiences with atheists. They are afraid to try an answer and be unable to defend it.

You are not listening. Or reading, to be exact.

You are still applying causality to things in the Universe. Things like myself. That is all your intuition of causality comes from. And this the only empirical support we can have of causality. Extending the same concepts of the contained to the container with causality enabling properties is not logically warranted. It could be you are right, but you are not necessarily right.

It is called the composition fallacy, if you are into naming fallacies.

Where did you think I would find the material to work with Causality, outside the universe? I have no other way but through matter which is the composition of the only universe we have.

And that is exactly why you have no warrant to extend the concept beyond that.

By the way, causality does not even exist at fundamental level.

If you are expecting an area to work outside the universe, you will lose what life has in its agenda for you or even yourself. I think all atheists are loners, jumping from theories to theories in the hope that they won't cease to keep changing so that you have some thing newer to pass the time with. That's the analogy I find available to them all. That's what is called in my honest opinion, logical fallacy that only makes them lose their grip with reality.

I am not jumping from theory to theory. Since we have no clue of the state of the Universe at Plank scale. And I have no theory that disproves God, I am just showing you that the theories that "prove" Him are fallacious, and are ultimately reducible to making up answers, like that Viking. Even if A God existed.

And we are not loners. In general. It is obvious you do not live in Sweden, then you will be the loner, lol. Actually, I am here because i am surrounded by atheists, and I find it boring to argue about the existence of God with people who do not believe in Him.

Some of us enjoy debating the existence of God only because there are theist who believe in Him, for no logical reason whatsoever, in my opinion. If there were many believers in invisible fairies, I would probably engage them as well.

I am sure you agree that not believing in fairies does not make me a loner. Then why should I be one by not believing in God, since gods and fairies have exactly the same evidence and plausibility?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Avraham]

You are not listening. Or reading, to be exact.

You are still applying causality to things in the Universe. Things like myself. That is all your intuition of causality comes from. And this the only empirical support we can have of causality. Extending the same concepts of the contained to the container with causality enabling properties is not logically warranted. It could be you are right, but you are not necessarily right.

It is called the composition fallacy, if you are into naming fallacies.

And that is exactly why you have no warrant to extend the concept beyond that.

By the way, causality does not even exist at fundamental level.

I am not jumping from theory to theory. Since we have no clue of the state of the Universe at Plank scale. And I have no theory that disproves God, I am just showing you that the theories that "prove" Him are fallacious, and are ultimately reducible to making up answers, like that Viking. Even if A God existed.

And we are not loners. In general. It is obvious you do not live in Sweden, then you will be the loner, lol. Actually, I am here because i am surrounded by atheists, and I find it boring to argue about the existence of God with people who do not believe in Him.

Some of us enjoy debating the existence of God only because there are theist who believe in Him, for no logical reason whatsoever, in my opinion. If there were many believers in invisible fairies, I would probably engage them as well.

I am sure you agree that not believing in fairies does not make me a loner. Then why should I be one by not believing in God, since gods and fairies have exactly the same evidence and plausibility?

Ciao

- viole

Okay Viole, I take from this post of yours that you don't believe that God exists. I am going to ask you a question. Since for you God does not exist, who caused the universe to exist? Scientists speak about the age of the universe according to "Carbon 14". If the universe has an age, it had a beginning. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, it is only obvious that someone caused the universe to exist. Who was It? Who or what in your opinion caused the universe to exist?

 

[viole]

Okay Viole, I take from this post of yours that you don't believe that God exists. I am going to ask you a question. Since for you God does not exist, who caused the universe to exist? Scientists speak about the age of the universe according to "Carbon 14". If the universe has an age, it had a beginning. Since it could not have caused itself to exist, it is only obvious that someone caused the universe to exist. Who was It? Who or what in your opinion caused the universe to exist?

The invisible pink panther? Maybe? I am sure this provides strong evidence that the invisible panther, or anything we can make up, exists.

By the way, I think it is absurd to talk of a beginning of the Universe. Even if we accept BB, inflationarycosmology and all that. Things begin in spacetime. Spacetime does not begin. It does not even expand, obviously. For, at what rate would it expand?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Coder]

....or anything we can make up...

A key point is that God is not "anything we can make up". God made us up. Pssst, don't tell anyone but it's actually we humans who are the fairies in the garden.

By the way, I think it is absurd to talk of a beginning of the Universe.

Agreed. God says: "I am".

 

[viole]

A key point is that God is not "anything we can make up". God made us up. Pssst, don't tell anyone but it's actually we humans who are the fairies in the garden.

Now I know who eats my carrots.

Agreed. God says: "I am".

Like my Universe. Tenseless.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Coder]

Now I know who eats my carrots.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Avraham]

The invisible pink panther? Maybe? I am sure this provides strong evidence that the invisible panther, or anything we can make up, exists.

By the way, I think it is absurd to talk of a beginning of the Universe. Even if we accept BB, inflationarycosmology and all that. Things begin in spacetime. Spacetime does not begin. It does not even expand, obviously. For, at what rate would it expand?

Ciao

- viole

I think I have explained to you already that space is an accident of matter aka the space between matter and matter. And for time, it is an accident of matter in motion. The universe is composed of matter. Were not for the existence of the universe, space-time did not exist. The same can be said for darkness which is the absence of light. Were not for light, darkness would not exist. So, we have enough evidence for the beginning of the universe. What I need to know from you is what or Who caused the universe to exist. Why is it absurd to talk about the beginning of the universe? Scientists talk about it all the time when they claim the beginning of the universe from the big bang. As I can see from your post above, that's not your opinion. What is it then! An opinion does not have to be the truth.

 

[viole]

I think I have explained to you already that space is an accident of matter aka the space between matter and matter. And for time, it is an accident of matter in motion. The universe is composed of matter. Were not for the existence of the universe, space-time did not exist.

That is pretty bold claim. There are solutions of the Einstein field equations that neglect the existence of matter. De Sitter Universes come to mind. So, from a relativistic point of view, the presence of matter is not required to make consistent Universes. Because that is what spacetimes are. Surfaces. 4 dimensional surfaces with a pseudo-riemannian metric tensor field, to be exact. No matter is required to define what a surface is.

And there are good reasons to postulate that the geometry of spacetime "predates" the presence of matter. I would say it is impossible to have matter (positive energy) without a gravitational field (geometry of spacetime) that provides the necessary negative energy so that energy is conserved. After all, our Universe has total energy equal to zero.

The same can be said for darkness which is the absence of light. Were not for light, darkness would not exist. So, we have enough evidence for the beginning of the universe. What I need to know from you is what or Who caused the universe to exist. Why is it absurd to talk about the beginning of the universe? Scientists talk about it all the time when they claim the beginning of the universe from the big bang. As I can see from your post above, that's not your opinion. What is it then! An opinion does not have to be the truth.

Scientists talk about it all the time because they are not careful. Or they still have a persistent and stubborn pre-relativity notion of time. Or maybe they want to convey a message that is understood by the average layman. I can't say.

Why it is absurd to talk of a beginning? Because beginnings require a spacetime context in place in order to make sense. When and where spacetime began? Can you pinpoint an initial location? If not, how can you pinpoint a starting time? Did it begin everywhere, or over there?

You see, even the concept of expansion of the Universe is absurd. 4-dimensional spacetimes do not expand. You can observe expansion of space within time, but for sure not the expansion of both entities merged together in what we call spacetime. Any dynamics, ergo change in time and in space, is meaningless when applied to the very context in which these concepts make sense. So, the Universe is eternal and immutable, despite Big Bangs and all that.

It is like travelling on a train, looking at the window, observing the changing landscapes, and inferring that the world out there is changing continuously. Look at that house turning into a forest turning into a beach turning into a train station. What a beuatiful causality chain we have observed.

A good layman introduction to this can be found here -> http://archive.is/0pC8J

Ciao

- viole

 

[Coder]

Hi, many concepts are boggling, even mind-blowing. For example, what would the universe be expanding into? As humans, we try to establish reference points, and define things relative to our reference points, very much like parables. At some point, despite all our science, we realize that we still truly understand nothing, we are lost in the woods, and we cry "God, help us!" To me, this is a big part of what faith is all about. To me, one of the beautiful things about science it not so much that it answers questions (which indeed it does for practical purposes) but that it raises us to new levels of awe, wonder, and amazement!

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hi, many concepts are boggling, even mind-blowing. For example, what would the universe be expanding into? As humans, we try to establish reference points, and define things relative to our reference points, very much like parables. At some point, despite all our science, we realize that we still truly understand nothing, we are lost in the woods, and we cry "God, help us!" To me, this is a big part of what faith is all about. To me, one of the beautiful things about science it not so much that it answers questions (which indeed it does for practical purposes) but that it raises us to new levels of awe, wonder, and amazement!

The Astrophysicists have verified that the universe is expanding. I take this as the same as when The Primal Cause said to man after He created him, "Now grow and multiply, and fill up the earth. (Genesis 1:28) What we call for man evolution, Albert Einstein called for the universe expansion. From his book,
"Out of My Later Days."

 

[Ben Avraham]

That is pretty bold claim. There are solutions of the Einstein field equations that neglect the existence of matter. De Sitter Universes come to mind. So, from a relativistic point of view, the presence of matter is not required to make consistent Universes. Because that is what spacetimes are. Surfaces. 4 dimensional surfaces with a pseudo-riemannian metric tensor field, to be exact. No matter is required to define what a surface is.

Without matter Einstein would not be able to formulate his famous formula on gravity. Now, you say that Einstein neglected the existence of matter!

And there are good reasons to postulate that the geometry of spacetime "predates" the presence of matter. I would say it is impossible to have matter (positive energy) without a gravitational field (geometry of spacetime) that provides the necessary negative energy so that energy is conserved. After all, our Universe has total energy equal to zero.

If the universe is composed of matter, how could its energy be totally equal to zero?

Scientists talk about it all the time because they are not careful. Or they still have a persistent and stubborn pre-relativity notion of time. Or maybe they want to convey a message that is understood by the average layman. I can't say.

What is your notion of time? BTW what is space/time in your opinion? I just want to know if they are related to matter.

Why it is absurd to talk of a beginning? Because beginnings require a spacetime context in place in order to make sense. When and where spacetime began? Can you pinpoint an initial location? If not, how can you pinpoint a starting time? Did it begin everywhere, or over there?

How could it be absurd to talk of a beginning if we all have had a beginning? You have had a beginning haven't you?

You see, even the concept of expansion of the Universe is absurd. 4-dimensional spacetimes do not expand. You can observe expansion of space within time, but for sure not the expansion of both entities merged together in what we call spacetime. Any dynamics, ergo change in time and in space, is meaningless when applied to the very context in which these concepts make sense. So, the Universe is eternal and immutable, despite Big Bangs and all that.

I read a book from Einstein "Out of My Later Years" where he speaks about expansion of the universe. Are you implying that he was fake or absurd? What do you call spacetime? If the universe is composed of matter, how could matter be eternal and immutable? We are parts of the universe. Are we eternal and immutable?

It is like travelling on a train, looking at the window, observing the changing landscapes, and inferring that the world out there is changing continuously. Look at that house turning into a forest turning into a beach turning into a train station. What a beuatiful causality chain we have observed.

Are you trying to tell me that the concept of causality does not exist?