Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
02 May 2016, 5:45 pm
CryingTears15 wrote:
NoahYates wrote:
Just a little something for the new people in this thread... these breif films provide a few sketches of arguments for God's existence. Personally, I allow these types of thought experiments as lines of evidence.
Videos one and two can be turned around to apply to God. God is something, as such, who created God, and why did God exist? I reject the notion that God is without the same laws as us should He have created us: My parents created me, and are of the same stuff I am.
Video three is interesting, but this is unlikely, not impossible. In any of the other scenarios in which nothing exists, we would not be around to perceive our own nonexistence. In the scenario in which we do exist, we perceive our existence.
Finally, I am a fan of... *waits for boos* The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins sucks, but his work is interesting. In this, he gives several examples of altruism, but most importantly states that we are all genes trying to propagate independently, and want to help our genes. This does not just mean family, but extends to all carriers of our genes, including cats, and even plants. Empathy, the heart of morality, is evolutionary. In addition, the most productive society which benefits all is ruled by a sense of order and morality, which is why we are born with such.
The nullification of the argument of 'who created God?' can easily be posited by Noah's point in contingency. As the life and age of the universe is driven by a finite axiom (time), a perception that can easily imply that the universe is not a fundamental being as it is in reality, a subset.
In regards to the anthropic principle, you are emphasizing a static set of physical laws that are incomprehensibly fine tuned for life of any sort as being tautological. It is true that fine tuning is tautological to some degree, but I am of the opinion that you are overlooking the fact that life is possible within an incredibly narrow range, a range that is so incredibly small, that many physicists have concluded that the only two options are either God or a multiverse. It is important to know that the last three demonstrations of fine tuning are not examples of fine tuning neccesary for life, but for any celestial object to exist in the universe at all (stars, galaxies).
We don't really have enough evidence at this time to ascertain whether a god, or multiple gods exist or not, or if our "gods" have simply been extraterrestrial life forms, or if reality as we know it isn't just some computer simulation.
If there is no evidence of God, when one should expect to find it, it's reasonable to reject the hypothesis.
Can you elaborate?
_________________ Every day is exactly the same...
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
03 May 2016, 11:14 am
I just want to clarify that I think the video on the Moral argument is kinda meh... that is why I haven't posted it until now. I think the general argument is sound, and I agree with its premises and conclusion. However, I find this particular video to be poorly articulated and snooty in tone. William Lane Craig himself states the argument in a much more eloquent and humble way... attempting to get the point across while explicitly making certain that the audience knows that he does not mean to imply people cannot be good without belief in God.
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
03 May 2016, 2:28 pm
I think I may have stumbled upon a new argument for the existence of God. If our universe is finite within the axiom of the dimension of time, it simply puts itself necessarily and unquestionably, within a subset of something greater and far more necessary than itself. Which may very well be God.
I think I may have stumbled upon a new argument for the existence of God. If our universe is finite within the axiom of the dimension of time, it simply puts itself necessarily and unquestionably, within a subset of something greater and far more necessary than itself. Which may very well be God.
So.... a multiverse is both a refutation of God and evidence for God?
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
03 May 2016, 10:46 pm
AspE wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
I think I may have stumbled upon a new argument for the existence of God. If our universe is finite within the axiom of the dimension of time, it simply puts itself necessarily and unquestionably, within a subset of something greater and far more necessary than itself. Which may very well be God.
So.... a multiverse is both a refutation of God and evidence for God?
No; BGV theorem states that a multiverse, if it even exists, MUST coincide with our Big Bang.
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
04 May 2016, 6:30 am
Godel was working on a proof of God using infinite sets and the Absolute before he died.
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,050 Location: Monroe Twp. NJ
04 May 2016, 5:15 pm
NoahYates wrote:
Godel was working on a proof of God using infinite sets and the Absolute before he died.
It was an ontological proof, somewhat along the same lines as Anselm's "proof". Like all ontological proofs it derives the existence of something by word play, not by constructing the thing that is supposed to exist or observing the thing that is supposed to exist. Look up Anselm's ontological proof of God's existence.
_________________ Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
Joined: 2 Mar 2016 Age: 35 Gender: Male Posts: 545 Location: Kentucky
04 May 2016, 6:49 pm
Word play ehh?! Its a little more sophisticated than that. Also... I have provided links to both Anselm's and Godel's arguments at various times during this thread.
_________________ “In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
I think I may have stumbled upon a new argument for the existence of God. If our universe is finite within the axiom of the dimension of time, it simply puts itself necessarily and unquestionably, within a subset of something greater and far more necessary than itself. Which may very well be God.
So.... a multiverse is both a refutation of God and evidence for God?
No; BGV theorem states that a multiverse, if it even exists, MUST coincide with our Big Bang.
A theorum, especially one that is not universally accepted, is hardly compelling evidence against all possible forms of a multiverse. Also our universe could be virtually infinite, even if it had a beginning, which is unknown.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
05 May 2016, 1:14 am
AspE wrote:
A theorum, especially one that is not universally accepted, is hardly compelling evidence against all possible forms of a multiverse.
No, it is a mathematical fact, predicted by any generic hamiltonian constraint in Quantum cosmology (Gotta love Loop Quantum theory > useless string theory). Any universe that undergoes both classical and quantum expansion MUST have a definite undisputable t=0. Even a multiverse, in all given models (whether M-theory, inflationary theory, and even Hugh Everett's many worlds interpretation) must have a beginning.
AspE wrote:
Also our universe could be virtually infinite, even if it had a beginning, which is unknown.
Hook up with Fred Hoyle, it could very well be the beginning of a beautiful relationship between you and him.
A universe can be both eternal and have a local beginning. I.E. Stenger's inflationary bi-verse model. Say another universe also starts at T=0, but goes backwards in time relative to our own universe. For a scientist, you are awfully absolute in your assessment of how the universe works.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
05 May 2016, 3:33 pm
AspE and Grischa, the foremost problem with the Hartle-Hawking scenario is that is extrapolates Einstein-Hilbert topologies (Geometrics) and takes them beyond levels authorized by general relativity. When the given topology is unbounded from below, we can no longer calculate its properties. Moreover, even if one was to accept the notion of imaginary time as physically true, there is the issue of quantization of complete systems to classical systems which is simply not correct.
Joined: 27 Dec 2015 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: SystemShock Universe
05 May 2016, 4:01 pm
AspE wrote:
A universe can be both eternal and have a local beginning. I.E. Stenger's inflationary bi-verse model. Say another universe also starts at T=0, but goes backwards in time relative to our own universe. For a scientist, you are awfully absolute in your assessment of how the universe works.
Never heard of this model by Stenger (man, you love that guy). But right of the bat, I can sense some issues in regards to entropy.
02 May 2016, 5:45 pm
