Well, let’s see here.
No such process is known.
No entity that could affect the world but not be affected by it could be aware of the world, or shape it in any meaningful sense, because it would have no way to gain information about the universe – no interaction, remember?
There are no paths from this idea that permit anything even remotely like the Judeo-Christian God.
Point 1 is irrelevant.
Re: pt 2., it could simply be that the entity is capable of choosing whether to get affected.
TVAA:
Yes, I believe he exists. However, I also believe that he is a non-physical being. Anything physical must by definition obey the laws of physics, bound by the dimension of time, thus I find the notion of a “timeless universe” illogical. A non-physical being, however, exists beyond the dimensional boundaries to which physical beings are constrained, and therefore can be timeless and come into existence from prior (to whatever degree the word “prior” has meaning in a timeless being) nothingness.
I don’t see how that follows. You’re assuming constraints on a being you cannot define. The fact that there is a set of laws that will govern the behavior of physical entities barring interference from any other source does not mean that nothing that is not defined by those laws can affect physical entities.
Chaim Mattis Keller
No, it’s not. It disproves nothing – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – but it’s strongly suggestive.
Your second objection is groundless. By what mechanism can the entity choose to interact with the rest of the universe? That mechanism will rely on principles underlying both the entity and the universe – which contradicts your assumption.
It is generally postulated that the physical concepts at the foundation of our universe, including time, arose a fraction (Planck time) of the time after the Big Bang.
And how do you come to this conclusion?
** There you go – you’ve fallen into error already.
** And the univese as it exists in the dimension of time is what, exactly? By necessity it is timeless – your objection is illogical.
** This reasoning is ridden with so many errors I don’t know where to start. This being cannot be said to exist in this universe, for one thing; nor is timelessness necessarily a property of things outside this universe, nor cannot it be a property of things within this universe.
** No, I am correctly apply the principle that a non-defined “thing” cannot be said to exist.
** But the interaction is precisely how “physical entities” are defined. Isn’t a beam of light physical? And it obeys the same fundamental laws as everything else – although the higher-level statements that describe its behavior don’t necessarily describe other things.
The “other source” is part of the universe if it interacts with things in the universe. You can’t have your pie and eat it too.
Simple – I note that the opposite conclusion is logically self-contradictory. And since the wording of the claim splits the universe in half, I can conclude that the conclusion is necessary.
Well I’m not happy about it, but I agree with TVAA more than I agree with what you’re saying. If you consider or believe that God didn’t have a creator, that he always was, which I do, then it stands to reason that whatever he is, energy or…,existed somewhere. You can either decide that God is the universe or that he has always been in the universe. There was never nothing because there was God. The only way you could ever believe there was nothing is if you didn’t believe in God and then it would be a major stretch of the imagination. If you believe there is no God, you are normally still going to think there was something. Nothing doesn’t really work either way. Try wrapping your mind around a timeless “non-physical” universe. If God can be, it can be.
Instead of creating an infinite amount of scenarios, if we’re assuming that God is the creator, it makes the most sense to at least go with what we know to be true about our universe so far. Evolution is a fact. The indeterminate age of the universe is a fact, but it’s age appears to be at least beyond our understanding. We can say the laws of physics don’t matter to God, but if you believe he created us, then you believe he created the basic laws of physics. Did he “pull a rabbit, right out of his hat” or are we looking at the bi-product of the methods he used? I do believe in God but don’t think it’s necessary to believe in magic. I’m also in favor of theist’s basing at least part of their arguments or theories on what is. We already operate under a handicap as far as proof is concerned, why make things more incredible than they already seem?
What’s the opposite conclusion? One way to make way for such an entity would be to define two kinds of interactions for all matter in the universe. One is that when it is acted upon by other matter, and the second is when it is acted upon by “entity”. However arbitrary, there would be no logical way to prove this is not possible, and would solve your “contradiction”.
There really isn’t a contradiction, that we know of. This would merely be adding one more unnecessary, unprovable variable.
TVAA:
How so? It may not be your opinion, but how is it necessarily error?
No, now you’re being illogical. First of all, your “necessity” is an a priori assumption, which is not valid given that it’s part of the point we’re actually debating. Second of all, the laws of thermodynamics (I won’t make the mistake of using a number again), taken to their logical conclusion, indicates that the universe (as it is a finite closed system) is inevitably moving toward a state of total entropy, so logically, it must have had a beginning point with a specific amount of energy present.
True; it transcends this universe. Or, as the Jewish sages have worded it “the world is not his place; he is the world’s place.”
True. It may or may not be. But barring our ability to scientifically quantify such entities, it cannot be proven that it lacks timelessness.
This, I dispute. All physical matter is affected by gravity, and gravity is directly related to experience of time.
I did not say it CANNOT be defined. I said YOU cannot define it, because you maintain a refusal to imagine entities other than in physical terms.
Interaction with each other.
Yes I can. It merely does not interact in a physical way.
IWLN:
(emphasis mine here)
But the universe is physical. That’s the brick wall you run up against if you try to explain it all without allowing for the existence of any supernatural entity.
Chaim Mattis Keller
The problem here IMHO is that I define the universe differently than you do. Our “little universe” is a finite age. This part was created by God, not by magic; but by a physical process. For someone who doesn’t believe, the catalyst was something unknown, folding proteins or? What would be called “the big universe” is better defined by some of the same characteristics that you assign to God, ie timeless, limitless. If the “big universe” were physical, it would have boundaries/walls, an age, a beginning, an end. Which means there would have to be something inside and outside and when you get to the outside then you would keep running into the same problem with defining it’s boundaries. Also there would be the problem with what was before and what will be after. This type of endless explanation defies any explanation. It creates a paradox. Assuming that one day a couple hundred billion years ago, God said, “Hey I’m tired of going nowhere. I’m gonna make me a space to exist in.” That doesn’t make better sense than him already existing in an ageless, limitless universe. Sorry to be flip, but I got my irreverent sense of humor from God. I don’t think anything in science disproves God. I actually think some of what they’re coming up with now makes more sense, at least to me. I do believe it can all be explained with and without an entity, actually with just a few detail changes (I still have a hard time saying that, but it’s true). That doesn’t mean God does or doesn’t exist. All of our “information” on God’s characteristics came from the Bible and religion. That makes it pretty hard to insist that God “must” be one certain way or another. Most of us were raised with this concept of a “magic” God who could do anything. That might or might not be true, but until I know different I can’t argue a lot of those points with any credibility. Well, I did try to and I learned a lot in the process. Like what “not” to say, how silly some of it sounds outloud and how much humble pie I could eat in one sitting, etc. So for now my concept of God is more in line with what information and theories we do know about the universe. I’ll get the details later.
IWLN:
I’m a bit confused by this last post of yours. So you essentially DO believe that there is something beyond out finite, physical universe that is not subject to the same laws we ascribe to physical entities…you’re just hesitant to label that as an intelligent creator?
If that’s the gist of your argument, then I really don’t think we’re in disagreement.
I absolutely believe in God with no doubts. Beyond our known finite physical universe there are probably many natural laws that don’t apply, but since I don’t know what they are, I’m going with what we know, so far; with room for logical theories. Arguing against a natural law because it might not apply is useless.
The reasons that I agreed with a lot of TVAA’s statements as opposed to yours has nothing to do with God’s existence. But I would have made a lot of the arguments he did. When you’re talking about dimensions of time and totally resisting any concept of a timeless universe, which one is more likely? It isn’t unreasonable for someone to believe that God doesn’t exist. The statement that an undefined thing cannot be said to exist is not false. We do tend to have a tough time defining God in any rational way. When we are talking about God not being a physical entity, which is a fairly common idea, it’s not something we really know. We tend to fall back on the claim that because he’s not in any way physical(unproven), that he is not subject to the laws of physics(unproven). You can still argue the point, but you will lose. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I’m wasn’t disagreeing with you as far as God’s existence is concerned, just some of the “finer points”.
The OP is saying that, since abiogenesis (and development of the self-replicating molecule into a being with self-awareness) is a mathematical certainty, there is no need to consider the possibility of a creator.
Then you said that our existence proves that our existence is a mathematical certainty.
This is circular reasoning because the very thing the OP was trying to prove (that there is no need to consider the possibility of a creator) is also one of the assumptions being used (to explain how we know our existence is a mathematical certainty).
When what you are trying to prove is also one of your initial assumptions, circular reasoning is at work.
I haven’t yet seen any proof that abiogenesis and development of self aware beings is mathematically inevitable.
But even if that were true, it would really not say much about the possibility of a creator, because it would leave another question - why does a universe exist in which, from an initial state of lifelessness, self aware beings are a mathematical certainty?
Unprovable… Most probably
Unnecessary… Not really
If you want to support the Judeo-Christian God, such a condition might be necessary.
** We’ve been explaining that to you all this time.
** No, it’s not possible to make the contrary assumption. You referenced a model of the universe in which time is considered as a dimension – thus, time itself is timeless. If you don’t understand the assumptions in the models you bring to the table, don’t participate in these discussions.
** No, it most certainly does not. The second law is statistical – unlike most other “laws”, it can be violated in specific instances without becoming invalid. A finite system will eventually cycle through all of its possible configurations – there is no “beginning” state, just as there is no “ending” state. Thus the flow of entropy can indeed reverse over sufficiently long periods of time – in fact, the model you mentioned requires this.
** Sloppy reasoning. If this entity interacts with things that we consider to be part of the universe, what grounds are there for considering it to be outside of the universe? If it interacts, it is “inside”; if it’s “outside” it does not interact.
** Pointless.
** Grotesquely wrong. There is no reason why something in the physical universe must be affected by gravity; even granting this point, gravity isn’t related to the “experience” of anything.
** You are simply not capable of understanding the point – there is no distinction between “physical” and “nonphysical” things, merely those things that are within or without the universe. In the most accurate sense, there are no nonphysical things that exist within the universe.
Go on, try to find an example of such a thing. I’ll wait.
** No, some other kind of interaction. :rolleyes: If we presume that God interacts with human beings, and human beings are part of the universe, then God is part of the universe, because the universe is merely the set of all things that interact with each other.
** Interaction is what defines “physical”. Your statement is meaningless. Any interactions are necessarily “physical” in nature.
We can just as truthfully say that the universe is virtual. There’s no difference – “physical” and “virtual” has no meaning without a point of reference to refer to, and the universe as a whole contains no reference point outside of it.
While I’m at it: undefined things cannot be said to exist, because they can’t have any particular interactions with things that do exist. If they could be said to have particular interactions, they wouldn’t be undefined any longer, would they?
Not true. Physical objects are defined as those which consist of matter and/or energy. There is nothing in that definition about “interactions,” and certainly nothing which states that whatever interacts with the physical must also be physical.
Since you claim this to be so, I must now ask you for an authoritative cite which states that “Interaction is what defines ‘physical’.” A rigorous cite, please. I will not accept any sources which simply state, for example, that physical objects interact with physical objects, as that does not prove that physicality is defined by interaction with physical phenomena.
In fact, the link which I provided specifically says that physicality is defined as “Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit.” While this definition refers to a biological distinction, it does demonstrate a dichotomy between the material (i.e. the body) and the immaterial (i.e. mind and spirit). The other definitions provided likewise emphasize this distinction, e.g. “Of or relating to material things” and “Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.”
And before you complain that all things must be material, let me cite the [url=“http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material”]definitions for that as well. This citation specifically says materiality is “# Of or concerned with the physical as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual.” This demonstrates that not all which interacts with the material or physical world is automatically defined as being material or physical.