A sentient god? I don't think so.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2012, 07:25 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 03:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 01:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  In have been pondering upon this one a lot recently.

It occurs to me that WLC should be saying "spaceless, time-full".

By this I mean that in the beginning, there were no dimension of space but all possible dimensions of time.

Given that we know that space and time are relative, can we say that they are also inversely proportional? i.e. space is expanding at an increasing rate (accelerating) therefore time is decelerating proportionally.

At the beginning when there was no matter (and no mass) all possible 'time options' were possible i.e. our time 'scale' and also slower time and/or faster time scales.

As soon as a force or matter and movement through time (acceleration) happened, F=MA was born.

Also, at the other end of the universe, we should see Mass tending to zero as Acceleration tends to infinity (assuming F is constant)... space will reach a maximum and time will reach its minimum. Matter therefore will be spread so thinly that it will appear that nothing is there to be moving.

Like a surface of a lake that becomes still after a storm.

As it will be at the end, so it was in the beginning. It only needs a little force or matter to be thrown into the lake to start the whole thing off again. And maybe next time the time 'scale' could be a different one.

Maybe this lake-disturbance has happened many times and happens all the time (multiverses in the same space-scale but different time-scale).

These disturbances cause waves in space-time. If the lake is the Higgs field then the wave peaks will have the greatest mass and the wave troughs with have the greatest anti-mass (yeah, by now you can tell that I left school in my teens, right?). So, is a black hole one of the points where the waves from different disturbances intersect?

Perhaps this is why some matter (e.g. an electron) that has very tiny mass are thought to be in different places at the same time yet could it be that they are actually in the same place but measurable in more than one time? We can only measure 'now' in our time scale so we think they blink in and out of existence but really they are measured 'now' but we can't measure the 'next' time position in the other time scales.

I was thinking about this because I was having cogitations regarding waves vs. particles. Particles are measured in three dimensions but waves are measured in four dimensions.

So, back to the OP...
There still needs to be a prime movement or prime force or prime mass to start the ripples on the lake going but there is still no evidence that this force is sentient but...

Here is my preferred theory: In a few billennium's time we work out how to cross over to another time-scale (a faster one) we send something over there, (a 'now' point in another time-universe) but that other time-universe has already reached its spaceful/timeless state but the mass we send there triggers waves that kick it off again. A few billennium ago, another species did that to us and that's what started our universe going.

Obvious, really.
Craig tries to "mumbo-jumbo" his way around this, but ultimately comes back to contradicting himself. If there is "Causality", (or "intentional creation", there must be time, *already* in existence. The word "existence" itself requires time. If you can explain how it doesn't, you'll be the first. Certainly a "sentient", (perceiving or thinking) being is moving through a temporal dimension.

Exactly.
He has to use mumbo-jumbo because he has gone for 'spaceless' and 'timeless' which as you say is impossible.

If he went for 'spaceless' and 'time-full' he would be ok because then he could argue that this 'invisible realm' where his god (and presumably unicorns, ghosts and fairies too) exist can be another universe existing in the same space but a faster or slower time.

We cannot observe this other universe(s) except when the 'nows' of both intersect but we can only perceive matter as part of our 'now' because we have no way of measuring the other universe's 'previous' or 'next'.

He (WLC) wants the creator of our universe to be an sentient entity that has mastered the crossover between universes and then does this often to look after us (but not all the 1000's of children who die every day, obviously) via prayer-management.

A more simple answer is that it was just a blip of energy or matter that crossed over from the other 'now' to our first 'now' and caused the first ripple on our Higgs-lake.

I am becoming a woo-master. I feel a book coming on.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
Knowing the theologian, they might also pull out their favorite word.... Transcendence.

They'd simply assert whatever the mind of god is, simply transcends the material. Which is nonsense.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 03:12 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(23-11-2012 07:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 07:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sentience is software. It must have hardware to run on.

No hardware, no sentience.
When talking about God people usually assert that 'He's not part of this universe' - if you have that degree of freedom, to talk of software *requiring* hardware seems a bit... restricted. *In our experience* software requires hardware...

NB I'm not bein' all wishy-washy, Vosur asked us to test-drive his argument so I'm trying to crash it into a tree...
In our experience, organisms require a certain set of elements in order to live. Who's to say they do? All science relies on experience. That experience is simply tested repeatedly in order to affirm our assumptions.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:17 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(24-11-2012 03:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-11-2012 07:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  When talking about God people usually assert that 'He's not part of this universe' - if you have that degree of freedom, to talk of software *requiring* hardware seems a bit... restricted. *In our experience* software requires hardware...

NB I'm not bein' all wishy-washy, Vosur asked us to test-drive his argument so I'm trying to crash it into a tree...
In our experience, organisms require a certain set of elements in order to live. Who's to say they do? All science relies on experience. That experience is simply tested repeatedly in order to affirm our assumptions.
Yes. So an argument that relied on 'all organisms require water to live' might sound pretty cool - but can you *guarantee* that something which you'd classify as 'life' couldn't survive without?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:19 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
I feel like either I'm missing the point spectacularly or no one understands me Sadcryface
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:26 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(24-11-2012 04:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 03:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  In our experience, organisms require a certain set of elements in order to live. Who's to say they do? All science relies on experience. That experience is simply tested repeatedly in order to affirm our assumptions.
Yes. So an argument that relied on 'all organisms require water to live' might sound pretty cool - but can you *guarantee* that something which you'd classify as 'life' couldn't survive without?
Can I guarantee anything, 100%?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:31 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(24-11-2012 04:26 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 04:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Yes. So an argument that relied on 'all organisms require water to live' might sound pretty cool - but can you *guarantee* that something which you'd classify as 'life' couldn't survive without?
Can I guarantee anything, 100%?
Nope Big Grin Well yeah. I guess. If you can find a contradiction. But then logic is optional anyway Dodgy So still nope.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:33 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(24-11-2012 04:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 04:26 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Can I guarantee anything, 100%?
Nope Big Grin Well yeah. I guess. If you can find a contradiction. But then logic is optional anyway Dodgy So still nope.
Then I guess we are both stuck. Consider

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2012, 04:35 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
I guess I'll go read my bible to find answers...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
24-11-2012, 05:56 AM
RE: A sentient god? I don't think so.
(24-11-2012 04:33 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-11-2012 04:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  Nope Big Grin Well yeah. I guess. If you can find a contradiction. But then logic is optional anyway Dodgy So still nope.
Then I guess we are both stuck. Consider
I've read the whole thing a second time and I'm simply confused at this point. Are you guys saying that because I can't 100% know that there are sentient life forms without a nervous system, I can't use it as a premise in an argument? That would mean that you can't use anything as a premise, because you don't know anything with 100% certainty.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: