"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 02:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 10:32 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is insufficient information to propose your dichotomy, unless by 'special explanation' you mean 'every other possibility'.

Yes, indeed, please feel free to LIST every other possibility or the ones you can think of besides these:

*The universe was created or incepted by other beings or forces from other universes/dimensions

*The universe, in some form, oscillating or steady has always been here

God, an unknown force that cannot be a physical force per the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, or eternal. "Whadda else do you-a gotta'?"

That wasn't the dichotomy you stated.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:22 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 09:32 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  These last few posts have been my response to "Of COURSE there's a gap, but let's not put God in the gap." So what do you propose we put in there?
I'm aware that matter and energy are conserved in terms of finite limits, they can neither be removed nor created. So HOW DID IT GET HERE?

The answer to a gap always always always always must be: I don't know. Let's come up with some ideas and see which one holds true. Thinking we have the answer is the best way to prevent ourselves from finding the answer. Saying "there's a gap" therefore I can "put God in the gap" is deeply fallacious. Let me draw it out:
There is a gap -> I do not know what happened
God did it -> I know what happened.

Putting god into the gap is literally saying: "I don't know what happened, therefore I know what happened". This is what is meant by the formal argument from ignorance fallacy. "I don't know, therefore I know" is not a valid logical form. All it tells us about is the speaker's own biases. It doesn't get us any closer to knowing what really happened.

The time to say you know what happened is when the evidence stacks up in such a way as to consistently verify predictions made by one hypotheses over known competing hypotheses. The time to accept the hypotheses as provisionally true is when it provides a consistently better explanation with significantly greater predictive power than its alternatives - or that the hypothesis has equal predictive power than its alternatives but carries a significantly less weighty burden of unproven assumptions.

If you want to put God in that gap you must determine what predictions doing so provides to us that differ from alternative hypotheses, then show that those predictions hold while those of alternative hypotheses do not hold.

Also if we go back to the scientific side of things you're not asking a very interesting question. You ask where did the matter and energy come from. It could easily have come from the universe in some earlier state, so a very simple explanation would seem to suffice to match the known data. A more interesting question may be "Why did the early universe have so little entropy?". Or the biggest and most interesting question of all: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"... but that last one brushes up uncomfortably against your god concept also.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Hafnof's post
21-03-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(20-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm aware that matter and energy are conserved in terms of finite limits, they can neither be removed nor created. So HOW DID IT GET HERE?

Since energy is not conserved over expanding spacetime, perhaps that is your answer. Expansion.

Or perhaps the solution is not to look for answers, but rather, to look for questions. For instance, what purpose does causality serve, in your view. From previous answers, causality forms a basis of predictive modeling. Conservation law does not arise from sacred tablets, but rather from repeated experimentation to which mathematical rigor has been applied, to wit Noether's Theorem, the resultant of which is predictive modeling. In a less rigorous manner, causality informs me of a certain questioner who will never be satisfied with an answer that does not fit to a preconceived mold. The theist, in general.

Are you that theist? If the answer has to be god, why are you asking questions? Accepting a final answer points to the very root of the problem. In the scientific sense, when one substitutes a variable for an unknown, such as dark matter, it is not to be understood so much as a Dark Matter Reality, but rather as a dark matter model of reality.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-03-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(21-03-2015 09:22 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  These last few posts have been my response to "Of COURSE there's a gap, but let's not put God in the gap." So what do you propose we put in there?
I'm aware that matter and energy are conserved in terms of finite limits, they can neither be removed nor created. So HOW DID IT GET HERE?

The answer to a gap always always always always must be: I don't know. Let's come up with some ideas and see which one holds true. Thinking we have the answer is the best way to prevent ourselves from finding the answer. Saying "there's a gap" therefore I can "put God in the gap" is deeply fallacious. Let me draw it out:
There is a gap -> I do not know what happened
God did it -> I know what happened.

Putting god into the gap is literally saying: "I don't know what happened, therefore I know what happened". This is what is meant by the formal argument from ignorance fallacy. "I don't know, therefore I know" is not a valid logical form. All it tells us about is the speaker's own biases. It doesn't get us any closer to knowing what really happened.

The time to say you know what happened is when the evidence stacks up in such a way as to consistently verify predictions made by one hypotheses over known competing hypotheses. The time to accept the hypotheses as provisionally true is when it provides a consistently better explanation with significantly greater predictive power than its alternatives - or that the hypothesis has equal predictive power than its alternatives but carries a significantly less weighty burden of unproven assumptions.

If you want to put God in that gap you must determine what predictions doing so provides to us that differ from alternative hypotheses, then show that those predictions hold while those of alternative hypotheses do not hold.

Also if we go back to the scientific side of things you're not asking a very interesting question. You ask where did the matter and energy come from. It could easily have come from the universe in some earlier state, so a very simple explanation would seem to suffice to match the known data. A more interesting question may be "Why did the early universe have so little entropy?". Or the biggest and most interesting question of all: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"... but that last one brushes up uncomfortably against your god concept also.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. We must always answer "I don't know" or "we don't yet know" rather than put God in any gap? So you must therefore personally reject the Law of Conservation of Matter. Because you are saying it was not always in effect in this universe but you have no causality for this occurrence.

Quote:Or the biggest and most interesting question of all: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"... but that last one brushes up uncomfortably against your god concept also.

Yes, it brushes up uncomfortably against God. Yes.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(21-03-2015 04:57 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm aware that matter and energy are conserved in terms of finite limits, they can neither be removed nor created. So HOW DID IT GET HERE?

Since energy is not conserved over expanding spacetime, perhaps that is your answer. Expansion.

Or perhaps the solution is not to look for answers, but rather, to look for questions. For instance, what purpose does causality serve, in your view. From previous answers, causality forms a basis of predictive modeling. Conservation law does not arise from sacred tablets, but rather from repeated experimentation to which mathematical rigor has been applied, to wit Noether's Theorem, the resultant of which is predictive modeling. In a less rigorous manner, causality informs me of a certain questioner who will never be satisfied with an answer that does not fit to a preconceived mold. The theist, in general.

Are you that theist? If the answer has to be god, why are you asking questions? Accepting a final answer points to the very root of the problem. In the scientific sense, when one substitutes a variable for an unknown, such as dark matter, it is not to be understood so much as a Dark Matter Reality, but rather as a dark matter model of reality.

Energy isn't conserved during expansion inside general relativity. I can't imagine you think general relativity was the rule during hyper-rapid expansion of the beginning.

And if you have a dark matter model of reality, why would you reject a god model since this god has clearly worked in the beginning outside of natural law to create?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(24-03-2015 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let me see if I understand what you're saying. We must always answer "I don't know" or "we don't yet know" rather than put God in any gap?

Correct, unless or until you present objective evidence for the existence of a god.

Quote:So you must therefore personally reject the Law of Conservation of Matter. Because you are saying it was not always in effect in this universe but you have no causality for this occurrence.

You clearly misunderstood something.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-03-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(24-03-2015 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And if you have a dark matter model of reality, why would you reject a god model since this god has clearly worked in the beginning outside of natural law to create?

There's a god model with math? And rigor? And experimental evidence? That conforms to observation? Gasp

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like houseofcantor's post
25-03-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(24-03-2015 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-03-2015 09:22 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The answer to a gap always always always always must be: I don't know. Let's come up with some ideas and see which one holds true. Thinking we have the answer is the best way to prevent ourselves from finding the answer. Saying "there's a gap" therefore I can "put God in the gap" is deeply fallacious. Let me draw it out:
There is a gap -> I do not know what happened
God did it -> I know what happened.

Putting god into the gap is literally saying: "I don't know what happened, therefore I know what happened". This is what is meant by the formal argument from ignorance fallacy. "I don't know, therefore I know" is not a valid logical form. All it tells us about is the speaker's own biases. It doesn't get us any closer to knowing what really happened.

The time to say you know what happened is when the evidence stacks up in such a way as to consistently verify predictions made by one hypotheses over known competing hypotheses. The time to accept the hypotheses as provisionally true is when it provides a consistently better explanation with significantly greater predictive power than its alternatives - or that the hypothesis has equal predictive power than its alternatives but carries a significantly less weighty burden of unproven assumptions.

If you want to put God in that gap you must determine what predictions doing so provides to us that differ from alternative hypotheses, then show that those predictions hold while those of alternative hypotheses do not hold.

Also if we go back to the scientific side of things you're not asking a very interesting question. You ask where did the matter and energy come from. It could easily have come from the universe in some earlier state, so a very simple explanation would seem to suffice to match the known data. A more interesting question may be "Why did the early universe have so little entropy?". Or the biggest and most interesting question of all: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"... but that last one brushes up uncomfortably against your god concept also.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. We must always answer "I don't know" or "we don't yet know" rather than put God in any gap? So you must therefore personally reject the Law of Conservation of Matter. Because you are saying it was not always in effect in this universe but you have no causality for this occurrence.
Long post ahead. Not well edited. Am on mobile. Sorry guys.

A simple explanation as noted above may be that the matter/energy was present before the big bang as we know it. However it may be that the universe has a temporal edge - the universe always had the matter but that matter doesn't extend past 14 billon years into the past. But you're right in proposing that conservation of matter not holding true during the creation of the universe is also a simple explanation.

Rather than holding any of these possibilities as provisionally true and rather than making predictions from available hypotheses and seeing which predictions hold true you seem to be choosing the least simple explanation available and absolutely rejecting alternatives. If you do put your god in this gap I want you to recognise at least that it is a hypothesis with a high burden of unproven assumption, and I want you to hold this hypothesis as only provisionally true. Keep investigating by making predictions based on available hypotheses, see which predictions differ between available hypotheses, and continue to test those hypotheses. Hypotheses with no predictive power are unfalsifiable and useless. Be sure anything you hold true is held to a degree consistent with the surprising verified predictions it makes.

I really hold none of these hypotheses as provisionally true over the others. The predictions that can be made from the alternatives are too similar to put one clearly ahead of all others. I might perhaps hold one provisionally false, however Wink

I do find your continued fixation on conservation of matter disturbing. As I noted above the question of where the matter came from is trivial to address in all available natural hypotheses. It isn't a question that helps us figure out which is true. Strangely I think the only hypothesis that must be false if we believe conservation of matter must hold over the creation of the universe is your own hypothesis. Where did God get the matter from? Did he use his own substance to make the universe or did he make it out of nothing? If you can accept that God can violate conservation of matter, why not save a step and conclude that the process of universe creation can violate conservation of matter? If you can accept that God used his own substance to create the universe and think his substance always existed then why not save a step and conclude that universe's matter always existed? These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with questions once addressed only in religion and myth.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
25-03-2015, 06:34 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(25-03-2015 06:28 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Cosmology brings us face to face with questions once addressed only in religion and myth.

flashback...





Does pet my peeve, though, that in contrast to all observation; the theist instance of maximum complexity at origin. Trees don't grow into seeds, cats don't grow into kittens, universe don't come from no god. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-03-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(25-03-2015 06:28 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(24-03-2015 01:50 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Let me see if I understand what you're saying. We must always answer "I don't know" or "we don't yet know" rather than put God in any gap? So you must therefore personally reject the Law of Conservation of Matter. Because you are saying it was not always in effect in this universe but you have no causality for this occurrence.
Long post ahead. Not well edited. Am on mobile. Sorry guys.

A simple explanation as noted above may be that the matter/energy was present before the big bang as we know it. However it may be that the universe has a temporal edge - the universe always had the matter but that matter doesn't extend past 14 billon years into the past. But you're right in proposing that conservation of matter not holding true during the creation of the universe is also a simple explanation.

Rather than holding any of these possibilities as provisionally true and rather than making predictions from available hypotheses and seeing which predictions hold true you seem to be choosing the least simple explanation available and absolutely rejecting alternatives. If you do put your god in this gap I want you to recognise at least that it is a hypothesis with a high burden of unproven assumption, and I want you to hold this hypothesis as only provisionally true. Keep investigating by making predictions based on available hypotheses, see which predictions differ between available hypotheses, and continue to test those hypotheses. Hypotheses with no predictive power are unfalsifiable and useless. Be sure anything you hold true is held to a degree consistent with the surprising verified predictions it makes.

I really hold none of these hypotheses as provisionally true over the others. The predictions that can be made from the alternatives are too similar to put one clearly ahead of all others. I might perhaps hold one provisionally false, however Wink

I do find your continued fixation on conservation of matter disturbing. As I noted above the question of where the matter came from is trivial to address in all available natural hypotheses. It isn't a question that helps us figure out which is true. Strangely I think the only hypothesis that must be false if we believe conservation of matter must hold over the creation of the universe is your own hypothesis. Where did God get the matter from? Did he use his own substance to make the universe or did he make it out of nothing? If you can accept that God can violate conservation of matter, why not save a step and conclude that the process of universe creation can violate conservation of matter? If you can accept that God used his own substance to create the universe and think his substance always existed then why not save a step and conclude that universe's matter always existed? These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with questions once addressed only in religion and myth.

If it was matter and/or energy at any point, perhaps in addition to your theorizing you can explain why your theories speak against the Law of Conservation. Because if you go back beyond any point, you have a problem with infinite regression.

Quote:Cosmology brings us face to face with questions once addressed only in religion and myth.

Based on this thread, these questions seem to remain addressed only in holy writ!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: