"God is self-existent"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2015, 03:21 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(27-03-2015 01:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because if you go back beyond any point, you have a problem with infinite regression.

You're an infinite regression! Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
27-03-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(27-03-2015 03:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Because if you go back beyond any point, you have a problem with infinite regression.

You're an infinite regression! Tongue

He's not joking. Yes

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 01:22 AM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(27-03-2015 01:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.
Please tell us how your God absolves the issue of infinite regression. Oh yes, he exists and acts outside of time... now there's a concept we can all understand. [/sarcasm]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2015 07:56 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: "God is self-existent"
(27-03-2015 01:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-03-2015 06:28 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.

Note: This is another post in which I am busy cleaning out the collection of champagne present in my pantry. I can still stand. I can still type. My arguments are golden, right? Keep highlighting those drunk words chromium. You are my designated wingman. You will get me through this in a coherent manner.

I'm wondering if you understand how laws work in science. The law of conservation of energy/matter roughly states that between two states of the universe or some subset of the universe at different times the total amount of energy (including matter) will be the same. This a useful engineering tool. We know that everything within our experience conforms to this equation. Assuming this law allows us to solve complex engineering problems, and for now no experiment at any scale has been able to demonstrate an exception to the equation. The equation has survived many changes of scale intact. Moreover it has been generalised and refined across the temporal boundary which is the discovery and subsequent understanding of radioactivity.

Prior to radioactivity we might have said that this equation was in fact two equations, one for matter and another for energy. After radioactivity we were able to recognise these two equations as a single equation and generalise the law.

How do you think the law might change if we were able to do experiments that traversed the boundary of the creation of a universe?

A law in science is an equation that we know holds within a particular context. It isn't a dictate from God almighty. It isn't a sign revealed from the heavens. It is an equation that we find useful. Does conservation of matter/energy hold across the boundary of the creation of the universe? Who the hell knows? We can't tell scientifically so we are back to dealing with strictly philosophical questions. Appealing to science doesn't help you in contexts where science doesn't at this stage have anything useful to say. Appealing to this law which I have told you repeatedly could easily hold or not hold in trivial ways that make it easy to accept various creation models except for the exact one you are trying to propose makes me think you are working from a worn and broken apologists' playbook rather than addressing actual matter at hand.

Again: Conservation of matter/energy may hold across the creation of the universe, in which case something eternal-ish may have existed that was matter/energy. I don't think you would claim your god is made of matter/energy so it is clear that if you think the equation holds across the creation of the universe that your god is excluded from being a possible cause. If you believe instead that conservation of matter/energy does not hold this opens the door for many other interesting possibilities other than you god. So which is it? Why are you arguing for a law that rules out your creation myth? Why are you continuing to do this when you could be dealing with much more interesting and difficult to address equations that I have pointed you to multiple times in the hope that you would take some interest in this subject rather than ignoring the substance of the subject?

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
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
30-03-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(28-03-2015 07:47 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:26 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Note: This is another post in which I am busy cleaning out the collection of champagne present in my pantry. I can still stand. I can still type. My arguments are golden, right? Keep highlighting those drunk words chromium. You are my designated wingman. You will get me through this in a coherent manner.

I'm wondering if you understand how laws work in science. The law of conservation of energy/matter roughly states that between two states of the universe or some subset of the universe at different times the total amount of energy (including matter) will be the same. This a useful engineering tool. We know that everything within our experience conforms to this equation. Assuming this law allows us to solve complex engineering problems, and for now no experiment at any scale has been able to demonstrate an exception to the equation. The equation has survived many changes of scale intact. Moreover it has been generalised and refined across the temporal boundary which is the discovery and subsequent understanding of radioactivity.

Prior to radioactivity we might have said that this equation was in fact two equations, one for matter and another for energy. After radioactivity we were able to recognise these two equations as a single equation and generalise the law.

How do you think the law might change if we were able to do experiments that traversed the boundary of the creation of a universe?

A law in science is an equation that we know holds within a particular context. It isn't a dictate from God almighty. It isn't a sign revealed from the heavens. It is an equation that we find useful. Does conservation of matter/energy hold across the boundary of the creation of the universe? Who the hell knows? We can't tell scientifically so we are back to dealing with strictly philosophical questions. Appealing to science doesn't help you in contexts where science doesn't at this stage have anything useful to say. Appealing to this law which I have told you repeatedly could easily hold or not hold in trivial ways that make it easy to accept various creation models except for the exact one you are trying to propose makes me think you are working from a worn and broken apologists' playbook rather than addressing actual matter at hand.

Again: Conservation of matter/energy may hold across the creation of the universe, in which case something eternal-ish may have existed that was matter/energy. I don't think you would claim your god is made of matter/energy so it is clear that if you think the equation holds across the creation of the universe that your god is excluded from being a possible cause. If you believe instead that conservation of matter/energy does not hold this opens the door for many other interesting possibilities other than you god. So which is it? Why are you arguing for a law that rules out your creation myth? Why are you continuing to do this when you could be dealing with much more interesting and difficult to address equations that I have pointed you to multiple times in the hope that you would take some interest in this subject rather than ignoring the substance of the subject?

At the risk of oversimplifying, the Law states that matter and energy may not be created from nothing. Did you have a choice besides steady state universe and big bang universe, which I've missed?

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
30-03-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(30-03-2015 02:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-03-2015 07:47 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Note: This is another post in which I am busy cleaning out the collection of champagne present in my pantry. I can still stand. I can still type. My arguments are golden, right? Keep highlighting those drunk words chromium. You are my designated wingman. You will get me through this in a coherent manner.

I'm wondering if you understand how laws work in science. The law of conservation of energy/matter roughly states that between two states of the universe or some subset of the universe at different times the total amount of energy (including matter) will be the same. This a useful engineering tool. We know that everything within our experience conforms to this equation. Assuming this law allows us to solve complex engineering problems, and for now no experiment at any scale has been able to demonstrate an exception to the equation. The equation has survived many changes of scale intact. Moreover it has been generalised and refined across the temporal boundary which is the discovery and subsequent understanding of radioactivity.

Prior to radioactivity we might have said that this equation was in fact two equations, one for matter and another for energy. After radioactivity we were able to recognise these two equations as a single equation and generalise the law.

How do you think the law might change if we were able to do experiments that traversed the boundary of the creation of a universe?

A law in science is an equation that we know holds within a particular context. It isn't a dictate from God almighty. It isn't a sign revealed from the heavens. It is an equation that we find useful. Does conservation of matter/energy hold across the boundary of the creation of the universe? Who the hell knows? We can't tell scientifically so we are back to dealing with strictly philosophical questions. Appealing to science doesn't help you in contexts where science doesn't at this stage have anything useful to say. Appealing to this law which I have told you repeatedly could easily hold or not hold in trivial ways that make it easy to accept various creation models except for the exact one you are trying to propose makes me think you are working from a worn and broken apologists' playbook rather than addressing actual matter at hand.

Again: Conservation of matter/energy may hold across the creation of the universe, in which case something eternal-ish may have existed that was matter/energy. I don't think you would claim your god is made of matter/energy so it is clear that if you think the equation holds across the creation of the universe that your god is excluded from being a possible cause. If you believe instead that conservation of matter/energy does not hold this opens the door for many other interesting possibilities other than you god. So which is it? Why are you arguing for a law that rules out your creation myth? Why are you continuing to do this when you could be dealing with much more interesting and difficult to address equations that I have pointed you to multiple times in the hope that you would take some interest in this subject rather than ignoring the substance of the subject?

At the risk of oversimplifying, the Law states that matter and energy may not be created from nothing. Did you have a choice besides steady state universe and big bang universe, which I've missed?

The sum of all matter and energy in the universe may well be zero; in which case, there is no problem.

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
30-03-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
The tired old "You can't create something from nothing" argument.

We'll ask again, What did God create the universe from?
The answer is not "God created the universe." That answers the who. I want to know the what?
Did the universe materialize out of thin air? If so, then you can create something from nothing.
Did it come from some other "stuff"? If so, where did that other stuff come from? (Since you say it can't come from nothing.)
Did God literally create the universe from himself? If so, are you claiming the universe is literally God or an actual part of God, or something along those lines?

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like LostLocke's post
30-03-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(30-03-2015 03:42 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  The tired old "You can't create something from nothing" argument.

We'll ask again, What did God create the universe from?
The answer is not "God created the universe." That answers the who. I want to know the what?
Did the universe materialize out of thin air? If so, then you can create something from nothing.
Did it come from some other "stuff"? If so, where did that other stuff come from? (Since you say it can't come from nothing.)
Did God literally create the universe from himself? If so, are you claiming the universe is literally God or an actual part of God, or something along those lines?

Indeed; it's a classic bit of equivocation. The stock "LOL GOD DID IT" answer is pretending a "why" answers a "how" and then hoping nobody notices the evasion.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(30-03-2015 04:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-03-2015 03:42 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  The tired old "You can't create something from nothing" argument.

We'll ask again, What did God create the universe from?
The answer is not "God created the universe." That answers the who. I want to know the what?
Did the universe materialize out of thin air? If so, then you can create something from nothing.
Did it come from some other "stuff"? If so, where did that other stuff come from? (Since you say it can't come from nothing.)
Did God literally create the universe from himself? If so, are you claiming the universe is literally God or an actual part of God, or something along those lines?

Indeed; it's a classic bit of equivocation. The stock "LOL GOD DID IT" answer is pretending a "why" answers a "how" and then hoping nobody notices the evasion.

No, no, no -- you're not being fair. They're pretending that a "who" answers a "how", and that totally works! Because "who" and "how" are made of the same 3 letters. Like, wow, man...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
30-03-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: "God is self-existent"
(30-03-2015 03:42 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  The tired old "You can't create something from nothing" argument.

We'll ask again, What did God create the universe from?
The answer is not "God created the universe." That answers the who. I want to know the what?
Did the universe materialize out of thin air? If so, then you can create something from nothing.
Did it come from some other "stuff"? If so, where did that other stuff come from? (Since you say it can't come from nothing.)
Did God literally create the universe from himself? If so, are you claiming the universe is literally God or an actual part of God, or something along those lines?

I think I see the problem here. You seem to assume your disputant has a reasonable answer and stubbornly keeps giving you the wrong one instead. It is far more likely that the goddidit crowd just isn't concerned with making sense. It is all beyond us .. only God knows .. yada, yada. You can either carry on the 'conversation' with the poster or holler into your closet. It'll make just about as much difference.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes whateverist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: