Why God??!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Existing outside of space-time is not existing outside the universe. Space-time just happens to be a part of our universe; clearly there could be a universe without this "space-time".

No. Space-time is an essential component of the universe. Without space-time, you do not have a universe.

[Kuciwalker]

Space-time happens to be part of a particular physical theory. It is nowhere inherent to the concept of a universe.

[Ben Kenobi]

Einstein would beg to differ.

[Kuciwalker]

Einstein would agree wholeheartedly - spacetime just happens to be a particular aspect of our universe, not something inherent to the concept of a universe.

[LDiCesare]

You're all talking nonsense anyway. Green elves run around in circles on electrons, which makes them spin. There are actually two teams of elves, the green and the blue, which result in positive and negative spin electrons.

Believing that there exists a God outside the universe means you believe in a world outside of your closed system. That's perfectly possible, but it's as likely this world is full of elves as it's likely to hold a guy called God. But when you consider the set of all closed systems, do you postulate another god outside it that has created the whole thing? And so on ad infinitam? And if you don't, then you don't have to postulate one in the first place. It's either 0 or inifinity.

Secondly, if what exists is limited to the physical universe, then the question remains is how did the universe spring into being? God had to exist before the universe, and before time in order to be the first cause of everything.

You are asking "how", answering "who", and explaining that in order for the answer "who", God has to exist outside what exists. This is more or less a demonstration trhough absurdity of the non existance of such a God IMO.
You also seem to be considering that time is infinite, which is not based on any proof. It looks like time is like temperature, it's got an absolute 0. It may also have an upper limit, but that doesn't mean someone/thing had to give these limits.

[muxec]

Where is "Science" option?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Let's see if I understand: you take the so-called "physical" universe (by which I presume you are referring to the contiguous region of space-time that we happen to inhabit), and call it a closed system, despite the fact that you assert that there is an entity that is affected by this system (for God to receive information about it is to be affected by it) and that can affect this system. That's fundamentally inconsistent with the definition of a closed system.

No, it's just normally closed for all intents and purposes, just like a PC will keep running the same automatic cycles and tasks even when nobody is around to use it. The PC still does what it's told when it senses a user.

God receives information about the universe because he is omnipresent within it. He's not "outside the universe" in that sense, only sovereign of natural law. He can't be observed when he is not acting because, being omnipresent, there is no discriminatory method to discern him from "non-god-filled-space." There's no such thing, according to us.

[Boris Godunov]

Elok, the very definition of a closed system precludes any outside interference. If God gives any input into the system, he is involved in it and hence a part of it. By definition, he would be part of the system.

[Ben Kenobi]

Einstein would agree wholeheartedly - spacetime just happens to be a particular aspect of our universe, not something inherent to the concept of a universe.

You sure he says that?

Space and time seem pretty fundamental in order to construct a universe.

[Lorizael]

Why? What's a universe? mmm assumptions...

[Kuciwalker]

EDIT: re BK

No, it isn't.

Universe = set of all things that exist.

Nothing in there requires space-time.

In fact, here's an example of a universe that doesn't have space: it could be that none of you exist, and that everything is a figment of my imagination. The entire universe is just my consciousness, which has nothing to do with space. If you want one without time, imagine the same universe, except - get this - without time. So nothing happens.

My consciousness exists, in those. Space and time don't.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The evidence does not meet a scientific standard. Happy?

No. Which scientific standard? Which observations are you refering to? Do you think they test th question, or are you just assuming again?

You'd be wrong. It is a scientific fact that he painted it.

No again. Do you even know what a fact is, never mind a 'scientific fact'? (Incidentally, this is not what I was meaning - I was meaning that such a trivial statement is not worthy of being called science.)

No I'm not, you're being stupid. Math doesn't behave differently in different universes because math is unrelated to the universe! Just like the statement P implies P is tautologically true, so is 2+2=4. Anything tautologically true is true independent of the universe.

Have you ever been to another universe? I suspect not, in which case, your staement is an assumption and not a fact, since you have not tested it. Incidentally, even in our mathematical systems you cannot prove 2+2=4 without making assumptions (ie. axioms).

"Why" never has to come into it at all! "Why" is purpose, and purpose only exists when there is an intelligent creator of something! The answer to"why do guns exist" is "to kill people", because guns are created by intelligent (by which I mean sentient) beings, humans. A rock has no purpose, even though it can be used to kill someone, because it wasn't created by a person or other intelligent being.

By claiming "it doesn't answer 'why'" as a failure of science, you are presuming your assertion (there is an intelligent creator) to be true, so it's all circular!

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are being deliberately obtuse hare rather than just stupid.... I can't think of how I can explain this more clearly.....

Oh, so you mean that when the laws aren't integrated into one underlying law, we know less. WTF does this have to do with anything? We also know less if this nice underlying law is false.

That is what science is all about!!!!! Finding laws which explain things in a unified way. We could have a different 'law' for every phenomenon, but it wouldn't give very much insight into the workings of the universe. Even if we can understand the universe as one equation or law, we have no explanation of where that law comes from - what mechanism has resulted in this law rather than some other (really trying hard not to use the word 'why' here, since you don't seem to know what it means).


[q]If a phenomenon is "non-predictive" (by which you mean probabilistic or even wholly random, I presume), then you can have a law describing either a) the probabilities of the various outcomes or b) (if it is wholly random) the fact that all of the outcomes are equally likely. Everything is still subject to natural laws. [\q]

No that is not what non-predictive means. I actually agree with the rest of this though - if the laws are probabilistic then you can have a law framed in terms of probabilities. However, a natural phenomenon need not be governed by a law at all, so that one cannot in principle predict the outcome of an experiement, even in a probabilistic sense. This would be impossible to prove scientifically though, since you could build a 'predictive' theory for every past measurement - it would then get its predictions wrong and have to be modified with each measurement, but not being clever enough to write down a correct predictive theory doesn't mean it doeasn't exist. But in principle, it may be that some things cannot be predicted - not even in a statistical sense.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No. Which scientific standard? Which observations are you refering to? Do you think they test th question, or are you just assuming again?

Let me put it this way: do you seriously believe the Gospels hold up to scientific rigor?

No again. Do you even know what a fact is, never mind a 'scientific fact'?

A fact is a true statement about the universe. All facts are scientific.
A scientific statement is a statement about the universe, which may be true or false.

(Incidentally, this is not what I was meaning - I was meaning that such a trivial statement is not worthy of being called science.)

But it is.

Have you ever been to another universe? I suspect not, in which case, your staement is an assumption and not a fact, since you have not tested it. Incidentally, even in our mathematical systems you cannot prove 2+2=4 without making assumptions (ie. axioms).

I don't have to be to another universe because it has nothing at all to DO with another unverse!

The universe is the set of all that exists. A universe is a set of all that exists (obviously, when used that way it is only hypothetical). the statement, for example, that "something red is red" is ALWAYS TRUE, no matter the composition of that set. It is a TAUTOLOGY. 2+2=4 IS tautological despite those "axioms" because they are part of the statement. The concept of addition, subtraction, equality, etc. are inherent to the concepts of "two" and "plus" and "equals" and "four". It's because they are DEFINED that way.

Science is the study of those statements which ARE contingent on the composition of the universal set.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are being deliberately obtuse hare rather than just stupid.... I can't think of how I can explain this more clearly.....

If you're referring to mechanism, how gravity works (for example: "gravity works through the influence of gravitons on particles"), then science CAN and DOES answer that. In fact, if you ask "why", science can even answer that. For example: "Why are there guns?" Science answers: "In order to kill people." But if you asked "Why are there rocks?" the answer would be "no reason, because they weren't made by a sentient being." But if you asked "How is it that rocks exist?" the answer would be some complicated thing about planetary formation and stuff.

That is what science is all about!!!!! Finding laws which explain things in a unified way. We could have a different 'law' for every phenomenon, but it wouldn't give very much insight into the workings of the universe. Even if we can understand the universe as one equation or law, we have no explanation of where that law comes from - what mechanism has resulted in this law rather than some other (really trying hard not to use the word 'why' here, since you don't seem to know what it means).

1) There is not necessarily one universal law, therefore science CANNOT be about it. There is no reason why a universe couldn't have five hundred billion different physical laws that are not part of some whole. Science is just about discovering the laws, and sometimes different laws are just different cases of the same.

2) So basically, you're asking "what caused the laws to be this way?" The answer is, of course, they just are. The physical laws cannot be "caused" by something, because they are the laws by which the universe operates. In order for God to make the law some way, there would have to be laws already in place. You're just getting back to the (fallacious) argument that there must have been a cause for the universe, in which case you must accept an infinite number of creators.

No that is not what non-predictive means. I actually agree with the rest of this though - if the laws are probabilistic then you can have a law framed in terms of probabilities. However, a natural phenomenon need not be governed by a law at all, so that one cannot in principle predict the outcome of an experiement, even in a probabilistic sense. This would be impossible to prove scientifically though, since you could build a 'predictive' theory for every past measurement - it would then get its predictions wrong and have to be modified with each measurement, but not being clever enough to write down a correct predictive theory doesn't mean it doeasn't exist. But in principle, it may be that some things cannot be predicted - not even in a statistical sense.

Then you just mean it is wholly random. That is just the opposite extreme (on the scale of how probabilistic the laws are) from determinism - every outcome is equally likely. There is still a law - it's just that "the state of the universe at each point in time is wholly random". Clearly, there must ALWAYS be a law, because the laws are simply the rules by which the universe operates, and so to claim that there are no laws is to claim that there is no universe.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Elok, the very definition of a closed system precludes any outside interference. If God gives any input into the system, he is involved in it and hence a part of it. By definition, he would be part of the system.

Nggg....

Okay, I am speaking of nature as a pseudomechanical entity that performs its functions without need for regulation, most of the time. Its workings can be altered by outside influence, but that is the exception, not the norm. If I had a clock that could somehow keep on ticking forever without a power source or anything, I would consider it a separate entity from myself even though I could, if I so chose, change its setting for DST. That doesn't make me part of the clock, since the clock doesn't affect me directly. It can't reach out and make me feel hungry or anything. "Closed system" is probably not the best term for it, but that is how I perceive it, and I'm using the closest word I can think of. I welcome any alternative nomenclature suggestions...

[Kuciwalker]

Okay, I am speaking of nature as a pseudomechanical entity that performs its functions without need for regulation, most of the time. Its workings can be altered by outside influence, but that is the exception, not the norm.

So you're arguing based on God's disposition? So, if he decided to intervene a lot, your definition would fail? What's "a lot"?