Does God exist?

[Whaleboy]

Well, not in how the theory applied to the period of time before Planck time.

String theory works upon the basis of multi-dimensional strings vibrating to a specific "frequency" that forms the basis of subatomic particles in the universe. Call it the building blocks of building blocks. Different spatial dimensions and a meta-temporal dimension are created. It's similar to my "transdimensional theory" but I won't go into that here. Four dimensional time, in this universe, is only as old as the universe itself. It is absurd to attempt to take that back further to a non-linear time, when it only operates on a linear scale after the big bang! It's like measuring the diameter of a bubble before the bubble existed.

As for what went before, that is uncertain. Best evidence from Hawkings concession on Black holes is an extra dimensional realm, meaning our universe is expanding like a bubble in a glass of beer. Of course, not how you or I perceive it... indeed description is incommunicable where it is even comprehensible (which it isn't... almost like the most consistent definitions of God! ). However, notwithstanding this, you cannot go from the uncertainty, and question of what went before, to a conclusion that God was behind it.

If indeed you assume that God was behind it, he could no more interact with this universe than you can perceive of a three or two dimensional lifeform... in our logical and temporal means of understanding, such a lifeform couldn't exist. Of course, as an objectivist, that means nothing to you so you'll find it hard to address it from that viewpoint.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's pretty much what i'm saying. The infinity problem works vertically as well as horizontally, according to my first post, allowing for a universe of finite time.

That would assume steps in the causality could take place outside of time, which doesn't make sense because all other actions apart from God happen in time, not outside of time.

The whole reason why Aquinas puts God out of time, is that it resolves most of these causality issues.

[Whaleboy]

Theory is one thing.

Empirical basis quite another. We have very little understanding surrounding the processes involved in the formation of life on Earth, so all this here is speculation without much basis in fact.

Are you suggesting that we know little of evolution and that there are even remotely good causes to undermine the theory of stellar and planetary genesis?

Do you also think that empiricle studies are superior to theoretical? Regarding small-scale sciences, undoubtably, but in theory, we can find concepts and relate them back in reference to empiricle studies that are far less easy to refute by extrenuous circumstances, since theoretical studies in my experience largely accounts for them. What do you trust more, you're observance of nature, or mathematical logic?

You would say that our understanding of how the earth is formed, and evolution, is speculation?

[Whaleboy]

That would assume steps in the causality could take place outside of time, which doesn't make sense because all other actions apart from God happen in time, not outside of time.

You assume the infinite regress to be strictly horizontal. As you approach infinity, you become closer to verticle, obviously never reaching it.

The whole reason why Aquinas puts God out of time, is that it resolves most of these causality issues.

And prevents God from interacting with us in the first place!

[Ben Kenobi]

However, notwithstanding this, you cannot go from the uncertainty, and question of what went before, to a conclusion that God was behind it.

True, but to assert, as Skywalker does, that the universe necessarily follows the big bang theory goes far beyong this statement of uncertainty.

Science says nothing about whether God can act on the universe. It is simply outside the scope of science to prove such a thing.

If indeed you assume that God was behind it, he could no more interact with this universe than you can perceive of a three or two dimensional lifeform

We deal with things in lesser dimensions than ourselves all the time.

You are right that those of 1 dimension cannot perceive or fully understand things in 2 or more dimensions, and that this principle carries on in the same direction for both 2 and 3 dimensions. This is why we have problems understanding the true nature of God, because we can only understand the portion that is relevant to our own experience of objects in 3 dimensions.

So, while we may not be able to fully engage God, God can certainly engage us.

[Ben Kenobi]

And prevents God from interacting with us in the first place!

No. Why would you think that?

It is only because he is out of time, can he fully interact with the part that is in time.

He can completely manipulate things, because he has all the time in the world, he can see what will happen and what has happened because everything is now for him.

If he were in time, then it would be impossible for him to interact with the world in such a fashion, as he would be limited, as we are, by physical constraints.

[Ramo]

Ben, are you going to address my problems with this article that's behind your probability claims? Have you seen the article? Why do you believe it? And why do you believe the claims this Nostrodamus fan made about it?

[Whaleboy]

Science says nothing about whether God can act on the universe. It is simply outside the scope of science to prove such a thing.

I don't concur. It is possible for science to establish logical barriers. For example, my four dimensional mind will never perceive a three-dimensional realm.

We deal with things in lesser dimensions than ourselves all the time.

No, we can manipulate them. This is very difficult to explain. Going on from Husserls time consciousness concept, we perceive the world in terms of time, it is a necessary condition for consciousness, perception, communication. If time did not exist, my life would be at once infinite and infinitesimal. A hypothetical 3D lifeform would not operate on our level. Our time to them would be like 5D time to us. What we consider a spatial dimension would be it's time. We cannot communicate because we can only manipulate it as a spatial dimension. Any change would fundamentally change its universe, say, a modification by me would change its history... time travel... whereby the sum-over-histories problem now applies.... it cannot know its past so communication is impossible between us and it.

So, while we may not be able to fully engage God, God can certainly engage us.

Assuming God, that would run contrary to the notion that he is infinite. However, that leaves open the possibility that God is a being of this universe of finite power, running the world like a puppet show through means that we cannot at this moment perceive but there is no logical barrier to us doing so. Of course, that wouldn't be acceptable to you, and is very easily refuted by some basic cosmology.

EDIT: Also assuming this, infinite God in four-dimensions would have to be finite in 5-dimensions. If it existed in any more (say, 6+), it wouldn't exists as a point of infinitesimal, or infinity to the 4D, nor us to him... just as there is no such thing as a two or one dimensional object to us.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you suggesting that we know little of evolution and that there are even remotely good causes to undermine the theory of stellar and planetary genesis?

Yes, because of the limitations of our 'laboratory'.

We have theories of stellar evolution and star formation that we make by looking at the population counts.

It's like this. An alien with a very short lifespan, say a few minutes, comes to earth, and takes a quick snapshot in time of all the people on the earth. From this snapshot, the alien has to compile an account of the human lifespan, from birth, to death, by looking at all of these different people.

The same problems and assumptions inherent in such an approach also bedevil theories of stellar evolution and star formation.

Processes that happen relatively quickly, (such as star formation) and the collapse of stars, we know little about, because they happen so quickly, and we do not have examples of stars undergoing these processes that are also observable.

One of the biggest problems surrounding stellar evolution is that the most interesting parts occur inside the dust shell of a nebula, which obscures the process from direct observation.

Do you also think that empiricle studies are superior to theoretical?

False dilemma. Theory backed up by empirical evidence is stronger than theory alone.

You would say that our understanding of how the earth is formed, and evolution, is speculation?

Yes. We don't really know how the moon formed, so why should we anticipate our understanding of the Earth to be much greater?

What do you trust more, you're observance of nature, or mathematical logic?

Considering that mathematical logic led Descartes to formulate the doctrine of the Aether based on false presuppositions, I'll go with observance of nature. All theoreticians understand that without any empirical evidence, their theories may still be prone to amendments.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, are you going to address my problems with this article that's behind your probability claims? Have you seen the article? Why do you believe it?

I couldn't find MY sources on the internet, so I won't stand by this one if problems are shown with their calculations.

Notwithstanding the references to Nostradamus, do you find fault with his probability claims? If so, then why?

[Whaleboy]

Processes that happen relatively quickly, (such as star formation) and the collapse of stars, we know little about, because they happen so quickly, and we do not have examples of stars undergoing these processes that are also observable.

Do you know how scientific theory works? A theory is not merited so much by mechanism but by prediction. For the record, we have information on stars throughout their life cycles, except the point of extreme gravitational collapse. We have theories that fits the existing empiricle data perfectly, who's predictions match the results of the phenomena that we can see.

The problem with the alien analogy is that to translate it to us, it would mean we could only study one star.

Yes. We don't really know how the moon formed, so why should we anticipate our understanding of the Earth to be much greater?

Problematic. The two are completely different. We know almost certainly that all planetary bodies form through accretion. The creation of the moon poses different problems, similar to the existence of the oceans, for example. The fact that it is a large rock formed by accretion is accepted in that context.

Considering that mathematical logic led Descartes to formulate the doctrine of the Aether based on false presuppositions

I could formulate 4 from 8 - 6, which are false suppositions, that says nothing about the integrity of logic itself. However, you will note that logic and theory rests upon fewer and more fundamental assumptions than does empiricle observation. SUrely as an objectivist that would be plainly obvious to you?

All theoreticians understand that without any empirical evidence, their theories may still be prone to amendments.

To which theories do you refer? Which predictions do not hold? What logic is flawed given certain assumptions?

[Whaleboy]

Ben, quick question...

Would you say that an argument that reasons that God exists is a superior argument to one that doesn't? I speak with reference to the mainstream arguments for and against God's existence. Do you think the pro-God arguments are logically stronger?

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't concur. It is possible for science to establish logical barriers. For example, my four dimensional mind will never perceive a three-dimensional realm.

Umm. Okay.

I take it then that you don't understand geometry.

No, we can manipulate them. This is very difficult to explain. Going on from Husserls time consciousness concept, we perceive the world in terms of time, it is a necessary condition for consciousness, perception, communication.

Why? Consciousness need not exist in time, and could be said to exist unconstrained by time.

Perception is the same thing. We can perceive the world without time, as a still life, rather easily.

If time did not exist, my life would be at once infinite and infinitesimal.

That's one way to look at it. You would be a prism edge, if viewed from the side, as a infinite line, as viewed on the front, as a surface, corresponding to your profile.

So not really an infinitesimal, since you would still occupy the same space that you do now.

A hypothetical 3D lifeform would not operate on our level.

Very true, and this I said earlier.

Our time to them would be like 5D time to us.

Also true.

Now, if we can manipulate 3d objects, then why can't God manipulate us in the same way as we do these objects?

Assuming God, that would run contrary to the notion that he is infinite.

Why? All I say is that he is on a higher order than we. I do not presume to know the precision of his order.

However, that leaves open the possibility that God is a being of this universe of finite power, running the world like a puppet show through means that we cannot at this moment perceive but there is no logical barrier to us doing so.

No. It would be like the 3D object learning to work in our 4D world.

In all likelihood, impossible.

[DaShi]

Ben, the problem is that there is evidence of evolution (fossil record and the success of generating biochemical macromolecules using prebiotic reactions) and the big bang theory (the universe expanding and radiation studies). There may not be a perfect understanding of them, but the evidence is there. There is no evidence that the universe and the world were created in six days as depicted in the Bible.

[Ramo]

I couldn't find MY sources on the internet, so I won't stand by this one if problems are shown with their calculations.

Notwithstanding the references to Nostradamus, do you find fault with his probability claims? If so, then why?

Seeing as how the Nostradamus guy doesn't derive the probabilities, and just throws around a bunch of numbers referencing the Biochemistry article, how could I?