Does God exist?

[Whaleboy]

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

Fallacy. I have stated that in a realm of n dimensions, a realm of n-1 dimensions appears as a geometric, spatial form with no temporal properties inherent to it, except those related to our own.

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.

But that still exists as time. Imagine taking a photograph with a shutter open for 0 seconds. You get no photo. Time is essential. Have you ever noticed how time and consciousness share numerous characteristics?

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

No that space would still imply existence. To exist, I need time, if even for my strings to vibrate, let alone to be born, to live, to die, to think.

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

Because to do so would not be to communicate. If God were to do that, the history of the universe would change, and we would have no recollection of it, nor any evidence (see Sum over Histories). Indeed, if “God” were to affect the spatial dimension to him that we perceive as time, the laws of physics from the point where that time began would differ. To make it non-linear in other words, again the SoH.

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.

To be infinite would mean, as I have said, he would not be able to communicate with us. The precision of his order? Darling, he would have none! It would be impossible for him to interact with this universe.

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

You consider it any different for 4D -> 3D, or 5D -> 4D?

[Whaleboy]

I would still like you to answer me this (yes quoting from myself )

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]

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.

You need to lecture to me, whaleboy? This was my discipline, and I still maintain an interest in astronomy.

I tell you, that the theories we have are limited by the fact that we cannot observe the processes as they happen.

An empirical confirmation would be to analyse one star, and to predict the stages of life that it will go through, and we can't do that without watching the evolution of that one star throughout it's life.

Granted, we can make other predictions, and one very good confirmation of the theories is the neutron star, who's existence was confirmed observationally after being predicted theoretically, and who's characteristics matches those predicted.

This confirms our model of degenerate stars, that white dwarfs, and neutron stars, and presumeably those of black holes, though only indirect evidence has been uncovered of the latter

So some things have been shown to reliably fit our model, and likely, the long-term stable parts of a star's life are also correct, since they will show up in the population analysis.

However, the short-term changes are an important part of theories of stellar evolution, and still represent gaps in the theories that will likely change.

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

The alien takes snapshots of MANY people to obtain a representative population sample, which is the same thing astronomers do.

Problematic. The two are completely different. We know almost certainly that all planetary bodies form through accretion.

Could the Earth have been a much larger body that migrated closer to the sun?

We only have one model on which to base our theories of planetary formation within a solar system.

I am much less confident of these theories, then I am of those of stellar evolution, which have a much broader sample to work from.

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?

Not really. The observations are the observations. Empirical evidence alone leads you nowhere. Science involves taking these observations and trying to make a theory to fit the observations, or to first postulate a theory and then to confirm the theory through observational data.

Either method works, just two different modes to skin a cat.

I will say from the point of view of an objectivist, that until a theory has been confirmed through empirical data, that such theory has less support than one that has been confirmed through empirical data.

And this skepticism applies to all theories in general.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

Yes, I believe them to be logically stronger.

And sorry for the delay, but I'm going as fast as I can.

[Whaleboy]

You need to lecture to me, whaleboy? This was my discipline, and I still maintain an interest in astronomy.

Likewise.

I tell you, that the theories we have are limited by the fact that we cannot observe the processes as they happen.

Being the experienced astronomer that you are you would surely be able to differentiate between different fields. How celestial astronomy, if I may call it that, is so wildly different from theoretical, yet where the two meet, for the most part they concur.

However, the short-term changes are an important part of theories of stellar evolution, and still represent gaps in the theories that will likely change.

I don't see how that affects my point, or even supports yours? Of course theories change, that merely reflects the assumptions, not the logic.

The alien takes snapshots of MANY people to obtain a representative population sample, which is the same thing astronomers do.

But you were using the example as anthropology.

Could the Earth have been a much larger body that migrated closer to the sun?

No, it's composition would have been lighter. The densities of the inner planets fit perfectly with the model of heavy element redistribution after fusion started in the sun (thus "blowing out" the lighter elements to the protostar formation zone (Jupiter and Saturn).

I am much less confident of these theories, then I am of those of stellar evolution, which have a much broader sample to work from.

Fair enough, but what's your point?

I will say from the point of view of an objectivist, that until a theory has been confirmed through empirical data, that such theory has less support than one that has been confirmed through empirical data.

Then I ask you to define "confirmed".

[Ben Kenobi]

But that still exists as time. Imagine taking a photograph with a shutter open for 0 seconds. You get no photo. Time is essential. Have you ever noticed how time and consciousness share numerous characteristics?

Which raises an interesting question.

Is there any limit to how time may be apportioned, as we see in light quanta and other things, or is time continuous?

If time is continuous, then to stop time completely would involve nothing moving, nor aging, nor subject to entropy.

None of this we can simulate in a photograph, but we can imagine, and are forced to imagine in geometry and in mathematics.

You find this often in physics, that you simplify the problem in order to uncover physical properties that otherwise could not emerge. This is why they use abstractions such as geometrical space.

Now if time were quantised, then you are right. If we stop time, we will see nothing.

[Whaleboy]

Is there any limit to how time may be apportioned, as we see in light quanta and other things, or is time continuous?

If time is continuous, then to stop time completely would involve nothing moving, nor aging, nor subject to entropy.

I would think of it as both.... uncertainty principle can apply to time if you use that analogy. That would allow for "stopping" discretely but allowing us to "exist" four dimensionally, though for it to stop it wouldn't be completely true since string and uncertainty would still apply. That is possibly the mechanism behind relativistic space-time dilation. For it to "stop" absolutely, nothing would exist.

Effectively, in the latter manner, for time to stop like that would require moving to five-dimensions, thus rendering you infinite. Of course such a transition is impossible, Einstein has seen to that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because to do so would not be to communicate.

To communicate with the object?

If God were to do that, the history of the universe would change, and we would have no recollection of it, nor any evidence (see Sum over Histories). Indeed, if “God” were to affect the spatial dimension to him that we perceive as time, the laws of physics from the point where that time began would differ. To make it non-linear in other words, again the SoH.

Well, there's several presuppositions that the sum over histories makes, and that is that any intervention by God necessarily changes history. Remember, if God is out of time, then time must be a block, that he can see what happens in the future. So God must know all of his actions at any time.

To be infinite would mean, as I have said, he would not be able to communicate with us. The precision of his order? Darling, he would have none! It would be impossible for him to interact with this universe.

Why do you presume that he cannot interact with the universe? I see no justification for your point, and it makes sense to me that if God is out of time, that he would have more capability to interact with us than he would if he were in time.

You consider it any different for 4D -> 3D, or 5D -> 4D?

No, but that presumes that God only works in 5D space, which may not be the case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then I ask you to define "confirmed".

Similar to how Einstein's theory of relativity correctly predicted the motion of mercury's orbit in accounting for the precession.

[Ben Kenobi]

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?

That's the last time I quote someone who isn't a theist arguing probabilities of life formation.

You've cured me of that bad habit Ramo. The theists provide better documentation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And that my friend, is the whole point I was trying to make.

Which shows you have no understanding of biochemistry.

So to explore how the universe works, you need something to scale? Bollocks! Scale matters little in scientific investigation.

When you're studying probability, you do, obviously.

[Kuciwalker]

Ben: scientists have demonstrated how life on earth could have arisen, and have even gone through some of the steps. They've reached the point from which you can extrapolate polypeptide chains eventually being used as enzymes. However, the early enzymes were not polypeptides, but rather ribonucleic acids. Scientists have demonstrated the formation of self-replicating "ribozymes" in conditions that are similar to theorized "primordial soup", from which it is easy to predict evolution into eventually cellular organisms.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, this is a case of ad infinitum. Consider a metre rule. I can divide it into centimetres, millimetres, nanometres, micrometers, etc, and I can continue to do so theoretically as an infinite regress. Causality chains operate on the same principle.

Why would causality work that way, that to give the limit to infinity produces a finite number?

I don't see any evidence of that, that the time in which causality occurs is decreasing faster than the increase in time.

Would you claim there to be a first mover beyond God, higher up a causal chain?

And this is one of the places we use Anselm. If such a mover was seen to be higher up the causal chain, then we would call that mover God.

Now I am prepared to accept that at infinity, there may be a God, indeed, uncertainty principle taken as objective to infinity in that context (since you are adding dimensions to reach infinity) however it would be unknowable… just as that graph cannot know 11, and thus can’t distinguish between 11 and 2390790234.

Unknowable in it's entirety, which I do concede, but not totally unknowable. We can tell God made manifest in our own world.

God would need to be omnipotent and omniscient, that is of infinite power and knowledge. That however would prevent him from interacting with the universe, just as it is impossible for us to conceive of a two-dimensional life form in our four-dimensional universe. Indeed we could not know him.

What if he chose to take on our form? If he is omnipotent, then he should also be able to take on our form so that we can interact with him, or to manipulate objects in our realm so that we can see him.

Granted, we are told that we cannot see the face of God, and maybe this is one of the reasons why. But that doesn't prevent other modes of communication.

A posteriori. There is no a priori reason why something may not exist with no cause.

Distinction among judgments, propositions, concepts, ideas, arguments, or kinds of knowledge. In each case, the a priori is taken to be independent of sensory experience, which the a posteriori presupposes. An a priori argument, then, is taken to reason deductively from abstract general premises, while an a posteriori argument relies upon specific information derived from sense perception. The necessary truth of an a priori proposition can be determined by reason alone, but the contingent truth of an a posteriori proposition can be discovered only by reference to some matter of fact.

I disagree. I think that it is reasonable to say that all things other than God, a priori, must have a cause to come into being.

You miss the point. If I somehow magic him into existence, his existence certainly has changed.

Right, but such change is not predicated by your change in opinion, or belief.

But fails to account for their case a priori which is needed in such a deductive argument.

True, it is an a posteriori clause, but that does not render it invalid.

No, rather the second hand in the watch.

True. Part of what we know of God, comes from ourself. But part, and the part that we are discussing right now, comes from our outside experiences.

While Newton might have agreed, that is refuted by basic relativity, it depends upon objectifiable temporal laws which are fallacious. Effectively, each person experiences a different universe.

They may perceive things differently, but that does not mean they cannot come to the same conclusions given the same evidence. If this were so, that everyone effectively experiences their own universe, than scientific inquiry would be impossible.

Yet, it is possible, and the discoveries made, do apply across human experience, such that one of the principles of science involves the necessarly ability to replicate an experiment to confirm the principles within.

It is a higher-than-infinitesimal probability, thus merely finite time is required, as far as all questions of probability arise.

Possible, but extremely improbable. Like all the gas molecules in a room ending up in one side, and not the other.

Do you have any idea how probability works? If you toss a die 6 times, you need not necessarily find 1,2,3,4,5,6 separately. There is merely a 1/6 chance of you getting a given number. Similarly, regardless of the time required, there is a certain probability of the universe’s existence. That probability is defunct because it does exist. Sufficient reason principle.

I'd appreciate it if you gave me some credit. I don't think you're an idiot. Another analogy is someone drawing 5 royal flushes straight of the deck in a row. It's possible that such an occurance would happen through chance, but you are more likely to accuse your opponent of cheating rather than accepting the possibility of chance.

Umm, the argument for design advocating the increase in order in the universe.

Okay, that statement I'm not familiar with in the argument for design, that attribute any violations of entropy.

It fits precisely with what we know of the big bang when you consider relativity and each point of the universe operating on a slightly different time from the other.

So why would this one virtual particle constitute the total available mass of the universe?

Remember, conservation of mass-energy still applies.

Yet you claim it to refute determinism, without understand how determinism would cover for it in the ad infinitum context.

Because your attempt to save determinism makes no sense. The small probability, unless you start tinkering with other things, does not account for what we see in the big bang, or in the universe as a whole, unless you give yourself an infinite universe or use one of the dodges I posted before.

That’s completely meaningless. There are 32 chess pieces on a board and more possible combinations/games than my mind can conceive. Take a structuralist view of analysing one outcome by its premises potential outcomes.

Still takes time. Give a 1 in 10^6400 chance of this occuring means that far more time than you have in the estimated age of the universe.

As previously said, the chance of it happening is irrelevant, the fact is that the universe is here in its present “form”. What are the odds that out of 300 million sperm and tens of thousands of eggs, that I would be conceived, and that I would have had my experiences up to today that have made me the individual I am? And yet, I am that individual, down to such chance, consisting of such benign deterministic steps.

And that is my point. The universe is here. How did it get here? Obviously something else is responsible than a deterministic principles, which fail to provide a mechanism.

But the whole point of what I said there was that to a subjectivist, it takes a different form, yet holding in that context the internally consistent definition.

And I would argue that God needs to have some sort of objectivity, otherwise he could not be God.

That’s something I am unable to determine, since it is a property of my conscious now at this moment. Consider Husserl’s view of the time consciousness being a function of “now”.

So you are a different person than you were yesterday, or another moment ago?

Then that's problematic for many other reasons. You could not be held responsible for a crime that "you" did not commit.

That means nothing about the simplicity of their formation however. You don’t seem to be addressing the point of sufficient reason, nor deterministic causality (predetermination, as much as I hate that words connotations).

Because of the proximity in thought to predestination, eh? I don't see determinism providing sufficient justification for the universe that we see around here arising from chance. Hence, I believe there must be something beyond determinism involved.

Burden of proof. Proposition of God. Burden of proof is upon that proposition. If not, default to the state before that proposition, no God.

I always have the burden.

I'm not going to play burden games.

I do believe that the logical arguments for God provide a much better explanation for the universe, and many of the things that we see in the universe.

You seem to be insisting on using tools to measure God, that do not have that capability.

Yet you do not challenge him?

I think we all have biases. It's folly to conclude that the atheists are somehow immune.

A little like rape and cannibalism? I agree that we do have a desire to explain things but that needn’t make the idea of God anything more than Neolithic scientific theory, like the geocentric universe.

The thought helps to explain why people have turned to God as the answer before. You may not like it, but that's the truth.

But who’s?

There is much truth evident in this. I have heard both scientists and theologians make the joke.

Reject is the wrong term. Suppose you ask me what the Earth is. I say it is a large dinner plate suspended upon the back of the eternal snail carcass. I offer no evidence, or at least none that cannot be easily refuted a priori. There is no reason to accept it.

Seems to me you are trying to make a "God-in-the box."

It doesn't work that way Whaleboy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Scientists have demonstrated the formation of self-replicating "ribozymes" in conditions that are similar to theorized "primordial soup", from which it is easy to predict evolution into eventually cellular organisms.

Tell me Skywalker.

Do you agree that one of the greatest influences on evolution seem to be natural disasters, or great sudden changes, rather than the steady-state theories of Darwin?

[Japher]

O crap! Skywalker vs. Kenobi over God!

Natural Disaster influence but not control. They give the prey time to evolve, they don't necessarily cause the evolution. eh?