[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
In the same way that God just always exists, yes. It’s just one less assumption.[/quote]
The theory of god is that its something outside of time, not infinite in time. There is a difference.[/quote]
The difference is arbitrary.[/quote]
I disagree. I think it’s pretty significant. People always seem to limit the theory of a creator or higher power to our own experience. It’s one of my favorite things to think about.
It is certainly significant when people make arguments against the idea based upon that incorrect distinction.[/quote]
Correct me if i’m wrong:
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?[/quote]
It’s a chicken or the egg scenario. It doesn’t explain the modern existence of chickens or eggs. It’s just a repetitive loop.
You are including infinity in your explanation when in truth it’s as impossible to conceptualize as an uncaused cause. If we are removing all ideas beyond human comprehension, your explanation fails too.[/quote]
But again, my explanation (Hypothesis 1) is far more parsimonious than yours (Hypothesis 2). [/quote]
There is nothing “parsimonious” about infinity.
Additionally in the past parsimony has been very wrong about many things. Geocentric universe. Creation. Lightning = gods angry. All these things were the simplest answer at one point in time.
There is nothing inherently good or more right about the simplest answer.[/quote]
It’s important for 2 reasons:
It disproves the contention by some Christians that a supernatural explanation is the ONLY possible explanation for the existence of the universe.
It is more parsimonious to posit infinite energy/matter than to posit not only infinite energy/matter, but an infinite supernatural being that paradoxically created infinite energy/matter. Parsimony doesn’t prove a hypothesis, but it gives preference to one hypothesis over another, other things being equal.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Hypothesis 1 doesn’t explain the existence? If matter and energy have always existed, what more explanation do you need?[/quote]
It’s a chicken or the egg scenario. It doesn’t explain the modern existence of chickens or eggs. It’s just a repetitive loop.
You are including infinity in your explanation when in truth it’s as impossible to conceptualize as an uncaused cause. If we are removing all ideas beyond human comprehension, your explanation fails too.[/quote]
But again, my explanation (Hypothesis 1) is far more parsimonious than yours (Hypothesis 2). [/quote]
There is nothing “parsimonious” about infinity.
Additionally in the past parsimony has been very wrong about many things. Geocentric universe. Creation. Lightning = gods angry. All these things were the simplest answer at one point in time.
There is nothing inherently good or more right about the simplest answer.[/quote]
It’s important for 2 reasons:
It disproves the contention by some Christians that a supernatural explanation is the ONLY possible explanation for the existence of the universe.
It is more parsimonious to posit infinite energy/matter than to posit not only infinite energy/matter, but an infinite supernatural being that paradoxically created infinite energy/matter. Parsimony doesn’t prove a hypothesis, but it gives preference to one hypothesis over another, other things being equal.[/quote]
like I said, you’re take isn’t even an explanation.
No. Infinite energy/matter aren’t a pre-requisit for god nor do I agree with god being infinite. I only noted that they don’t disprove him. It’s infinite repetitive loop vs. an external cause.
I guess I’m not understanding you then. Please tell me exactly what you mean when you say it isn’t an explanation. If it is true, how is it not an explanation?
If you don’t believe god is infinite, what do you believe?
And regardless, can you at least concede that your god hypothesis is less parsimonious than the hypothesis that matter and energy have always existed?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess I’m not understanding you then. Please tell me exactly what you mean when you say it isn’t an explanation. If it is true, how is it not an explanation?
If you don’t believe god is infinite, what do you believe?
And regardless, can you at least concede that your god hypothesis is less parsimonious than the hypothesis that matter and energy have always existed?[/quote]
Q: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Your A: Before every chicken there was an egg and before every egg and chicken, forever.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
Yes, it did answer the question. If something has always existed, then it has always existed. What is so hard to understand about that? You’re assuming that something must be created in order to have a satisfactory explanation, and are ignoring the possibility that it has always existed.
Besides, the god hypothesis suffers from the same criticism. The difference is that you’re saying a supernatural being has always existed, and I’m saying natural matter and energy have always existed, without needing to invoke the supernatural.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, it did answer the question. If something has always existed, then it has always existed. What is so hard to understand about that? You’re assuming that something must be created in order to have a satisfactory explanation, and are ignoring the possibility that it has always existed.
Besides, the god hypothesis suffers from the same criticism. The difference is that you’re saying a supernatural being has always existed, and I’m saying natural matter and energy have always existed, without needing to invoke the supernatural.[/quote]
So the “it’s turtles all the way down” was a satisfactory way to answer the question?
The “hard” (read impossible) part to understand is your casual invocation of infinity. The concept of infinity, yes it is only a concept, is no different than a concept of a first cause. No, an infinite regress is not a scientifically satisfactory answer. Infinity is the supernatural. It exists outside of our comprehension and understanding. Not to mention an extrapolation from any amount of data to infinity also has an infinite error term. It’s just one of the many reasons doing it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Matter cannot exist of it’s own accord, matter cannot be created in the rules of the universe, therefore, something external to the universe caused it.
But we’ve gotten to the point of going in circles. I’m going to step out unless something new is brought up.
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
[/quote]He’s gonna drop ya on yer head one day. I pray it’s BEFORE you die so you’ll fall from His shoulders into His arms as He makes you alive.
[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[/quote]
Assuming ofcourse that such a being even exists.
[/quote]
Oh, absolutely. I was just kicking around a though about the physical implications of some of the possible traits of a god.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, it did answer the question. If something has always existed, then it has always existed. What is so hard to understand about that? You’re assuming that something must be created in order to have a satisfactory explanation, and are ignoring the possibility that it has always existed.
Besides, the god hypothesis suffers from the same criticism. The difference is that you’re saying a supernatural being has always existed, and I’m saying natural matter and energy have always existed, without needing to invoke the supernatural.[/quote]
So the “it’s turtles all the way down” was a satisfactory way to answer the question?
The “hard” (read impossible) part to understand is your casual invocation of infinity. The concept of infinity, yes it is only a concept, is no different than a concept of a first cause. No, an infinite regress is not a scientifically satisfactory answer. Infinity is the supernatural. It exists outside of our comprehension and understanding. Not to mention an extrapolation from any amount of data to infinity also has an infinite error term. It’s just one of the many reasons doing it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Matter cannot exist of it’s own accord, matter cannot be created in the rules of the universe, therefore, something external to the universe caused it.
But we’ve gotten to the point of going in circles. I’m going to step out unless something new is brought up.[/quote]
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[/quote]
Assuming ofcourse that such a being even exists.
[/quote]
Oh, absolutely. I was just kicking around a though about the physical implications of some of the possible traits of a god.
[/quote]
On a scale of god’s “realness” where I’m 0 and Tiribulus is 10; where do you stand?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, it did answer the question. If something has always existed, then it has always existed. What is so hard to understand about that? You’re assuming that something must be created in order to have a satisfactory explanation, and are ignoring the possibility that it has always existed.
Besides, the god hypothesis suffers from the same criticism. The difference is that you’re saying a supernatural being has always existed, and I’m saying natural matter and energy have always existed, without needing to invoke the supernatural.[/quote]
So the “it’s turtles all the way down” was a satisfactory way to answer the question?
The “hard” (read impossible) part to understand is your casual invocation of infinity. The concept of infinity, yes it is only a concept, is no different than a concept of a first cause. No, an infinite regress is not a scientifically satisfactory answer. Infinity is the supernatural. It exists outside of our comprehension and understanding. Not to mention an extrapolation from any amount of data to infinity also has an infinite error term. It’s just one of the many reasons doing it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Matter cannot exist of it’s own accord, matter cannot be created in the rules of the universe, therefore, something external to the universe caused it.
But we’ve gotten to the point of going in circles. I’m going to step out unless something new is brought up.[/quote]
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Now give me proof of your uncaused cause.
[/quote]
It existing and having no ability to bring about it’s own existence is my proof.
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[/quote]
Assuming ofcourse that such a being even exists.
[/quote]
Oh, absolutely. I was just kicking around a though about the physical implications of some of the possible traits of a god.
[/quote]
On a scale of god’s “realness” where I’m 0 and Tiribulus is 10; where do you stand?
[/quote]
Ofcourse matter can exist of it’s own accord. It exists, doesn’t it? That’s your proof.
Now give me proof of your uncaused cause.
[/quote]
It existing and having no ability to bring about it’s own existence is my proof.[/quote]
Not having proof is proof of not having proof. It doesn’t prove that of which you have no proof.
[/quote]
Not having proof and having evidence and theory that it can’t are 2 different things. I don’t know where you got the notion that idea was from lack of proof, any more than all of science.
Do you believe that, because god exists outside of time, he’s not subjected to time?
I could see how that works. It beckons the question: is there existence without time, or is the term “existence” too limited to apply to god?
By that token; what can we say about god or this uncaused cause that isn’t an assumption?
[/quote]
See, this is more how I think.
Here is a good one. Omni present and outside of time might be similar concepts.
In general relativity time/space and perspective are inherently linked. Different momentum frames correlate to different “versions” of space/time. Now if something exists in all momentum frames, it exists in all of time simultaneously. An omnipresent being would have a current view of all time from past to present.
[/quote]
Assuming ofcourse that such a being even exists.
[/quote]
Oh, absolutely. I was just kicking around a though about the physical implications of some of the possible traits of a god.
[/quote]
On a scale of god’s “realness” where I’m 0 and Tiribulus is 10; where do you stand?
[/quote]
LOL. I’m pretty certain something more exists.[/quote]
No, i meant: how real is your religious experience to you. On a scale of 0 to 10?
