Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 118 by EarthScienceguy]

Bacteria and insects are at the bottom of the food chain so the world would have to be designed so that insects and bacteria could survive.

Really? So was Venus designed so that insects and bacteria could not survive there? And why can bacteria survive on Earth in conditions that insects (or humans) cannot? Why do you think that insects are at the bottom of the food chain and not somewhere in the middle, or higher?

Entropy is a function of time if there is no time then entropy will not change. Consequently anything that exists outside of time can exist without a change in entropy.

What? Entropy is not a function of time. It can and usually does change with time, but entropy itself, by definition, is not a function of time. If that were true then nothing could reach a state of constant entropy (ie. isentropic). But what in Diagoras' comment that prompted the above quote caused you to change lanes and start rambling about entropy instead of answering his question about who made God (apart from this being your standard tactic when you can't answer the question)? Are you claiming that all isentropic systems exist outside of time, or just muddling up entropy, time and ToR to try and wiggle out of answering the original question (ie. explain how your favorite god was made)?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You'd made this same basic statement many times, but it is obviously false and nonsensical. I have no idea where you get such a ridiculous idea (made it up? ... got it from a creationist website?), but humans are primates that evolved from earlier primates, who evolved from still earlier species, etc. There is nothing hard to understand about that, and nothing in modern science that would prohibit humans from existing now, or from single-celled organisms existing billions of years ago, or anything in between. Or maybe you are following Humphreys' approach of making wild interpretations of bible verses and then drawing erroneous conclusions that way?

What naturalistic theory of origins predicts a universe that has any type of living thing?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 121 by DrNoGods]

Really? So was Venus designed so that insects and bacteria could not survive there? And why can bacteria survive on Earth in conditions that insects (or humans) cannot? Why do you think that insects are at the bottom of the food chain and not somewhere in the middle, or higher?

What does it matter? So what whether they can or not.

Quote:
Entropy is a function of time if there is no time then entropy will not change. Consequently anything that exists outside of time can exist without a change in entropy.

What? Entropy is not a function of time. It can and usually does change with time, but entropy itself, by definition, is not a function of time. If that were true then nothing could reach a state of constant entropy (ie. isentropic). But what in Diagoras' comment that prompted the above quote caused you to change lanes and start rambling about entropy instead of answering his question about who made God (apart from this being your standard tactic when you can't answer the question)? Are you claiming that all isentropic systems exist outside of time, or just muddling up entropy, time and ToR to try and wiggle out of answering the original question (ie. explain how your favorite god was made)?

Entropy can only change with time, because it is based on the movement particles. Movement is based on time and the passage of time is only associated with this universe.

God was not made and did not have to be made. Because He lives outside of time, God is bigger than the box you are attempting place Him in.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 122 by EarthScienceguy]

What naturalistic theory of origins predicts a universe that has any type of living thing?

The comment of yours that I was responding to is this one:

"The only presumption that gives an universe that man is a real entity is creationism ..."

where you refer to creationism as a presumption. The existence of human beings (or any other living thing) on this planet depends on the Earth forming as a planet and life appearing by some means when it did. It does not depend on any particular theory of origins of the universe (Big Bang or otherwise), and the specific mechanism for how life did first arise on Earth is a yet to be solved science problem.

But you seem to be claiming that because the origin of life problem on earth is not yet solved, that creationism is therefore the default explanation. That you can't seem to understand that this is not the case is very clear as you repeat it constantly, but the fact remains that creationism is not implied because science has yet to explain the origin of life on this planet. Nothing about naturalism suggests that man cannot exist as a real entity. Where you get that notion from I have no idea (you haven't explained it as far as I can tell), but it certainly doesn't come from actual science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 123 by EarthScienceguy]

Entropy can only change with time, because it is based on the movement particles. Movement is based on time and the passage of time is only associated with this universe.

God was not made and did not have to be made. Because He lives outside of time, God is bigger than the box you are attempting place Him in.

What, exactly, are "movement particles"? Did LHC discover these recently and I somehow missed it? Movement of something is based on force, not time (ie. time doesn't move things, but movement is not instantaneous so requires time). I think, like with the entropy comment earlier, you are confusing what it means for something to be a function of something else.

God lives outside of time does it? How do you know that, and how do you know that the passage of time is only associated with this universe? These are awfully bold claims to make concerning an entity that has never been demonstrated to exist at all, and our incomplete understanding of the universe we live in. But that is what creationism allows ... baseless claims with no requirement that they be supported by observations and evidence.

Is it really satisfying to live in a world of make believe like that, and ignore what science has taught us about how nature actually does work? You're fighting a battle lost long ago by creationists, and there is no chance that such outdated ideas will make a comeback unless the world is taken over by religious zealots who manage to kill off anyone with an education and common sense (and there are certainly people out there like this trying to do it ... fortunately they are failing).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

The comment of yours that I was responding to is this one:

"The only presumption that gives an universe that man is a real entity is creationism ..."

where you refer to creationism as a presumption. The existence of human beings (or any other living thing) on this planet depends on the Earth forming as a planet and life appearing by some means when it did. It does not depend on any particular theory of origins of the universe (Big Bang or otherwise), and the specific mechanism for how life did first arise on Earth is a yet to be solved science problem.

But you seem to be claiming that because the origin of life problem on earth is not yet solved, that creationism is therefore the default explanation. That you can't seem to understand that this is not the case is very clear as you repeat it constantly, but the fact remains that creationism is not implied because science has yet to explain the origin of life on this planet. Nothing about naturalism suggests that man cannot exist as a real entity. Where you get that notion from I have no idea (you haven't explained it as far as I can tell), but it certainly doesn't come from actual science.

What naturalistic theory of origins gives an universe in which we are real entities? I do not know of any.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 125 by DrNoGods]

What, exactly, are "movement particles"? Did LHC discover these recently and I somehow missed it? Movement of something is based on force, not time (ie. time doesn't move things, but movement is not instantaneous so requires time). I think, like with the entropy comment earlier, you are confusing what it means for something to be a function of something else.

Are you now claiming that Newton's laws do not the same in outer space also? A little Newtonences.

Newton's second law F=ma. A force causes an acceleration directly proportional to each other and inversely proportional to the mass.

The equation for acceleration is a = v/t.

Force causes an acceleration of an object which is dependent on time.

But even the force that causes the acceleration is dependent on time. Force is measured in newtons = kg m/s2. So anyway you want to slice it entropy is dependent on time.

God lives outside of time does it? How do you know that, and how do you know that the passage of time is only associated with this universe? These are awfully bold claims to make concerning an entity that has never been demonstrated to exist at all, and our incomplete understanding of the universe we live in. But that is what creationism allows ... baseless claims with no requirement that they be supported by observations and evidence.

Anything that created this universe has to live outside of this universe. How can the creator of an object live inside that object. Time is a construct of this universe there for whatever it was the created this universe would not be dependent on time.

Is it really satisfying to live in a world of make believe like that, and ignore what science has taught us about how nature actually does work? You're fighting a battle lost long ago by creationists, and there is no chance that such outdated ideas will make a comeback unless the world is taken over by religious zealots who manage to kill off anyone with an education and common sense (and there are certainly people out there like this trying to do it ... fortunately they are failing).

I am not sure what evidence you are referring to. You live in a world without causes which is totally contrary to all laws of physics. You live in a world with no cause of the universe, life, and stars. I am not the one that lives with their head in the sand.

[Diagoras]

Anything that created this universe has to live outside of this universe.

Begging the question. Anthropomorphising the creation of a universe too - who says there’s anything ‘living’ outside of the universe?

Time is a construct of this universe. Therefore, whatever it was that created this universe would not be dependent on time.

Please forgive me for altering your quote - only done for clarity.

‘Whatever it was’ doesn’t have to be a god, of course. Your argument makes an equally logical case for some natural ‘creation’ process.

You live in a world with no cause of the universe, life, and stars. I am not the one that lives with their head in the sand.

We live in the same world. Some of us are curious about the origin of life and the universe, and seek answers through science - an endeavour which has been extraordinarily successful over the last hundred years or so in many disciplines that directly benefit our species and environment. Others appear to be satisfied with the simplest answer: one which hasn’t changed in over two thousand years. “God did it� suffices for anything you don’t understand about the natural world, despite the fact that, as an explanation, it has absolutely zero predictive power, unlike proper scientific experimentation.

God was not made and did not have to be made.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 126 by EarthScienceguy]

What naturalistic theory of origins gives an universe in which we are real entities? I do not know of any.

Are you referring to origin of the universe, or origin of life on our little planet? These are not covered by the same front-running naturalistic theories.

The Big Bang is the current "best" hypothesis for origin of the universe, but this has nothing to do with the origin of life on this planet and it is still a hypothesis (albeit arrived at through observations of an expanding universe, and consistent with many implications from modern physics, despite the serious singularity problem).

The two events are some 9 billion years apart, and life does in fact exist on our planet. The question is how did life first arise here, and that is not necessarily dependent on how the universe began. So "theory of origins" has to be clarified as to which "origin" you are talking about. Life on this planet may have arisen via an abiogenesis event, or panspermia, or some other mechanism, and be completely unrelated to, and independent of, how the universe came into being.

I still don't see how/where you are getting this idea that modern physics, chemistry and biology don't allow for real, living entities. That is nonsense.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 127 by EarthScienceguy]

But even the force that causes the acceleration is dependent on time. Force is measured in newtons = kg m/s2. So anyway you want to slice it entropy is dependent on time.

I wish I'd had creationist professors in college ... it would have saved a lot of studying. Entropy itself is not a function of time. There is no time variable in the definition of entropy. It may vary with time (or not), but it is not a function of time. It is a state function ... independent of how the system came to be in a given state at a given time. The fact that it may vary with time does not make it a function of time.

Anything that created this universe has to live outside of this universe.

And who says that any "thing" created this universe? That is an assumption with no evidence to support it. Is your imaginary god creating universes as play things and existing outside watching things happen inside? That is the analogy you are suggesting.

You live in a world without causes which is totally contrary to all laws of physics. You live in a world with no cause of the universe, life, and stars.

If science has not yet completely explained something it does not mean that it never will, and that imaginary gods are therefore the answer. You don't seem to understand this fundamental, basic point, and instead jump to conclusions that are infinitely worse than "we don't know yet ... but we're working on it." It is very lazy to just fall back to a god-did-it solution to every unsolved problem and give up. Science is not a binary event where we either know every answer now, or there is no hope of finding the answer and we have to default to the same thing people did 2000+ years ago and make up gods as an explanation. I'll take living in a world where we continue to search for answers than in your lazy version any day.