Is it intellectually dishonest to claim "God has always existed, without beginning and without end;"
yet claim the universe must have had a beginning?
Eternity
Moderator: Moderators
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11289
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 307 times
- Been thanked: 354 times
Re: Eternity
Post #81I think spirit is like attitude and also awareness.
If it is not perfectly cyclical, then there is a beginning at some point and the question what started it.Difflugia wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 9:25 amYou're claiming that your first statement is true by definition, but then claiming that it's "too improbable." If the first statement is true, then the universe is deterministic and randomness is an illusion. If the second is true and randomness is real, why would a universe that is "without beginning" and "eternal" necessarily be perfectly cyclical?
It is an interesting idea, if world would be deterministic, is there any scientific evidence supporting that idea?
It means God is always the same. What person does, doesn’t necessary change what person is.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Eternity
Post #82I can't tell by how, by what, nor by whom the universe came to be.1213 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 10:22 amSo, what do you say, has universe beginning, or has it existed eternally without beginning? Have you some excellent reason to believe so?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Apr 03, 2022 3:03 pm"It's too difficult to believe me something else" is astoundingly indicative of the problems we face in getting the ignorant to quit projecting their irrational, unfounded beliefs upon society.1213 wrote: To believe universe with everlasting change that has no beginning is to me more difficult to believe than God that does not change. And that is because, if universe would be without beginning and be eternal, I think it would mean that it is constant loop and then I would have existed unlimited times in past and this same moment would have happened unlimited times. If things would go by a chance, I think it would be just too improbable to have exact same complex systems to develop on its own unlimited times the same way, without God.
It is not the same with God, because God doesn’t change, at least if we believe what the Bible tells.
...
I merely note some folks think they do, then seek to impose that belief through force of law.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3232 times
- Been thanked: 1984 times
Re: Eternity
Post #83To the extent that these are things, they're emergent properties of a mind. You might as well describe spirit as "ability to spell" or "dessert preference." All of the minds that we know exist within a physical medium or matrix. What's God's mind made out of?
That would apply to anything non-static, hence the OP question. If God is static, then there's nothing to distinguish God's state at the beginning of the universe from any other point in time. If God is not static, God suffers from the same problem that you claim for the universe.
No. As it stands, the evidence is non-deterministic. At the quantum level, the future appears unknowable to us. The combination of the inflation horizon expanding faster than the speed of light in the early universe, the inability of information to travel faster than the speed of light, and the apparent randomness of quantum phenomena all combine to an apparently non-deterministic universe. Even if all of the physical rules were to remain the same, it appears that a replay of the Big Bang would result in a different pattern of density and temperature in the initial stages of the universe, leading to a different pattern of stars and galaxies.
You're using the word "change" differently between how you apply it to God and to the universe. If God is unchanging, then no change in state could trigger the universe. If God is cyclical, then God keeps creating the same universe over and over and we're just stacking another turtle. If God is neither, then God must have a beginning, right? If you argue that God is not one of those things, then you have to explain why your claim doesn't also apply to the universe.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Eternity
Post #84[Replying to 1213 in post #80]
What makes you think that you know the intricacies of God to the degree that you observe no change?
Is it not true that all come from the point of ignorance?
I didn't "offer beliefs". I asked you a question.Can you offer something better than your beliefs in this matter?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Eternity
Post #85[Replying to Difflugia in post #83]
Immutability = not capable of or susceptible to change.
That would rule out omnipotence - unless being omniscient means that a creator-God could give Itself the illusion of not being that Immutable Entity by constructing some type of reality experience in which It could hide from the true unchangeable nature of Itself...
A universe such as this one, could conceivably provide that.
Perhaps the idea of the universe being non-deterministic is a purely fanciful one, based upon humans being [apparently] unable to accurately predict very well.
However, they are able to predict that the [current] universe will end one day - way into the future.
If that is true, then we have a clear indication that the universe is deterministic, even that it appears not to be.
1213: I think spirit is like attitude and also awareness.
If attitude and personality are 'things' - then 'things' are not always physical.To the extent that these are things, they're emergent properties of a mind.
The belief re that is generally that the mind exists within the brain.You might as well describe spirit as "ability to spell" or "dessert preference." All of the minds that we know exist within a physical medium or matrix.
I think you mean brain? What's God's brain made of?What's God's mind made out of?
I think that if we went fishing we might find that there are varied interpretations as to what is meant by "God is the always the same".That would apply to anything non-static, hence the OP question. If God is static, then there's nothing to distinguish God's state at the beginning of the universe from any other point in time. If God is not static, God suffers from the same problem that you claim for the universe.
Immutability = not capable of or susceptible to change.
That would rule out omnipotence - unless being omniscient means that a creator-God could give Itself the illusion of not being that Immutable Entity by constructing some type of reality experience in which It could hide from the true unchangeable nature of Itself...
A universe such as this one, could conceivably provide that.
1213: It is an interesting idea, if world would be deterministic, is there any scientific evidence supporting that idea?
The evidence is interpreted to be showing non-determinism. In that, the evidence can also be interpreted to be be showing determinism.No. As it stands, the evidence is non-deterministic.
At what level does the future become knowable to us?At the quantum level, the future appears unknowable to us.
Appearances and human interpretation. Obviously none of these things you mention, prevent scientists from doing science.The combination of the inflation horizon expanding faster than the speed of light in the early universe, the inability of information to travel faster than the speed of light, and the apparent randomness of quantum phenomena all combine to an apparently non-deterministic universe.
Perhaps the idea of the universe being non-deterministic is a purely fanciful one, based upon humans being [apparently] unable to accurately predict very well.
However, they are able to predict that the [current] universe will end one day - way into the future.
If that is true, then we have a clear indication that the universe is deterministic, even that it appears not to be.
Why would there even be stars and galaxies? Isn't that pretty much a rinse and repeat cycle. Not exactly like the prior universe, but pretty much the same thing.Even if all of the physical rules were to remain the same, it appears that a replay of the Big Bang would result in a different pattern of density and temperature in the initial stages of the universe, leading to a different pattern of stars and galaxies.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3232 times
- Been thanked: 1984 times
Re: Eternity
Post #86Yes.
Yes. Any disagreement with that statement would be me splitting hairs.
That's right, but 1213 already used the term "changing" in reference to the universe as part of the argument for why it must not be eternal, then claimed that God is without change. If the definition isn't the same, then they can't be directly compared and that's what the OP is about.
It would, but that's neither a problem with God nor the universe per se. All it means is that we haven't identified a reason that the universe cannot be eternal (in whatever sense), but God can be (in the same sense, whatever that is), which is what the OP is about. If God can exist in some eternal way that allows Him/It/Whatever to provide the impetus for the universe, then there's no logical reason that the universe can't be the same kind of eternal. That doesn't mean that it must be or that a creator God can't exist, that just removes the finite/eternal argument that God must exist.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:21 pmThat would rule out omnipotence - unless being omniscient means that a creator-God could give Itself the illusion of not being that Immutable Entity by constructing some type of reality experience in which It could hide from the true unchangeable nature of Itself...
It really can't. One can say that despite the evidence we have, one still thinks the universe is deterministic, but the evidence doesn't "show" determinism in any sense. All apparent determinism is at the macro level and based on probabilities. The outcomes of individual quantum events are random as far as we can measure. The distribution of those events is weighted in the same way that the sum on a pair of dice obeys a bell curve. The outcomes aren't uniform, but they're still random. If you were to record a billion rolls of the dice, though, and graphed the pattern of results, one could determine with a high degree of accuracy what the graph would look like. It still can't be perfectly predicted, which is the difference between deterministic and non-deterministic.
Like the graph of dice rolls, events made up of enough quantum events can be determined with a correspondingly high degree of accuracy to the point that they may appear deterministic, but that knowledge can never be perfect.
You're right, but that's because science doesn't require perfect prediction. "Very accurate" is good enough.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:21 pmAppearances and human interpretation. Obviously none of these things you mention, prevent scientists from doing science.The combination of the inflation horizon expanding faster than the speed of light in the early universe, the inability of information to travel faster than the speed of light, and the apparent randomness of quantum phenomena all combine to an apparently non-deterministic universe.
Perhaps, but there's no evidence of that and lots of evidence to the contrary. Randomness and uncertainty appear to all of our tests to be a fundamental property that the universe must obey. That's what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is about. At the quantum level, one cannot know even by inference both the position and momentum of a particle. If one is fixed, then the other is not. I stress again that it's a property of the universe and not a limitation on our measurement. That's why quantum tunneling is a thing. If some of the possible positions for a particle are on the other side of a barrier, then we still can't know that it isn't sometimes over there, so sometimes it is!
According to the principles I've just outlined, we can calculate that the universe will end with an accuracy corresponding to the aggregate probabilities of all the particles in the universe. That's pretty darn probable. It's still possible that it won't, though. That's the fundamental difference.
That's right. The same set of rules would give us pretty much the same kind of universe, but not exactly the same. That's the difference between determinism and its lack. The uncertainty principle is actually what seems to be the reason for stars and galaxies. Since the universe inflated faster than the speed of light and information can't travel faster than the speed of light, then the distribution of mass and energy can't be uniform. If it were, that would mean that an observer in one part of the universe could know the density of another part of the universe that is too far away. Since they can't in principle, that means that the density could have been and sometimes was different. Different densities means gradients in the gravitational force. Gradients means movement and the nearly, but not quite uniform matter coalesced into nebulae, galaxies, and stars.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:21 pmWhy would there even be stars and galaxies? Isn't that pretty much a rinse and repeat cycle. Not exactly like the prior universe, but pretty much the same thing.Even if all of the physical rules were to remain the same, it appears that a replay of the Big Bang would result in a different pattern of density and temperature in the initial stages of the universe, leading to a different pattern of stars and galaxies.
This image of the Cosmic Microwave Background is evidence that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is correct and, if quantum physics is even a little bit correct, why we have a planet to live on:
If uncertainty and randomness weren't a fundamental property of the universe, that image would be all one color, were there someone around to take the picture.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13968
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Eternity
Post #87[Replying to Difflugia in post #86]
But I do acknowledge the complexity involved in the thinking.
It seems to me that the device being used for that purpose is the assumption that there is such a thing as true random, and thus, based in fallacy.
Is it wise to claim 'never' since - if humans do survive to the middle part of the universes unfolding, not only would those humans be unrecognizable to us ancient humans as being 'human' but also - shouldn't there be a point somewhere in that unfolding that all knowledge which can possibly be obtained, is obtained?
That it might 'appear' this way has everything to do with the device [filters] through which the assessment is being placed through. The interpretation of that which is being observed through experience.
What might be seen as 'a property of the universe' could actually be 'a property of the device being used to do the measuring'.
In this case - the human brain but not that alone. In EVERY case, it is the device of consciousness [the hard problem of] which is actually doing the measuring and in that, the universe appears to be working with consciousness re the particles and the waves - and perhaps even hinting that they are the same things 'seen' differently...so consciousness is that which is doing the 'seeing'. Is it a case that the human brain is incapable of seeing apparently two different things as actually the same thing?
Which is to say, that predictably, the image should at some stage 'be all one color' which would in itself signify that 'uncertainty and randomness' are simply fallacious interpretations rather than 'fundamental properties of the universe' as they may currently appear.
And if we peer at the image of what it started out as - we can also declare it is 'all of one color'...
I don't think that it does. I think that the universe existing as an eternal thing, insists that "GOD" must exist.It would, but that's neither a problem with God nor the universe per se. All it means is that we haven't identified a reason that the universe cannot be eternal (in whatever sense), but God can be (in the same sense, whatever that is), which is what the OP is about. If God can exist in some eternal way that allows Him/It/Whatever to provide the impetus for the universe, then there's no logical reason that the universe can't be the same kind of eternal. That doesn't mean that it must be or that a creator God can't exist, that just removes the finite/eternal argument that God must exist.
But I do acknowledge the complexity involved in the thinking.
What you appear to be saying underneath all that, is that it is truly random. That in itself is the Scotsman fallacy - so has to be taken as such - and what is being used to 'measure' this with?It really can't. One can say that despite the evidence we have, one still thinks the universe is deterministic, but the evidence doesn't "show" determinism in any sense. All apparent determinism is at the macro level and based on probabilities. The outcomes of individual quantum events are random as far as we can measure. The distribution of those events is weighted in the same way that the sum on a pair of dice obeys a bell curve. The outcomes aren't uniform, but they're still random. If you were to record a billion rolls of the dice, though, and graphed the pattern of results, one could determine with a high degree of accuracy what the graph would look like. It still can't be perfectly predicted, which is the difference between deterministic and non-deterministic.
It seems to me that the device being used for that purpose is the assumption that there is such a thing as true random, and thus, based in fallacy.
Because that knowledge is always passing through the filters of human experience?Like the graph of dice rolls, events made up of enough quantum events can be determined with a correspondingly high degree of accuracy to the point that they may appear deterministic, but that knowledge can never be perfect.
Is it wise to claim 'never' since - if humans do survive to the middle part of the universes unfolding, not only would those humans be unrecognizable to us ancient humans as being 'human' but also - shouldn't there be a point somewhere in that unfolding that all knowledge which can possibly be obtained, is obtained?
Appearances and human interpretation. Obviously none of these things you mention, prevent scientists from doing science.
"Enough" for what exactly? To get a leg up and out into the cosmos?You're right, but that's because science doesn't require perfect prediction. "Very accurate" is good enough.
Perhaps the idea of the universe being non-deterministic is a purely fanciful one, based upon humans being [apparently] unable to accurately predict very well.
The key message you generated there, "appear to all of our tests", is no random accident. .Perhaps, but there's no evidence of that and lots of evidence to the contrary. Randomness and uncertainty appear to all of our tests to be a fundamental property that the universe must obey.
That it might 'appear' this way has everything to do with the device [filters] through which the assessment is being placed through. The interpretation of that which is being observed through experience.
And this method of deduction must also include the idea of their being a mind behind the universes existence.That's what Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is about. At the quantum level, one cannot know even by inference both the position and momentum of a particle. If one is fixed, then the other is not. I stress again that it's a property of the universe and not a limitation on our measurement. That's why quantum tunneling is a thing. If some of the possible positions for a particle are on the other side of a barrier, then we still can't know that it isn't sometimes over there, so sometimes it is!
What might be seen as 'a property of the universe' could actually be 'a property of the device being used to do the measuring'.
In this case - the human brain but not that alone. In EVERY case, it is the device of consciousness [the hard problem of] which is actually doing the measuring and in that, the universe appears to be working with consciousness re the particles and the waves - and perhaps even hinting that they are the same things 'seen' differently...so consciousness is that which is doing the 'seeing'. Is it a case that the human brain is incapable of seeing apparently two different things as actually the same thing?
Why is it possible that it won't, though'? Some "random" event we didn't see coming? Can we declare such a thing is "possible" simply due to a belief in a known fallacy that true randomness - like true Scotsmen - actually exists?According to the principles I've just outlined, we can calculate that the universe will end with an accuracy corresponding to the aggregate probabilities of all the particles in the universe. That's pretty darn probable. It's still possible that it won't, though. That's the fundamental difference.
You are forgetting one really important fact here with your argument. The image is of something which is way more near its known beginning than to its predicted end.This image of the Cosmic Microwave Background is evidence that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is correct and, if quantum physics is even a little bit correct, why we have a planet to live on:
If uncertainty and randomness weren't a fundamental property of the universe, that image would be all one color, were there someone around to take the picture.
Which is to say, that predictably, the image should at some stage 'be all one color' which would in itself signify that 'uncertainty and randomness' are simply fallacious interpretations rather than 'fundamental properties of the universe' as they may currently appear.
And if we peer at the image of what it started out as - we can also declare it is 'all of one color'...
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3005
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3232 times
- Been thanked: 1984 times
Re: Eternity
Post #88That's not the Scotsman fallacy. The Scotsman fallacy is a way of sneaking an unstated premise into the argument by attempting to change a definition during an argument. "Some Scotsmen wear pants." "No true Scotsman would wear pants." If the definition of "Scotsman" is someone born in Scotland, then then the rebuttal is a fallacy.
I'm not arguing that a universe couldn't be random (even a true universe), but that all of the evidence we have is that it's random and nondeterministic. Your claim is that the randomness is only apparent and therefore false. I'm arguing the contrary position, which is that it's true. That's not the Scotsman fallacy.
Literally all of the evidence we have supports a random universe. That's not a fallacy. If I were to claim that it's philosophically impossible that the universe is deterministic from some frame of reference, then I'd be claiming a fallacy. That's not what I'm claiming, though. The universe is probably nondeterministic. It's almost certainly nondeterministic. If it's otherwise, quantum physics is wrong.
That's not what "observer" means in physics.
It "could" in the philosophical sense that it's "possible," but there's no evidence that it's true.
This is the same "possible means probable" argument that plagues Christian apologetics.
Yes. More precisely, an improbably huge number of random events, but essentially yes.
I haven't forgotten that. In fact, I don't know why you think it's relevant.
No. That's the point. If the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle were not true, information could travel faster than light, the universe were deterministic, or a number of other things about quantum physics weren't true, we would expect a uniform background.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:11 pmWhich is to say, that predictably, the image should at some stage 'be all one color' which would in itself signify that 'uncertainty and randomness' are simply fallacious interpretations rather than 'fundamental properties of the universe' as they may currently appear.
No.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11289
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 307 times
- Been thanked: 354 times
Re: Eternity
Post #89Yes, and because I think these are matters of belief, and I don’t think that I can offer you anything else than beliefs, I would like to know, can you offer something more than beliefs.William wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 1:45 pm [Replying to 1213 in post #80]
What makes you think that you know the intricacies of God to the degree that you observe no change?
Is it not true that all come from the point of ignorance?I didn't "offer beliefs". I asked you a question.Can you offer something better than your beliefs in this matter?
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11289
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 307 times
- Been thanked: 354 times
Re: Eternity
Post #90Sorry, I don't think non-static means necessarily that one has changed. For example, if I walk from here to some other place, I have not changed, I have only changed my place. But, if universe for example expands, it means it changes, it has not the same form anymore.Difflugia wrote: ↑Mon Apr 04, 2022 11:35 am ...
That would apply to anything non-static, hence the OP question. If God is static, then there's nothing to distinguish God's state at the beginning of the universe from any other point in time. If God is not static, God suffers from the same problem that you claim for the universe.