How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Masterblaster]

Hello
From Wiki - "Reasoning, as a part of executive decision making, is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change, in terms of goals, beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination."

Is this what we currently use? I don't think so!. What is missing? You tell me!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141

Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality.

"Again this is speculative, but it's based on everything we know of in particle physics right now. It's quite reasonable to suspect that even the laws themselves came into existence when our universe came into existence."
---Krauss

This would preclude physics from being the universe's creative impetus.

but then, who created the intelligent will to write down "Nature shall abhor a vacuum" just produces two problems instead of one.

It multiplies agency, but it actually solves a bigger problem than it causes because, without physics as a creative impetus, the postulate of a metaphysical principle does not multiply agency beyond necessity. It multiplies agency by necessity.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141

Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality.

"Again this is speculative, but it's based on everything we know of in particle physics right now. It's quite reasonable to suspect that even the laws themselves came into existence when our universe came into existence."
---Krauss

This would preclude physics from being the universe's creative impetus.

but then, who created the intelligent will to write down "Nature shall abhor a vacuum" just produces two problems instead of one.

It multiplies agency, but it actually solves a bigger problem than it causes because, without physics as a creative impetus, the postulate of a metaphysical principle does not multiply agency beyond necessity. It multiplies agency by necessity.

Hello
Is it a case that two considered steps have led to truth or am I just reading too much into this?. Look at my last submission within the context of what has just been written above. Take a long look.

I suggested that something was missing in our reasoning that is causing disfunction, something necessary, a requirement for wisdom and development to proceed as preordained by creation itself. This is the gap that is necessity that contains this God of the Gaps that we all allude to. God is a necessity.
Gods rejection by mankind, as a necessity, is self-destructive.The misinterpretation of God is even more damaging. Just simply accept that which intuitively seems to be there. Just be glad of its company, accept its presence, allow it to prompt you from within itself. This is intuitive, and emotive and intellectual and possibly, even spiritual. Much should be left unsaid between friends.

I see strong conclusion connections between the two posts but other participants might suggest that I continue with my medication programme,...perhaps even up it a bit.
Thanks


Here is my post - "From Wiki - "Reasoning, as a part of executive decision making, is also closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change, in terms of goals, beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination."

Is this what we currently use? I don't think so!. What is missing? You tell me!

Previously - "Imagine if you were not allowed to catch or eat a fish until another one was there to replace it. Trawler and net developments on hold while research becomes focused on regeneration of depleted stocks. etc, etc. Just a simple example that would eminate from a defining wisdom."

Previously - "
This combination of evolving conjecture and tenacious development gathers an acceleration that is not reversible or controllable, in any real sense. The open agenda and the lack of a specific remit at the start causes catastrophe."

Previously - "Simple Question and do not mention theism please, a general enquiry, this be. I feel that we need to explore other , less cognitive , intuitions. Do you disagree?"

I may have violated the ceasfire, TRANSPONDER, Oops!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #141

Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality.

"Again this is speculative, but it's based on everything we know of in particle physics right now. It's quite reasonable to suspect that even the laws themselves came into existence when our universe came into existence."
---Krauss

This would preclude physics from being the universe's creative impetus.

but then, who created the intelligent will to write down "Nature shall abhor a vacuum" just produces two problems instead of one.

It multiplies agency, but it actually solves a bigger problem than it causes because, without physics as a creative impetus, the postulate of a metaphysical principle does not multiply agency beyond necessity. It multiplies agency by necessity.

It doesn't solve the problem. To 'where physics came from' you add where intelligence to create physics came from. Physics is not a set of god -given rules but how things work. One could argue that as soon as particles or whatever cosmic stuff was appeared, it worked in a certain way so physics appeared with the stuff that it related to.

I get the apparent problem. It's for Krauss to explain, not me, but where we are at is a half -hypothesis about something from nothing and virtual particles that is half evidence for it. All that postulating an intelligent creator does is appeal to an even bigger problem with less good evidence than something from nothing.

The gap for a god just got a lot smaller. I might even say smaller than the Life gap for a god as we have a mechanism for abiogenesis but no 'virtual particles' of Life.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154

One could argue that as soon as particles or whatever cosmic stuff was appeared, it worked in a certain way so physics appeared with the stuff that it related to.

Now you have particles or cosmic stuff creating physics, so you still have particles or cosmic stuff being created without physics.

[alexxcJRO]

See post #112.
That's that interview and is what is said. Colbert was trying to insist on Something that needed creation and Krauss is saying no, a nothing that doesn't need creation can itself produce virtual particles because mathematically, it must.

Krauss when its says Nothing means lowest state of quantum fields that produce only virtual particles that last a very short period of time->quantum fluctuation.

In Inflation Theory we have an inflation field and a serious quantum fluctuation causes the field to get in a certain state to produce a kind of "inflation particle" which is billions times smaller then a proton which then inflated very fast(Dark Energy) till the field "calmed down" and then we had Big Bang.

Thank you. That's good clarification. However, I have to say that Krauss did see virtual particles as evidence that something from nothing was a viable alternative to an act of magical creation.

It could be that virtual particles is an example of things coming into existence uncaused. Ergo creating problems for KALAM.
The reality is this is unknown.
What appears something could be another thing.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154

One could argue that as soon as particles or whatever cosmic stuff was appeared, it worked in a certain way so physics appeared with the stuff that it related to.

Now you have particles or cosmic stuff creating physics, so you still have particles or cosmic stuff being created without physics.

String theory may explain the very small vacuum energy we observe because there may be huge set of vacuum like states one of which may the one that filled our pocket universe. Eternal inflation theory says we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics(ergo different physics) and different particles depending on pocket universe while having the same laws of strig theory everywhere in all pockets.

We could have a more generalized laws of physics- physics and localized physics.
This happens all the time. What was thought as generalized laws become localized laws when more knowledge about our reality is found.
We could have Goldilocks universes as we have Goldilocks planets.

Once was thought the Earth was all there is. All reality. Yet we found we have countless planets in an incomprehensible vast universe. Some(few) in the Goldilocks zone and the rest not.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #154

One could argue that as soon as particles or whatever cosmic stuff was appeared, it worked in a certain way so physics appeared with the stuff that it related to.

Now you have particles or cosmic stuff creating physics, so you still have particles or cosmic stuff being created without physics.

That's right. So far as I follow it (and I am no physicist) mathematical potential means that instability in Nothingnss or nothing enough not to need creation, produces particles of energy/matter that do stuff or do not. What survives and can be done again becomes physics. What does not, does not survive. The idea seems to prop up whatever the actuality is or was, so it seems your attempt to prove that something from nothing cannot happen is sunk, even if you would not have a coherent case for a an uncreated intelligent creator even if you had a point.

You are done and dusted and your sortagod theim with it. Deny it ( and play the 'you are w so WUDE card ) just as you like. It is not about getting you to give up Deism or irreligious theism or whertever you are right now. It is about who can make the case, and it looks to me like Krauss (who you brought up, not me) just sunk your Moskva.

[TRANSPONDER]

See post #112.
That's that interview and is what is said. Colbert was trying to insist on Something that needed creation and Krauss is saying no, a nothing that doesn't need creation can itself produce virtual particles because mathematically, it must.

Krauss when its says Nothing means lowest state of quantum fields that produce only virtual particles that last a very short period of time->quantum fluctuation.

In Inflation Theory we have an inflation field and a serious quantum fluctuation causes the field to get in a certain state to produce a kind of "inflation particle" which is billions times smaller then a proton which then inflated very fast(Dark Energy) till the field "calmed down" and then we had Big Bang.

Thank you. That's good clarification. However, I have to say that Krauss did see virtual particles as evidence that something from nothing was a viable alternative to an act of magical creation.

It could be that virtual particles is an example of things coming into existence uncaused. Ergo creating problems for KALAM.
The reality is this is unknown.
What appears something could be another thing.

Yes. Aside that Kalam make no case at all (universe surely had a cause; no idea what) without the intelligent Creator Kalam studiously avoids. Because that just begs the question, 'what created the creator'. And I need hardly recite the special pleading and denial of 'God is eternal' 'Then why can't the universe be eternal?' 'That's just silly', 'Then so is an uncreated God'. No it isn't, it is God's nature', 'Then it is the nature of the Cosmic stuff to be uncreated', 'That's just your atheist belief', 'Then an uncreated God is theist belief', 'No look, the Bible says..."

And so on in a way that almost validates infinite regression.

But Right from the start, an uncreated thing that could produce matter had to be the way out, and even as a ten year old wondering what was beyond the universe I realised that nothingness is eternal, Nothing was the answer to everything. God wasn't. But how could nothing produce something? It was the best gap for God. But virtual particles shrank and even shrunk that gap just a bit. Even though God (name your own) just doubled the problem and appeal to Faith and the Bible never validated anything.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #157

String theory may explain the very small vacuum energy we observe because there may be huge set of vacuum like states one of which may the one that filled our pocket universe. Eternal inflation theory says we may have different pocket universes with different kinds of vacuum inside them which would be determined randomly as this pocket universes break of from inflating backbone. You would have different vacuums from the set, different laws of physics(ergo different physics) and different particles depending on pocket universe while having the same laws of strig theory everywhere in all pockets.

ABSTRACT
Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating—or just expanding sufficiently fast—must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301

In other words, inflationary models of the universe don't predict eternal expansion. So the issue of the origin of the universe----including the physics of the universe----is not circumvented.