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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 130 by DrNoGods]

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.

A change in entropy can only occur with the passage of time. Granted that a change in time cannot describe how entropy will change. But entropy cannot change without the passage of time. In fact Sean Carroll describes time in terms of entropy. The arrow of time describes the motion of entropy.

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


And who says that any "thing" created this universe?

The law of cause and effect that exists in this universe describes a universe which has to have a cause.

That is an assumption with no evidence to support it.

Whatever created the universe has to exist outside of this universe therefore outside of time. Whatever that may be.

Is your imaginary god creating universes as play things and existing outside watching things happen inside? That is the analogy you are suggesting.

Not at all by definition God has to be omnipresent, that is defined as present at all points in space and at all points in time.

Quote:
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.

You seem insistent on using science to throw off the need for God, but science is not capable of doing what it seems like you would like it to do, now or in the future. As science learns more about the natural processes that make up this universe the advances do not point away from a creator God but towards a creator God.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 131 by EarthScienceguy]

You seem insistent on using science to throw off the need for God, but science is not capable of doing what it seems like you would like it to do, now or in the future. As science learns more about the natural processes that make up this universe the advances do not point away from a creator God but towards a creator God.

I'm not trying to "throw off the need for God", or trying to prove that gods don't exist using science. There is no need for that, and no need for science to even address the issue. My position is based on the simple fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of any god, so it is reasonable to assume that these beings don't exist until one of them makes itself known in some way. That has yet to happen for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented. Not once has any of these gods been demonstrated to exist.

Believe in these fantasies if you like, but don't pretend the existence of gods is supported by science (actual science ... not "creation science", or the personal opinion of a legitimate scientist who happens to be religious).

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I'm not trying to "throw off the need for God", or trying to prove that gods don't exist using science. There is no need for that, and no need for science to even address the issue. My position is based on the simple fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of any god, so it is reasonable to assume that these beings don't exist until one of them makes itself known in some way. That has yet to happen for any of the thousands of gods that humans have invented. Not once has any of these gods been demonstrated to exist.

The problem with your theory is that there is no creation account like that of the Bible. The Bible is the only ancient document that describes the account of the creation of the universe. So the Biblical account is unique among all of the world religions.

Believe in these fantasies if you like, but don't pretend the existence of gods is supported by science (actual science ... not "creation science", or the personal opinion of a legitimate scientist who happens to be religious).

Your "science" or "knowledge" cannot produce the type of universe in which our senses perceive. Unlike the Biblical creation account which gives a universe exactly like the one we perceive.

[Diagoras]

Whatever created the universe has to exist outside of this universe therefore outside of time. Whatever that may be.

Coupled with:

Not at all by definition God has to be omnipresent, that is defined as present at all points in space and at all points in time.

Firstly, a definition is simply a statement of the meaning of something, e.g. a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean space. You can’t use it to simply magic something into existence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is by definition, capable of moving faster than the speed of light.

Can you see what’s wrong with this picture?

Secondly, you appear to be equivocating when you place your god ‘outside space and time’, but then immediately define it to exist at all points in space and time. You’ve just made a god so omnipresent that it somehow exists outside its own definition!

Not only have you zero evidence for any of your ‘outside time and space’ story, you can’t even manage to make it self-consistent for more than one sentence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 133 by EarthScienceguy]

The problem with your theory is that there is no creation account like that of the Bible. The Bible is the only ancient document that describes the account of the creation of the universe. So the Biblical account is unique among all of the world religions.

What do you mean "my theory"? I have no theory of a creation event, but the bible story in Genesis is just one of many creation myths. Wikipedia has a nice list of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

What makes the one in the bible any more or less credible than any of the others? They are all myths with no basis in reality ... people just made them up exactly like the one in Genesis, and we know with 100% certainty that the Genesis account is false (that is what science has proven beyond any doubt ... both the details of the story itself and the time it supposedly happened some 6000 years ago).

Your "science" or "knowledge" cannot produce the type of universe in which our senses perceive. Unlike the Biblical creation account which gives a universe exactly like the one we perceive.

You repeat this kind of thing continuously, but you've never supported it with any science or even explained what point you are trying to make with such a ridiculous statement. There is nothing in modern science that prevents life existing on a planet, including humans with perception. Where you get that idea isn't clear, but if your understanding of science is so poor that you believe it does not allow life forms like humans then you need to do some reading. This statement appears to be yet another example of you leaping to unwarranted conclusions based on an unsolved science problem (origins), which you apparently believe gives you license to make stuff up like the statement above and present it as legitimate. I assume that is why you always resort to this tactic no matter what the subject under discussion actually is.

The bible was written far too long ago for the authors to have any idea what a universe was or describe it or its "creation." Human knowledge simply had not advanced enough at that time for them to know what the lights in the sky were, how far away they were, etc. So it is impossible that they could have written anything even remotely correct as far as a creation account, and it is clear from reading the story that they did not. No amount of creative interpretation can make the Genesis creation story consistent with modern science, and the tiny minority of people who still do take it literally have no influence (fortunately) on how science is conducted in the modern world.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 134 by Diagoras]

Firstly, a definition is simply a statement of the meaning of something, e.g. a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean space. You can’t use it to simply magic something into existence.

In his book "From Eternity to Here", Sean Carroll lays out his case for an eternal universe, in his universe entropy, or the arrow of time, can flow in either direction. Did he make that universe up? Or did he look at our view of the universe and deduce what characteristics a universe had to have in order to exist eternally into the past.

Our universe appears to be finely tuned for life so it makes much more sense for an intelligent being to have created the universe and life than random processes.

Secondly, you appear to be equivocating when you place your god ‘outside space and time’, but then immediately define it to exist at all points in space and time. You’ve just made a god so omnipresent that it somehow exists outside its own definition!

Your view of God is way to small. He is not just present at every point in space but also at every point in time and at every point before time started and every point after time ends acting simultaneously at all points of time and space at the same time.

Not only have you zero evidence for any of your ‘outside time and space’ story, you can’t even manage to make it self-consistent for more than one sentence.
_________________

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 136 by EarthScienceguy]

Our universe appears to be finely tuned for life so it makes much more sense for an intelligent being to have created the universe and life than random processes.

(underline mine)

Hardly ... the only place we've found it so far is on Earth, but we've also only recently had the ability to even detect planets around other stars, much less have any hope of identifying life on them. The Cheops telescope just launched to help that cause:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50804258

If you replace "universe" with "Earth" you'd be making the common creationist mistake of confusing life being created here by a god, and life evolving to live optimally in the environment of Earth simply because that is the environment that existed for it to evolve in. The atmosphere and conditions here on Earth arrived first, and life came later which by definition had to be compatible with the environmental conditions in which it evolved or else it would not have succeeded. No fine tuning by a creator is necessary.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 134 by Diagoras]In his book "From Eternity to Here", Sean Carroll lays out his case for an eternal universe, in his universe entropy, or the arrow of time, can flow in either direction. Did he make that universe up?

It’s possible that he did, but then I haven’t seen his evidence so can’t reasonably comment.

Our universe appears to be finely tuned for life so it makes much more sense for an intelligent being to have created the universe and life than random processes.

Our universe appears to be finely tuned for non-life, given that we’ve only seen evidence for it on one planet out of thousands observed (and perhaps millions or billions in existence). Your appeal to the cosmological fine-tuning argument is well-known and seen by most scientists as deeply flawed. See here for a typical explanation.

Your view of God is way to [sic] small. He is not just present at every point in space but also at every point in time and at every point before time started and every point after time ends acting simultaneously at all points of time and space at the same time.

And yet he still manages to be invisible, and say and do nothing. My view is that he doesn’t exist outside your imagination - and I have the exact same amount of evidence to back up my claim as you do yours.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 137 by DrNoGods]

Hardly ... the only place we've found it so far is on Earth, but we've also only recently had the ability to even detect planets around other stars, much less have any hope of identifying life on them. The Cheops telescope just launched to help that cause:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50804258

You'all need to read more than just rational wiki.

One of the great problems in cosmology today is trying to describe an universe with the physical constants that this universe has. It has nothing to do with where person is in the universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 138 by Diagoras]

Our universe appears to be finely tuned for non-life, given that we’ve only seen evidence for it on one planet out of thousands observed (and perhaps millions or billions in existence). Your appeal to the cosmological fine-tuning argument is well-known and seen by most scientists as deeply flawed. See here for a typical explanation.

Creationist are not the only ones speaking of the fine tuning of the universe

Brain Greene


Roger Penrose

And yet he still manages to be invisible, and say and do nothing. My view is that he doesn’t exist outside your imagination - and I have the exact same amount of evidence to back up my claim as you do yours.

But He did do something He wrote a book that has changed the world. He uses the same book to communicate with His created men and He is actively involved in the world of men directing events to the day of His coming. Like Israel returning to the their promised land after 2000 years. Just because you do not have your eyes and hears open does not mean that God is not working.