Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on May 25, 2025, 07:14:55 AM
-
Hi everyone,
If there is only one God and we cannot know his true nature....it should not matter how we imagine or address him. Our prayers will automatically be heard only by that one God.....simply because there is only one God.
It is obviously wrong to say that.... there is only one God and that is the one I worship.
Just a thought.
Cheers
Sriram
-
Thanks NS for moving the thread. :)
-
Hi everyone,
If there is only one God and we cannot know his true nature....it should not matter how we imagine or address him. Our prayers will automatically be heard only by that one God.....simply because there is only one God.
It is obviously wrong to say that.... there is only one God and that is the one I worship.
Just a thought.
Cheers
Sriram
What matters is that there is a God. We know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did make himself known. PROOF was the rainbow and the reason for it. We have the future her forecast but the 12 tribes of Israel and how only 2 remain the tribe of Israel has the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Judah the tribe Christ born from.
We know God told his people they would have no God but him. We have to trust in his word. Not the words of man through false gods. We need to listen and learn.
-
It matters to you obviously, but it doesn't to me. As far as the biblical god goes, there is no 'proof' at all. As far as trusting goes, I find the words of humans for the existence of any god to be not much more than 'sounding brass' with or without 'love'.
-
It matters to you obviously, but it doesn't to me. As far as the biblical god goes, there is no 'proof' at all. As far as trusting goes, I find the words of humans for the existence of any god to be not much more than 'sounding brass' with or without 'love'.
Enki,
You have the right to believe as you will, You have no proof but you cannot speak for others.
What is right for you is not right for us who know God and whom God speaks to.
If you cannot seach for truth then how will you ever know differently?
-
Enki,
You have the right to believe as you will
Obviously
You have no proof
Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.
but you cannot speak for others.
I didn't say I was speaking for others. What part of 'but it doesn't to me' don't you understand?
What is right for you is not right for us who know God and whom God speaks to.
I didn't say it wasn't right for you. I'm quite sure that you believe that God speaks to you.
If you cannot seach for truth then how will you ever know differently?
My point exactly. So I assume you will now take your own advice.
-
Obviously
Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.
I didn't say I was speaking for others. What part of 'but it doesn't to me' don't you understand?
I didn't say it wasn't right for you. I'm quite sure that you believe that God speaks to you.
My point exactly. So I assume you will now take your own advice.
Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..
-
Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..
So what method of investigation would you advise if, as you suggest, naturalism doesn't apply?
-
Myself, I don't see why something that created nature or was fundamental to all of it would be susceptible to naturalistic investigation or why that constitutes a problem for God rather than a limitation of naturalism..
Okay. So what method(s) do you suggest which have less limitations than natural evidence? And if you can't give me one(or more) then why should I accept that there is a god(s) in the first place?
-
What matters is that there is a God. We know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did make himself known. PROOF was the rainbow and the reason for it. We have the future her forecast but the 12 tribes of Israel and how only 2 remain the tribe of Israel has the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Judah the tribe Christ born from.
We know God told his people they would have no God but him. We have to trust in his word. Not the words of man through false gods. We need to listen and learn.
Yes.....I believe there is a God. However that's not the point I am discussing here.
My point is that there is one God. Obviously then he/she/it has created the whole world....including Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and Christians.
We can't see or know him directly so we imagine him in different ways and pray in different ways. God is obviously aware of the different ways in which people imagine and worship him.
In every culture and community, God has revealed himself indirectly in various ways and there have been miracles and revelations of different kinds. There have been sages, prophets and saints in all communities. People have found peace, love and salvation in all communities.
Why then do some communities insist that only their way is the right way and their image of God is the right one? It just doesn't make sense.
If there are multiple Gods then there is some meaning in insisting that one is better or superior to the others.........not if there is only One God.
-
Proof of what? I didn't say that God can't possibly exist. I do need evidence however for its existences and you can't provide the evidence that God exists.
Then you need to seek for that evidence but be careful. Sol appears in the Heavens every morning. He brings warmth and light to the world. However, do not gaze directly upon his countenance as He will blind you. Also, if you go on a pilgrimage to the holy site of Costa del Sol and remove all your clothing in worship, beware, if like me you have a white skin and you do not exercise respect and moderation, He turns you red and burns the Hell out of you.
-
Then you need to seek for that evidence but be careful. Sol appears in the Heavens every morning. He brings warmth and light to the world. However, do not gaze directly upon his countenance as He will blind you. Also, if you go on a pilgrimage to the holy site of Costa del Sol and remove all your clothing in worship, beware, if like me you have a white skin and you do not exercise respect and moderation, He turns you red and burns the Hell out of you.
I'm sure this God would have done that already. ;) I'm reminded of the cartoon where a bolt of lightning is just about to strike a golfer but zig zags away at the last second as the golfer says, "but then maybe there is a god after all" ;D
-
Okay. So what method(s) do you suggest which have less limitations than natural evidence? And if you can't give me one(or more) then why should I accept that there is a god(s) in the first place?
With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.
It's rather like being told that Phonographs are not multimedia equipment and asking what you are meant to be doing with your old 78 rpm records.
You hold a good number of beliefs which you arrived at by means other than empirical methods. By conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc so science is not the only means we have at our disposal.
-
With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.
I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.
So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.
So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.
-
I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.
So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.
So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.
But Professor as you know all sorts of weird and wonderful things are claimed at the quantum level and this could be where God is intervening. It's therefore the theists God versus your "Hey presto!" or "Bob's your uncle" explanations
-
With all due respect to you and Gordon, your request for a method to proceed with investigating God is no sequitur to the realisation that natural methods have an inbuilt filter. Science does not do God as they say. It isn't equipped, although in pondering simulated universe theory it has come so close to a God figure some scientists have spotted the incursion into the religious domain.
It's rather like being told that Phonographs are not multimedia equipment and asking what you are meant to be doing with your old 78 rpm records.
You hold a good number of beliefs which you arrived at by means other than empirical methods. By conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc so science is not the only means we have at our disposal.
With all due respect, I would remind you that I was responding to Sassy's idea that there is 'proof' that God 'made himself known' by stating that there is no evidence that God exists.
It was you who latched on to the idea that 'natural investigation' has limitations, a suggestion which I readily agreed with. However, as I thought, the only alternatives you list above have even more glaring limitations(e.g. the origins of one's moral compass could well be that it is an evolutionary development) and therefore fail miserably as evidence for God's existence.
The fact that you justify your beliefs to yourself is of no import to me. I am not here to challenge your sense of belief at all. I simply suggest that, rationally, I have no reason to believe in the existence of any god.
-
I disagree unless you are arguing for a completely non-interventionalist god that never interacts with the natural world. But that certainly isn't the god claimed by christians.
So if god interacts with the natural word he/she/it will leave an imprint on the natural world that is perfectly amenable to detection by science. In fact science is very good at detecting the presence of something, not directly, but indirectly via changes in something else. There are countless examples, but here in one - we detect the presence of planets orbiting far off stars not directly but due to their impact on the light from that star as the planet passes in front of it.
So while god has no interaction with the natural world we may conclude that god is not detectable by science, but as soon as there is interaction god will become amenable to science. Problem for you is that despite the claims of folk like you that god readily interacts with the natural world, there is absolutely zero credible evidence for that interaction and therefore zero credible evidence that this god exists.
Science has indeed detected such intelligent interventions. They are however dismissed as random variations and random events.
-
Science has indeed detected such intelligent interventions. They are however dismissed as random variations and random events.
They haven't dismissed anything - they have (as science does) looked at the observations and evidence (including random variation in things) and have developed theories to explain observations - the theory being the best explanation based on the current evidence. If 'god' was the best explanation for the current evidence science would posit 'god' in their theories. But weirdly it never seems to be - wonder why that might be.
-
With all due respect, I would remind you that I was responding to Sassy's idea that there is 'proof' that God 'made himself known' by stating that there is no evidence that God exists.
It was you who latched on to the idea that 'natural investigation' has limitations, a suggestion which I readily agreed with. However, as I thought, the only alternatives you list above have even more glaring limitations(e.g. the origins of one's moral compass could well be that it is an evolutionary development) and therefore fail miserably as evidence for God's existence.
The fact that you justify your beliefs to yourself is of no import to me. I am not here to challenge your sense of belief at all. I simply suggest that, rationally, I have no reason to believe in the existence of any god.
I dispute though that there is no reason to believe there is a God. One can believe in a necessary entity and either believe it has characteristics derived through reason or one can abandon reason on the altar of committed atheism and call it the Universe with all the problematic contingency and invite that demands.
-
They haven't dismissed anything - they have (as science does) looked at the observations and evidence (including random variation in things) and have developed theories to explain observations - the theory being the best explanation based on the current evidence. If 'god' was the best explanation for the current evidence science would posit 'god' in their theories. But weirdly it never seems to be - wonder why that might be.
God is a loaded word and means lot of different things to different people. I am not suggesting that 'God' should be a scientific explanation.
But 'intelligent intervention' of some kind is certainly a possibility. Randomness creating such complexity and order, again and again, at millions of different points...is absurd.
We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.
-
I dispute though that there is no reason to believe there is a God. One can believe in a necessary entity and either believe it has characteristics derived through reason or one can abandon reason on the altar of committed atheism and call it the Universe with all the problematic contingency and invite that demands.
I didn't say that there is no reason to believe in God, though. I said that rationally I have no reason to believe in God. I can think of many reasons why a person might believe in God.
I have no idea what 'committed atheism' is supposed to mean or why I should call the universe God? I suspect that this is you wandering off the subject.
-
I didn't say that there is no reason to believe in God, though. I said that rationally I have no reason to believe in God. I can think of many reasons why a person might believe in God.
I have no idea what 'committed atheism' is supposed to mean or why I should call the universe God? I suspect that this is you wandering off the subject.
We could go on like this all day you say that there is no rational reason and I say that's wrong, with examples, then you
just say there are no reasons to believe in God and so it goes.
-
We could go on like this all day you say that there is no rational reason and I say that's wrong, with examples, then you
just say there are no reasons to believe in God and so it goes.
All day and every day most likely. :) Mind you, you seem to be trying to twist my words again. I didn't say there are no reasons to believe in God or even that there were no rational reasons to believe in God. All I said was that I(myself,me) find no rational reason to believe in God, because of lack of evidence for its existence. As for your 'examples', I assume you mean, 'conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc '. Each of these can have alternative sources to the input of God, such as the make up of the human brain, influence of culture, influence of evolution, social influences. To suggest that they are in some way dependent on God begs the question of whether this god actually exists and you're back to square one which is where is the evidence for God's existence?
A question which you seem quite unable to answer.
-
All day and every day most likely. :) Mind you, you seem to be trying to twist my words again.
Again??!!?? I didn't say there are no reasons to believe in God or even that there were no rational reasons to believe in God. All I said was that I(myself,me) find no rational reason to believe in God,
OK let me get this straight, You believe there could be reasons out there but they haven't been presented to you? because of lack of evidence for its existence.
Ah well here I think you are confusing reason with empirical evidence. In other words many scientific theories of the past were wrong but they were not unreasonable As for your 'examples',
Not sure why the inverted commas are thereI assume you mean, 'conscience, moral compass, reason, zeitgeist etc '. Each of these can have alternative sources to the input of God, such as the make up of the human brain, influence of culture, influence of evolution, social influences.
Yes, I used to think that adequately explained things but there are a couple of aspects to them 1) How do they arise ? 2) What about the explanatory gaps.In other words how do we get from say intelligence to consciousness. The answer was by leaps of faith,
I believed as you do that science would have the answer, and that is inescapably a belief, that science has the answer To suggest that they are in some way dependent on God begs the question of whether this god actually exists and you're back to square one which is where is the evidence for God's existence?
A question which you seem quite unable to answer.
No I have given the argument from contingency and have pointed out that beliefs such as empiricism, scientism(faith in science)and naturalism are themselves unevidenced beliefs although they work as tools in certain contexts and your confusion of reason and empirical evidence
-
God is a loaded word and means lot of different things to different people. I am not suggesting that 'God' should be a scientific explanation.
But 'intelligent intervention' of some kind is certainly a possibility.
But science doesn't dismiss intelligent interventions at all. A plausible explanation for many observations may be that what was observed was created deliberately by human action or the action of other species - and therefore intelligent intervention.
Randomness creating such complexity and order, again and again, at millions of different points...is absurd.
We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.
Nope, what is absurd is the notion that something complex must always have been created by something more complex. Now firstly that logically cannot be applied consistently without infinite regress. Secondly it is typically based on a subjective anthropocentric notion of 'complexity' that somehow posits that a human is more complex than a tree, or a weather system or the sun etc etc. And thirdly it defies evidence, where we see time and time again what we would describe as complexity arising spontaneously through fundamental energetics and random variation. Snow flakes anyone?
-
Again??!!??
Indeed. See post 20. I was quite willing to give you the benfit of the doubt, but as you repeated the same distortion in post 21, you are either persisting in twisting my words or you don't understand what you are writing.
OK let me get this straight, You believe there could be reasons out there but they haven't been presented to you?
No need. The need for comfort, ameliorating the fear of death, cultural norms, emotional security are all reasons why a person might believe in God.
Ah well here I think you are confusing reason with empirical evidence. In other words many scientific theories of the past were wrong but they were not unreasonable
Quite correct, but I am not talking about scientific theories, I am talking about the lack of any sort of objective evidence, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, on the basis of this, I would suggest that it is entirely rational for me to have no belief in God.
Not sure why the inverted commas are there
I simply quoted the word you used
Yes, I used to think that adequately explained things but there are a couple of aspects to them 1) How do they arise ? 2) What about the explanatory gaps.
Same problems with God. How did he arise? What about the problems attached to a God of the omnis?
In other words how do we get from say intelligence to consciousness. The answer was by leaps of faith,
That assumes that they are necessarily related. I don't know of any 'leap of faith' which explains either or illustrates the development from one to the other.
I believed as you do that science would have the answer, and that is inescapably a belief, that science has the answer
I am open to any form of objective evidence. It doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.
No I have given the argument from contingency and have pointed out that beliefs such as empiricism, scientism(faith in science)and naturalism are themselves unevidenced beliefs although they work as tools in certain contexts and your confusion of reason and empirical evidence
No confusion at all. As I suggest above, it is entirely rational for me not to have a belief in God when I have no reason to suppose it exists.
The argument from contingency can be refuted of course, and, even if accepted, there is no reason to assume that the necessary entity is translatable as a conscious entity.
So, I leave you with the same question as before. What method(s) of investigation as to whether God exists or not have less limitations than natural investigation?
-
No need. The need for comfort,
Yet people find the idea of a God who reminds them they are not on the right moral path quite uncomfortable ameliorating the fear of death,
How do you manage it?cultural norms,
England and Wales have a religious minorityemotional security
Again how do you manage ? Also religion, as I have said involves surrendering the ego.Would that afford you emotional security do you think?
Again, I thought all these things too until I actually looked into it.
-
..
We may not know what that Intelligence really is or how it works.....but that it exists is quite clear and has certainly been detected.
If that were true, then where is the evidence ? Post up a link so we can all have a look
-
What are the properties of a necessary being?
No idea - but since your question is overtly fallacious (you are begging the question here) it's one that I don't have to bother considering until such times you guys can set out a substantive basis for your assertion there is such a thing (instead of it being a handy assertion to stop an apparently infinite regress).
-
Nope, what is absurd is the notion that something complex must always have been created by something more complex. Now firstly that logically cannot be applied consistently without infinite regress. Secondly it is typically based on a subjective anthropocentric notion of 'complexity' that somehow posits that a human is more complex than a tree, or a weather system or the sun etc etc. And thirdly it defies evidence, where we see time and time again what we would describe as complexity arising spontaneously through fundamental energetics and random variation. Snow flakes anyone?
Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.
Once again... random variation.....!!! Randomness is a cop out not an explanation.
-
No idea - but since your question is overtly fallacious (you are begging the question here) it's one that I don't have to bother considering until such times you guys can set out a substantive basis for your assertion there is such a thing (instead of it being a handy assertion to stop an apparently infinite regress).
Wrong, Your logic would render the discussion of the properties of any notional entity fallacious.
-
Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.
Why is that problematic?
Once again... random variation.....!!! Randomness is a cop out not an explanation.
No, randomness is the observation - see those random elements in reality. The logical conclusion from that randomness is the theory, and that theory stands up to continued examination.
O.
-
Wrong, Your logic would render the discussion of the properties of any notional entity fallacious.
Give that boy a coconut!
-
Indeed. See post 20. I was quite willing to give you the benfit of the doubt, but as you repeated the same distortion in post 21, you are either persisting in twisting my words or you don't understand what you are writing.
No need. The need for comfort, ameliorating the fear of death, cultural norms, emotional security are all reasons why a person might believe in God.
Quite correct, but I am not talking about scientific theories, I am talking about the lack of any sort of objective evidence, nothing more and nothing less. Hence, on the basis of this, I would suggest that it is entirely rational for me to have no belief in God.
I simply quoted the word you used
Same problems with God. How did he arise? What about the problems attached to a God of the omnis?
That assumes that they are necessarily related. I don't know of any 'leap of faith' which explains either or illustrates the development from one to the other.
I am open to any form of objective evidence. It doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.
No confusion at all. As I suggest above, it is entirely rational for me not to have a belief in God when I have no reason to suppose it exists.
The argument from contingency can be refuted of course, and, even if accepted, there is no reason to assume that the necessary entity is translatable as a conscious entity.
So, I leave you with the same question as before. What method(s) of investigation as to whether God exists or not have less limitations than natural investigation?
You are free to state the argument from contingency and indeed refute it here and now.
Can one be open to any kind of evidence when evidence means evidence? I'm not sure you can.
In terms of methodologies, all methodologies mentioned on this forum actually have turned out to be science and that is based on physicalism which has no physical method of proving itself. Moreover science doesn't do God.
-
Give that boy a coconut!
Thank you, not sure about your statement about the necessary being being a "handy assertion". It is explained by the argument from contingency so cannot be described as an assertion I would have thought...is it one of Dawkins?
-
Thank you, not sure about your statement about the necessary being being a "handy assertion". It is explained by the argument from contingency so cannot be described as an assertion I would have thought...is it one of Dawkins?
Seems to be to be little more that a contrived way to stop a regress.
-
Infinite regress is unavoidable in any case. No one has any idea of a first cause and that will continue to remain elusive.
Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.
-
Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.
I am well aware of different temporal theories and am unphased by infinite regresses since even they need not be necessary entities. The question remains, "why this infinite regression....and not that one..?" What gets me is that you can have half a dozen atheists wanting evidence for God and they're totally accepting of an unevidenced infinite regression.
You strange and wonderful people!
-
I am well aware of different temporal theories and am unphased by infinite regresses since even they need not be necessary entities. The question remains, "why this infinite regression....and not that one..?"
Nope - because the whole notion of an infinite regress is dependent on time working in a linear fashion - in other words x was created by y, y was created by z, etc etc, until you step out (with your illogical and unevidenced necessary being non-sense) but aa wasn't created by anything. Point is that if time works backwards or is completely fluid all that neat linearity of a begets b, begets c etc becomes completely meaningless.
The problem for you folk is that you are unable to get beyond time actually being as we observe it as humans. Once you get beyond this then it stops being why this infinite regress rather than that one, but why any infinite regress - and actually forget infinite regresses as they don't make sense unless you have a naive view of time.
-
Yet people find the idea of a God who reminds them they are not on the right moral path quite uncomfortable
I suggest that some people are quite willing to accept that they have made bad mistakes and find it comforting that there might be an all seeing God who will forgive them their misdemeanors.
How do you manage it?
I long ago accepted that when I die that will be the end of me. Sure, I will live on in certain people's memories for some time, but just as I have no knowledge of before I was conceived, it seems to me that I will have no knowledge of after I die. It doesn't bother me, although the manner of my going might well be a cause for concern.
England and Wales have a religious minority
Probably because the cultural norms have less of a Christian basis nowadays.
Again how do you manage ? Also religion, as I have said involves surrendering the ego.Would that afford you emotional security do you think?
I take comfort from trying to be honest with myself and from the love and concern of my friends and family. As to surrendering my ego. A bit difficult, don't you think if I have no belief in what I am surrendering it to. The nearest I get to that attitude would be accepting that nature takes its course.
Again, I thought all these things too until I actually looked into it.
That's entirely up to you, of course. For me, looking in to it has taken me on an entirely different path.
-
You are free to state the argument from contingency and indeed refute it here and now.
I don't refute it but it is just one possibility amongst others. This has been done to death on other threads, so I don't really see the point of going over old ground. The only thing I would say is that if one accepts that there is a necessarily existing 'thing', why on earth should we give it the name 'God' which has connotations of thinking, awareness and consciousness associated with it? Why not just call it a 'thing' rather than give it human attributes for no reason? If one insists in calling this 'thing' a god, then the nearest I would get to it would be a sort of Spinoza's god.
Can one be open to any kind of evidence when evidence means evidence? I'm not sure you can.
For me, the idea of personal evidence might well convince the person concerned but is of no particular use for me. So, evidence, for me, should be as objective as possible and, as I said before, it doesn't have to be science, although, practically, at the moment, that looks like our best bet.
In terms of methodologies, all methodologies mentioned on this forum actually have turned out to be science and that is based on physicalism which has no physical method of proving itself. Moreover science doesn't do God.
No science doesn't do God because it doesn't deal with the supernatural(if it exists). However, science has had a huge influence in relation to understanding and explaining some basic areas of Christianity, such as the origins of humanity and the make up of our universe. Of course it can't prove itself. Science isn't about proof but about gathering evidence, suggesting hypotheses, testing them, modifying them, producing theories etc. I am open to suggestions for any other methodology which is as successful at dealing with the natural world. As for the supernatural world, all this seems to be is a matter of conjecture.
-
Why is that problematic?
No, randomness is the observation - see those random elements in reality. The logical conclusion from that randomness is the theory, and that theory stands up to continued examination.
O.
It is not problematic. It cannot be avoided. So giving that as a reason to dismiss intelligent intervention is problematic.
Randomness is not the observation. Complexity and emergent properties are the observations. Randomness is the explanation you choose to give for that.
-
Sriram - you regularly fall into Vlad's narrow anthropocentric thinking but now you've drifted into another of Vlad's faulty thought processes - namely considering that time runs constantly and in one direction only. The notion of a 'first' cause implies that it happens before other things - but that only makes sense if time is constant and unilinear. If time (as we think it to be) is not constant and its appearance to us as humans as running in one direction only ie merely an artefact of observation then the notion of 'first' or 'last' or 'before' or 'after' etc have no fundamental meaning.
You are just making things up as you go along!
-
You are just making things up as you go along!
What am I making up.
The notion that infinite regress must be a thing is the equivalent of saying that a path must either be (actually) infinite or must have a beginning and an end, without recognising that firstly that the beginning might be the end and the end might be the beginning. But more significantly simply cannot understand that the path may be circular so provides the illusion of being infinite (you never get to an end point) but actually isn't (that perception is merely an observational artefact) and there is no point which can be considered to be before or after any other point.
For a person walking along that path they might perceive that they must either come to an end (or is it the beginning) or the path must be infinite, but that is a narrow subjective observer bias. But then if you are locking into an achingly anthropocentric mindset it isn't surprising that you will see things within a narrow human-centric perspective rather than being able to step outside the massive limitations of the human experience and actually consider the universe at is actually is, rather than as humans might perceive it.
-
What am I making up.
The notion that infinite regress must be a thing is the equivalent of saying that a path must either be (actually) infinite or must have a beginning and an end, without recognising that firstly that the beginning might be the end and the end might be the beginning. But more significantly simply cannot understand that the path may be circular so provides the illusion of being infinite (you never get to an end point) but actually isn't (that perception is merely an observational artefact) and there is no point which can be considered to be before or after any other point.
For a person walking along that path they might perceive that they must either come to an end (or is it the beginning) or the path must be infinite, but that is a narrow subjective observer bias. But then if you are locking into an achingly anthropocentric mindset it isn't surprising that you will see things within a narrow human-centric perspective rather than being able to step outside the massive limitations of the human experience and actually consider the universe at is actually is, rather than as humans might perceive it.
What perspective then do you have in mind? If not a path as a model, what pathway do you envisage. Do tell us or remain as just spouting clichés.
-
What perspective then do you have in mind? If not a path as a model, what pathway do you envisage. Do tell us or remain as just spouting clichés.
No onus on me Vlad as I'm not the one positing theories that are only valid on the basis of unevidenced assumptions - e.g. constant and unilinear time, the notion that there must be infinite regress (linked to the former) which can only be overcome by special pleading for a necessary entity.
All I am saying is that your assumptions aren't just unevidenced, but naive and rebutted by evidence and therefore that you must not discount the notion that time may not be constant and unilinear and therefore that the notion of unilinear, one-directional 'x caused y' etc may not hold and therefore nor does the notion of infinite regress nor necessary entities.
But if you insist, here is a completely plausible (and actually evidenced) alternative - specifically that time acts more like a multi-dimensional surface than a line. And time is, of course, intimately linked to space.
-
No onus on me Vlad as I'm not the one positing theories that are only valid on the basis of unevidenced assumptions - e.g. constant and unilinear time, the notion that there must be infinite regress (linked to the former) which can only be overcome by special pleading for a necessary entity.
All I am saying is that your assumptions aren't just unevidenced, but naive and rebutted by evidence and therefore that you must not discount the notion that time may not be constant and unilinear and therefore that the notion of unilinear, one-directional 'x caused y' etc may not hold and therefore nor does the notion of infinite regress nor necessary entities.
But if you insist, here is a completely plausible (and actually evidenced) alternative - specifically that time acts more like a multi-dimensional surface than a line. And time is, of course, intimately linked to space.
Fine, you have no onus to explain the things you suggest.
-
Fine, you have no onus to explain the things you suggest.
Not if my point was that you cannot presume that something will follow a narrow set of assumptions (that you have posited), which are unevidenced. The onus is on you to justify the assumptions you make and the conclusions you propose. To say that alternatives may be possible isn't the same as nailing my colours to a particular alternative (which would place the onus on me to justify my assertions).
But that isn't what I am doing - I am saying that alternatives are possible and shouldn't be discounted because you have a narrow anthropocentic mindset.
-
Seems to be to be little more that a contrived way to stop a regress.
You may be mistaking the argument from contingency for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument from contingency isn't derailed by the universe being infinite or not. It
does however stop unaccounted contingency which is by far dafter than any infinity.
Don't worry Dawkins made the same error.
-
You may be mistaking the argument from contingency for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The argument from contingency isn't derailed by the universe being infinite or not. It
does however stop unaccounted contingency which is by far dafter than any infinity.
Don't worry Dawkins made the same error.
I'm not - but the KCA is yet another example of begging the question, plus a wee bit of special pleading for good measure.
-
What am I making up.
The notion that infinite regress must be a thing is the equivalent of saying that a path must either be (actually) infinite or must have a beginning and an end, without recognising that firstly that the beginning might be the end and the end might be the beginning. But more significantly simply cannot understand that the path may be circular so provides the illusion of being infinite (you never get to an end point) but actually isn't (that perception is merely an observational artefact) and there is no point which can be considered to be before or after any other point.
For a person walking along that path they might perceive that they must either come to an end (or is it the beginning) or the path must be infinite, but that is a narrow subjective observer bias. But then if you are locking into an achingly anthropocentric mindset it isn't surprising that you will see things within a narrow human-centric perspective rather than being able to step outside the massive limitations of the human experience and actually consider the universe at is actually is, rather than as humans might perceive it.
First of all I don't believe that there is anything that we call Time. Check out my new post in the Philosophy section.
Secondly....regardless of that discussion, the question of the origins of the universe still remains. If you are arguing that the universe always existed and did not have any beginning....you need to provide evidence for that.
Your argument is one of human perspective too.....with all its limitations.
-
First of all I don't believe that there is anything that we call Time.
Ok, if you say so. In which case presumably in discussions on the universe you won't fall back into temporal terminology, arguments etc.
Secondly....regardless of that discussion, the question of the origins of the universe still remains. If you are arguing that the universe always existed and did not have any beginning....you need to provide evidence for that.
Hmm - ‘the origins’, ‘always existed’, ‘beginning’ - terms which are inextricably linked to our traditional and subjective understanding of time. In other words that something wasn't there are one point in time and as time progresses in a constant and unilinear manner appears at a later point in time.
But you claim you don't believe in time, yet your very next statement is dripping with temporal reference.
Oh and to be clear - I'm not arguing that the universe always existed and did not have any beginning - merely pointing out that we should not discount these as possibilities amongst others. So no onus on me to provide evidence for something I'm not asserting. Although the manner in which you've described what you think I'm arguing (not that I am) only makes sense in the context of constant and unilinear time, which you claim not to believe in.
-
I suggest that some people are quite willing to accept that they have made bad mistakes
How about people who, not only found out that their deeds not only unfortunately bad consequences but their deeds were bad in intent and motivationand find it comforting that there might be an all seeing God who will forgive them their misdemeanours
It seems to me that deeds that are absolutely bad need absolute forgiveness
I long ago accepted that when I die that will be the end of me.
That will be true as far as the spectators of it are concerned but they are not where you are Sure, I will live on in certain people's memories for some time, but just as I have no knowledge of before I was conceived, it seems to me that I will have no knowledge of after I die. It doesn't bother me, although the manner of my going might well be a cause for concern.
A few things spring to mind here, you say you have accepted death but which death. The violent, unjust and sudden premature death at the hand of man and machine or the death at a great age, secondly, one could see death as a getting away with stuff one has done and Scot free as a comfort, thirdly aren’t these your beliefs about your personal experience or non experience of death? There is certainly no scientific way of confirming or denying the afterlife of any religion. Finally, there is a hint, through you bringing these things up that your way of accepting death is somehow more virtuous than say someone who accepts they will die, even sacrifice their lives and believes God can resurrect them and the rest for judgment.
I think this raises another point, there is a hint in your post that the reasons for religion you give are the only or main reasons. While I agree that there may be people attracted to religion as some kind of emotional crutch or insurance for afterlife, with religion you get God as well and that is the catch for a lot of people. Take the afterlife, One view of religion could be that humanity is like the passengers on a cruise ship. Yes their may be an iceberg and a terrible end but we are faced with a choice, hunker down in the lifeboats or enjoy the cruise the booze, the lascivious entertainment, the food, the shows and casinos,it’s a gamble but what I would want to know is what keeps those folk in the lifeboats?
I take comfort from trying to be honest with myself and from the love and concern of my friends and family. As to surrendering my ego. A bit difficult, don't you think
.Oh I think everyone who has encountered and committed to God knows how difficult that is
-
I'm not - but the KCA is yet another example of begging the question, plus a wee bit of special pleading for good measure.
I don’t know if that’s so and unless you or anyone can demonstrate it, although the onus is on you, I’m forced to conclude you don’t either.
-
Ok, if you say so. In which case presumably in discussions on the universe you won't fall back into temporal terminology, arguments etc.
Hmm - ‘the origins’, ‘always existed’, ‘beginning’ - terms which are inextricably linked to our traditional and subjective understanding of time. In other words that something wasn't there are one point in time and as time progresses in a constant and unilinear manner appears at a later point in time.
But you claim you don't believe in time, yet your very next statement is dripping with temporal reference.
Oh and to be clear - I'm not arguing that the universe always existed and did not have any beginning - merely pointing out that we should not discount these as possibilities amongst others. So no onus on me to provide evidence for something I'm not asserting. Although the manner in which you've described what you think I'm arguing (not that I am) only makes sense in the context of constant and unilinear time, which you claim not to believe in.
If the universe had a beginning....then infinite regress automatically becomes an issue.
-
If the universe had a beginning....then infinite regress automatically becomes an issue.
Oh no it doesn't
-
For a good chuckle about this kind of pointless speculation one can do worse than this from Zhuangzi:
"Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know if it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However let me try making my statement.
There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something." (Watson, trans.)
-
For a good chuckle about this kind of pointless speculation one can do worse than this from Zhuangzi:
"Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know if it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However let me try making my statement.
There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is being and nonbeing. But between this being and nonbeing, I don't really know which is being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something." (Watson, trans.)
I'll have or not have whatever it is they may or may not be having
-
If the universe had a beginning....
If doing some pretty heavy lifting here Sriram. But anyhow I thought you didn't believe in time - hence surely 'beginning' is anathema to you.
then infinite regress automatically becomes an issue.
No it doesn't unless you consider that something complex (e.g. like the universe) must be created by something more complex. But down that road lies madness. It is far more logical (and evidence-based) to consider that something complex is simply the coalescence of less complex things. And of course the whole notion of what is, and is not, complex is a subjective anthropocentric concern.
As I've explained several times to Vlad (when he is banging on about necessary and contingent elements) it is perfectly possible to conceive a network in which every element is at the same time both necessary and also contingent. Problems arise when people suffer from a narrow linearity of thinking.
-
How about people who, not only found out that their deeds not only unfortunately bad consequences but their deeds were bad in intent and motivation
How about them? I simply suggested that some people might find comfort in a God who will forgive them.
It seems to me that deeds that are absolutely bad need absolute forgiveness
Okay, that's your take on things.
That will be true as far as the spectators of it are concerned but they are not where you are
Not necessarily. Some 'spectators' might believe in an afterlife. As far as I can tell, what is left of me will be ashes, no doubt scattered somewhere.
A few things spring to mind here, you say you have accepted death but which death. The violent, unjust and sudden premature death at the hand of man and machine or the death at a great age,
I've already covered that when I said " although the manner of my going might well be a cause for concern." in post 39
secondly, one could see death as a getting away with stuff one has done and Scot free as a comfort,
Quite possibly, but not in my case.
thirdly aren’t these your beliefs about your personal experience or non experience of death?
Not about my personal experience at all. I have no reason to believe in an afterlife owing to complete lack of evidence of such.
There is certainly no scientific way of confirming or denying the afterlife of any religion.
Bit like God, really.
Finally, there is a hint, through you bringing these things up that your way of accepting death is somehow more virtuous than say someone who accepts they will die, even sacrifice their lives and believes God can resurrect them and the rest for judgment.
And you got all that from my list of suggested reasons why one might believe in God?
And it was you who asked me how I managed to ameliorate the fear of death? So, bollocks!
I think this raises another point, there is a hint in your post that the reasons for religion you give are the only or main reasons.
No there isn't. You asked for reasons. I gave you some. The list isn't exhaustive. You can add to it if you so wish.
While I agree that there may be people attracted to religion as some kind of emotional crutch or insurance for afterlife, with religion you get God as well and that is the catch for a lot of people.
So?
Take the afterlife, One view of religion could be that humanity is like the passengers on a cruise ship. Yes their may be an iceberg and a terrible end but we are faced with a choice, hunker down in the lifeboats or enjoy the cruise the booze, the lascivious entertainment, the food, the shows and casinos,it’s a gamble but what I would want to know is what keeps those folk in the lifeboats?
I would have thought the urge to survive was a pretty powerful reason.
Oh I think everyone who has encountered and committed to God knows how difficult that is
I would have thought that only giving a selected part of the quote you were responding to, you would have had the good manners to include the whole quote, which gives a totally different perspective.
So, instead of quoting:
I take comfort from trying to be honest with myself and from the love and concern of my friends and family. As to surrendering my ego. A bit difficult, don't you think
the full quote was:
I take comfort from trying to be honest with myself and from the love and concern of my friends and family. As to surrendering my ego. A bit difficult, don't you think if I have no belief in what I am surrendering it to. The nearest I get to that attitude would be accepting that nature takes its course.
Thus, unlike those who have committed to God, I would find it rather difficult to surrender my ego to a God which I have no reason to think exists.
-
How about them? I simply suggested that some people might find comfort in a God who will forgive them.
Okay, that's your take on things.
Not necessarily. Some 'spectators' might believe in an afterlife. As far as I can tell, what is left of me will be ashes, no doubt scattered somewhere.
I've already covered that when I said " although the manner of my going might well be a cause for concern." in post 39
Quite possibly, but not in my case.
Not about my personal experience at all. I have no reason to believe in an afterlife owing to complete lack of evidence of such.
Bit like God, really.
And you got all that from my list of suggested reasons why one might believe in God?
And it was you who asked me how I managed to ameliorate the fear of death? So, bollocks!
No there isn't. You asked for reasons. I gave you some. The list isn't exhaustive. You can add to it if you so wish.
So?
I would have thought the urge to survive was a pretty powerful reason.
I would have thought that only giving a selected part of the quote you were responding to, you would have had the good manners to include the whole quote, which gives a totally different perspective.
So, instead of quoting:
the full quote was:
Thus, unlike those who have committed to God, I would find it rather difficult to surrender my ego to a God which I have no reason to think exists.
I’m not sure the ego of which I speak is not something another part of you can give away, yet remain intact itself. It is your whole self. As you’ve mentioned reason, sometimes our egos can prevent us from seeing it.
-
If doing some pretty heavy lifting here Sriram. But anyhow I thought you didn't believe in time - hence surely 'beginning' is anathema to you.
No it doesn't unless you consider that something complex (e.g. like the universe) must be created by something more complex. But down that road lies madness. It is far more logical (and evidence-based) to consider that something complex is simply the coalescence of less complex things. And of course the whole notion of what is, and is not, complex is a subjective anthropocentric concern.
As I've explained several times to Vlad (when he is banging on about necessary and contingent elements) it is perfectly possible to conceive a network in which every element is at the same time both necessary and also contingent. Problems arise when people suffer from a narrow linearity of thinking.
You need to construct this network then in order for it to be scrutinised.... instead of banging on about it.
A problem I see with it is something either creating itself and indirectly at that!!!
Can we take your logic which would have us being the ancestor of our ancestors seriously? Not while you simultaneously poo poo that which seems as or more reasonable.
-
I’m not sure the ego of which I speak is not something another part of you can give away, yet remain intact itself. It is your whole self. As you’ve mentioned reason, sometimes our egos can prevent us from seeing it.
If it is 'our whole self' how could it prevent 'us from seeing it'?
-
You need to construct this network then in order for it to be scrutinised.... instead of banging on about it.
No I don't - any more than you need to construct your god in order for it to be scrutinised.
I am positing a plausible alternative to your one-paced positive assertion that there everything must be contingent except one thing. That is a positive assertion you keep making so onus on you to provide the evidence. Merely posting potential alternatives (as I have done) places no burden of proof on me beyond the notion that they are plausible alternatives, which is frankly obvious to anyone without narrow anthropocentric linearity of thinking (yup, that's you Vlad).
A problem I see with it is something either creating itself and indirectly at that!!!
Can we take your logic which would have us being the ancestor of our ancestors seriously? Not while you simultaneously poo poo that which seems as or more reasonable.
Why not - that only seems implausible if you are tied to time being constant and unilinear. If time can run forward and backwards, stop, start, jump or even not exist at all then being at once both ancestor and forefather is perfectly plausible. And I note, yet again, you cannot get away from seeing things from a narrow human-experience perspective. I suspect the units for anthropocentricity are Vlads.
-
If it is 'our whole self' how could it prevent 'us from seeing it'?
You are called to commit yourself, not to continue to haggle over what I want to keep control of and what I feel God can have. To me that’s your ego and superego and if we’ve any mastery of our ids, that as well a bit like entering a marriage. That’s the full context of what I mean by any previous platitude i’ve Used. It is us that dodge reason because...who else could it be?
I hope this clears things up for you.
-
No I don't - any more than you need to construct your god in order for it to be scrutinised.
I am positing a plausible alternative to your one-paced positive assertion that there everything must be contingent except one thing. That is a positive assertion you keep making so onus on you to provide the evidence. Merely posting potential alternatives (as I have done) places no burden of proof on me beyond the notion that they are plausible alternatives, which is frankly obvious to anyone without narrow anthropocentric linearity of thinking (yup, that's you Vlad).
Why not - that only seems implausible if you are tied to time being constant and unilinear. If time can run forward and backwards, stop, start, jump or even not exist at all then being at once both ancestor and forefather is perfectly plausible. And I note, yet again, you cannot get away from seeing things from a narrow human-experience perspective. I suspect the units for anthropocentricity are Vlads.
You refuse to post the plausible alternative and then claim to have posited it.
We have arrived at the point where you are wasting my time and I don’t wish to detain you further from your important paid profession in academia.
I will only say this if something is contingent it is by definition contingent on something else. Anything that isn’t dependent on something else exists on it’s own account which includes God, your self supporting network although we can torpedo that almost straight away and we call that type of entity necessary.
-
I’m not sure the ego of which I speak is not something another part of you can give away, yet remain intact itself. It is your whole self. As you’ve mentioned reason, sometimes our egos can prevent us from seeing it.
Indeed. :)
-
You refuse to post the plausible alternative and then claim to have posited it.
Do you actually understand the words 'plausible' and 'alternative' Vlad. If you did you would understand that I have posited a 'plausible alternative'.
And by the way I also consider that goddidit is a plausible alternative - not one I personally believe as I've seen no evidence to support this alternative and plenty that seems to adequately explain the universe without the need to posit god. But it remains a plausible alternative - hence I am an agnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god but cannot discount it as possible.
We have arrived at the point where you are wasting my time and I don’t wish to detain you further from your important paid profession in academia.
By wasting your time you mean puncturing your ill thought out claims.
I will only say this if something is contingent it is by definition contingent on something else. Anything that isn’t dependent on something else exists on it’s own account which includes God, your self supporting network although we can torpedo that almost straight away and we call that type of entity necessary.
But you will first need to argue that the notion of necessary and contingent has any relevance - and I come back to your naive view on time. If time flows in one direction we may perceive that x is contingent on y (and indeed that y isn't contingent on anything) - however should time flow the other way then things are reversed, so y is contingent on x and y certainly isn't 'necessary' as you call it. Whether something is necessary or contingent seems to me to be dependent on the perception of the observer, so has little relevance in any kind of objective discussion on the nature of the universe.
-
You are called to commit yourself, not to continue to haggle over what I want to keep control of and what I feel God can have. To me that’s your ego and superego and if we’ve any mastery of our ids, that as well a bit like entering a marriage. That’s the full context of what I mean by any previous platitude i’ve Used. It is us that dodge reason because...who else could it be?
I hope this clears things up for you.
Not really. But then platitudes will do that.
-
Do you actually understand the words 'plausible' and 'alternative' Vlad. If you did you would understand that I have posited a 'plausible alternative'.
And by the way I also consider that goddidit is a plausible alternative - not one I personally believe as I've seen no evidence to support this alternative and plenty that seems to adequately explain the universe without the need to posit god. But it remains a plausible alternative - hence I am an agnostic atheist - someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god but cannot discount it as possible.
By wasting your time you mean puncturing your ill thought out claims.
But you will first need to argue that the notion of necessary and contingent has any relevance - and I come back to your naive view on time. If time flows in one direction we may perceive that x is contingent on y (and indeed that y isn't contingent on anything) - however should time flow the other way then things are reversed, so y is contingent on x and y certainly isn't 'necessary' as you call it. Whether something is necessary or contingent seems to me to be dependent on the perception of the observer, so has little relevance in any kind of objective discussion on the nature of the universe.
whether contingency or necessity have any relevance...relevant to what? The argument is about how something exists. Is it dependent or does it exist independently. If it is dependent, on what is it dependent? And that’s it. It can operate in a context of time or not. It applies to linear with beginnings or whatever or infinities.
What you are saying is woo.IMO.
-
whether contingency or necessity have any relevance...relevant to what?
Well you are the one repeatedly and rather tediously claiming them to be really, really important to the nature of universe in a (rather poor) attempt to end up with a 'ta-da, look god' conceit.
-
Well you are the one repeatedly and rather tediously claiming them to be really, really important to the nature of universe in a (rather poor) attempt to end up with a 'ta-da, look god' conceit.
Professor....Don’t let me detain you from your nationally important work.
You must be a very busy man....
-
Professor....Don’t let me detain you from your nationally important work.
Please, not nationally important, but internationally excellent or world leading - which is what REF2021 determined 99% of the research from my department to be. ;)
https://results2021.ref.ac.uk
You must be a very busy man....
Yup - must fly. Off to rehearse Haydn's Creation for our choir concert in a couple of weeks. No doubt you consider this piece to be an accurate commentary on the original of the universe Vlad.
-
Please, not nationally important, but internationally excellent or world leading - which is what REF2021 determined 99% of the research from my department to be. ;)
https://results2021.ref.ac.uk
er, what am I supposed to be looking at?Yup - must fly. Off to rehearse Haydn's Creation for our choir concert in a couple of weeks. No doubt you consider this piece to be an accurate commentary on the original of the universe Vlad.
It's a given that Haydn's view on that is bound to be less bonkers than yours.
-
If doing some pretty heavy lifting here Sriram. But anyhow I thought you didn't believe in time - hence surely 'beginning' is anathema to you.
I don't think you have understood what I have said about Time. Time does not exist objectively except in the human mind. When we observe a sequence of events Time comes into existence....in our minds.
The universe can have a beginning and an end regardless of the nonexistence of Time. The question arises what existed before the universe began. This automatically leads to infinite regress.
-
I don't think you have understood what I have said about Time. Time does not exist objectively except in the human mind. When we observe a sequence of events Time comes into existence....in our minds.
That there was a temporal 'gap' between two events would have been the case long before there were humans around to experience said 'gap'.
The universe can have a beginning and an end regardless of the nonexistence of Time.
If it has a beginning and an end there is an interval between these two positions, then 'time' applies.
The question arises what existed before the universe began. This automatically leads to infinite regress.
I'd say it automatically leads to a 'don't know'
-
That there was a temporal 'gap' between two events would have been the case long before there were humans around to experience said 'gap'.
If it has a beginning and an end there is an interval between these two positions, then 'time' applies.
I'd say it automatically leads to a 'don't know'
I hate to say it Gordon but by saying that youre tacitly admitting that it could be a single entity that has no boundary but isn't an infinite chain of events.
-
I don't think you have understood what I have said about Time. Time does not exist objectively except in the human mind. When we observe a sequence of events Time comes into existence....in our minds.
The universe can have a beginning and an end regardless of the nonexistence of Time. The question arises what existed before the universe began. This automatically leads to infinite regress.
Nope Sriram - you have completely lost me now. 'Beginning' and 'end', in this context, are terms that relate to time so if time does not exist, nor does 'beginning' or 'end'.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
-
I hate to say it Gordon but by saying that youre tacitly admitting that it could be a single entity that has no boundary but isn't an infinite chain of events.
I didn't say or imply that at all: stop being silly.
I'm firmly on the side of 'don't know'.
-
er, what am I supposed to be looking at?It's a given that Haydn's view on that is bound to be less bonkers than yours.
Details of the Research Excellence Framework (the REF), which is the mechanism by which all UK research in universities is assessed every 6 years or so. No reason why you'd have any knowledge of this but in academic circles it is a huge deal (a kind of research OFSTED).
Point was you were describing my work as 'nationally' important, so I thought I'd cheekily point out that the most recent REF determined that 'my' work (both my personal research and the wider departmental research) was 'internationally excellent' (termed 3* in REF) or 'world leading' (the top level 4* in REF). Or at least 99% of it was!
So just a bit of fun - but hey, you've learned something about how the quality of research in universities is assessed.
-
It's a given that Haydn's view on that is bound to be less bonkers than yours.
Err, Haydn is a composer - he wrote the music. He didn't write the words, nor would he necessarily have believed them, although he was rather religious. The work was basically a commission from a guy called Johann Peter Salomon who actually asked Handel to write it first.
But were Haydn to have believed this then that would be understandable in the 1790s, well before we had the wealth of evidence about the universe, its nature, its origins and the evolution of life on earth that we do now. But to continue to consider this view to be preferable to that supported by the current evidence - well, that's a different matter.
-
I didn't say or imply that at all: stop being silly.
I'm firmly on the side of 'don't know'.
No.....You are firmly on the side of I don't know but I know it can't be that". A case of the having your cake and eating it fallacy.
-
Err, Haydn is a composer - he wrote the music. He didn't write the words, nor would he necessarily have believed them, although he was rather religious. The work was basically a commission from a guy called Johann Peter Salomon who actually asked Handel to write it first.
But were Haydn to have believed this then that would be understandable in the 1790s, well before we had the wealth of evidence about the universe, its nature, its origins and the evolution of life on earth that we do now. But to continue to consider this view to be preferable to that supported by the current evidence - well, that's a different matter.
I think we left it at you asserting that there were networks that somehow bucked contingency and necessity and not wanting to outline one and that is where, it see.s you are comfortable at remaining. I feel moved to quote a line from the Scots classic favourite song a Gordon for me... under the present circumstances that's "Nae use tae me."
-
Details of the Research Excellence Framework (the REF), which is the mechanism by which all UK research in universities is assessed every 6 years or so. No reason why you'd have any knowledge of this but in academic circles it is a huge deal (a kind of research OFSTED).
Point was you were describing my work as 'nationally' important, so I thought I'd cheekily point out that the most recent REF determined that 'my' work (both my personal research and the wider departmental research) was 'internationally excellent' (termed 3* in REF) or 'world leading' (the top level 4* in REF). Or at least 99% of it was!
So just a bit of fun - but hey, you've learned something about how the quality of research in universities is assessed.
Doesn't help since I know neither your establishment, nor your department, nor what it does, nor how good it feels.
-
I think we left it at you asserting that there were networks that somehow bucked contingency and necessity and not wanting to outline one and that is where, it see.s you are comfortable at remaining. I feel moved to quote a line from the Scots classic favourite song a Gordon for me... under the present circumstances that's "Nae use tae me."
Nope - stop misconstruing what I said.
I never said that there were networks that bucked contingency and necessity. I said that networks provided a plausible alternative to rebut your rather naive assertion that there must be contingency and necessity where something isn't contingent. The clearly plausible example of a network where every component is simultaneously contingent and necessary clearly rebuts your narrow presumption and unevidenced assertion.
-
That there was a temporal 'gap' between two events would have been the case long before there were humans around to experience said 'gap'.
If it has a beginning and an end there is an interval between these two positions, then 'time' applies.
I'd say it automatically leads to a 'don't know'
Why? Why should there be any Time? Changes just happen in the material world. Time is just a concept in the human mind, a human construct, to position these changes in a sequence.
Time comes into existence within the human mind when it observes changes. We imagine that Time is something that goes on forever on and on, regardless of changes happening in the universe. We cannot think of any change without the idea of Time....I agree.
But that does not mean that there is anything like Time in reality in an objective sense. It is just a concept created by the human mind. Just a way in which we understand and deal with reality.
-
Doesn't help since I know neither your establishment, nor your department, nor what it does, nor how good it feels.
Well I'm not going to reveal those kinds of details, as you would imagine that would potentially de-anonymise me. So you'll just have to accept what I tell you to be true - or not as you wish. It is true, by the way.
So 99% of our research was either 'internationally excellent' (termed 3* in REF) or 'world leading' (the top level 4* in REF). Overall our department was ranked 7th in the UK (out of 89 universities that submitted to our area of research). In terms of research publications (arguably the most important aspect of academic research) we were 2nd, behind only Imperial.
You can choose to believe this, or not, but it would be really weird to just make this up if it weren't true.
-
Nope Sriram - you have completely lost me now. 'Beginning' and 'end', in this context, are terms that relate to time so if time does not exist, nor does 'beginning' or 'end'.
Why should any beginning and end mean that Time exists? Changes just happen in the material world.....that is all. When we observe these changes, the idea of a sequence of events automatically arises in our mind which leads to the concept of Time. Time is not out there....it is in the mind.
-
Why should any beginning and end mean that Time exists? Changes just happen in the material world.....that is all. When we observe these changes, the idea of a sequence of events automatically arises in our mind which leads to the concept of Time. Time is not out there....it is in the mind.
Because 'beginning' and 'end' are terms we use to describe time. Unless you are describing this in spatial terms, but that seems to make no sense.
So if there is no time, then describing something as the beginning or the end seems totally inappropriate.
-
Well I'm not going to reveal those kinds of details, as you would imagine that would potentially de-anonymise me.
That's wise............Have I shown you my Oscars?
-
That's wise............
I'm glad you agree.
Have I shown you my Oscars?
No, because I very much doubt you have any.
-
I'm glad you agree.
No, because I very much doubt you have any.
Careful now.
-
No.....You are firmly on the side of I don't know but I know it can't be that". A case of the having your cake and eating it fallacy.
Nope - I haven't said 'it can't be that', though I may have said 'I can't see good reasons to take 'that' seriously (especially where 'that' is either fallacious, incoherent or is so amorphous that it is meaningless).
-
Careful now.
No disrespect Vlad. Just that in all the years on these MBs I don't think you've ever mentioned working in the film industry, so seems surprising that suddenly out of the blue you'd reveal not only your profession but also a bunch of oscars. ;)
-
Nope - I haven't said 'it can't be that', though I may have said 'I can't see good reasons to take 'that' seriously (especially where 'that' is either fallacious, incoherent or is so amorphous that it is meaningless).
Dear Gordon,
Amorphous :o 8)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zN5LdQvZHXc
Gonnagle.
-
Nope - I haven't said 'it can't be that', though I may have said 'I can't see good reasons to take 'that' seriously (especially where 'that' is either fallacious, incoherent or is so amorphous that it is meaningless).
I extend the same invitation to you as I do to others. State what the argument from contingency and the KCA are and refute them showing your working out...
-
Because 'beginning' and 'end' are terms we use to describe time. Unless you are describing this in spatial terms, but that seems to make no sense.
So if there is no time, then describing something as the beginning or the end seems totally inappropriate.
Beginning and end are events. They have noting to do with the existence of Time in an absolute sense. Even if Time did not exist these events would still occur.
It is a different matter that we humans are used to thinking of events in terms of space and time.....
-
I extend the same invitation to you as I do to others. State what the argument from contingency and the KCA are and refute them showing your working out...
The KCA we've done to death yonks ago (it involves the fallacy of begging the question), and the contingency argument is being advanced by you, so you go ahead and set out the premises if you feel so inclined.
-
Beginning and end are events. They have noting to do with the existence of Time in an absolute sense. Even if Time did not exist these events would still occur.
It is a different matter that we humans are used to thinking of events in terms of space and time.....
But an event is something that takes place within the context of time - no time, no event.
-
The KCA we've done to death yonks ago (it involves the fallacy of begging the question), and the contingency argument is being advanced by you, so you go ahead and set out the premises if you feel so inclined.
Inadequate windbaggery.
-
Inadequate windbaggery.
Gordon, You failed to address both the KCA but chiefly the argument from contingency.
-
Gordon, You failed to address both the KCA but chiefly the argument from contingency.
I'm done with the KCA - it was done to death a while back when Alien/Alan was obsessed by it, and I've no plans to waste any more time on it.
The 'contingency argument' is your hobbyhorse, and not mine. If you want to pontificate on that then feel free.
-
Inadequate windbaggery.
Dear Vlad,
I am stealing that 8)
Gonnagle.