One God

[Sriram]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Free Willy]

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 motivation

and 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

[Free Willy]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

If the universe had a beginning....then infinite regress automatically becomes an issue.

Oh no it doesn't

[Bramble]

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.)

[Nearly Sane]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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'?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Free Willy]

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....

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Free Willy]

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.

[Sriram]

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.