Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Its a (somewhat) common joke in chemistry departments/forums.
In organic chemistry, unobtanium is usually represented as a carbon atom with five covalent bonds; existing only on the homework pages of pre-med or engineering students slogging it through their two semesters of o-chem.
Its sighting is usually followed by the prof saying to the student something like "you make the molecule, and I'll apply for the Nobel Prize...", paired with plenty of red ink.
But like I said, metaphysical theories are inherently complicated by their nature. Of course the theory that makes less assumptions is more likely, but metaphysical theories tend to at least make a lot of assumptions.
Now, you assumed that I was attempting to prove that nothing exists outside of time, which is not at all what I was proving. I was showing that the existence of intelligence outside of time is less likely than the existence of non-intelligence outside of time. IE, naturalistic non-intelligent forces such as clashing 'branes, quantum fluctuations, or expanding n-space bubbles.
But even non-intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these items outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their reactions. Also, these items outside of time, with no direction, cannot react or indeed do anything, given they would not differ, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer if these naturalistic forces caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because forces outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe.
Let's inverse your presumptions and look at this:
God: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time is infinite or not infinite, Time applies to everything interacting with us in some sense (even to those that it doesn't, to interact with our reality our perception of time places constraints upon those actions they take based on scale whether it be 1:n representing our entire existence being an instantaneous moment for them, but a stream of moments for us. Ergo by our perception, time applies to anything interacting with us.), Intelligence exists outside our reality
Natural forces: Stuff exists outside the boundaries of space, Time if infinite or not infinite, Time applice to everything interacting with us in some sense (see above)
The only difference between the two is "Intelligence exists outside our reality." Plus, as I stated earlier, saying natural forces exist outside of time as a cause would imply and infinite universe, which still leaves us right where we started.
As you can see, in this shortlist of assumptions (based upon your previous statement) They are nearly identical except for additional assumption: God requires intelligence. Ergo, God is less likely to be the answer than some form of n-spatial phenomena.
Not when you add in the assumption of an infinite universe, if the cause has no intelligence to create time, and it cannot change, so one has to assume it's always existed. Also, the whole idea of being outside of time is nonsensical without intelligence, since nothing would actually happen, unless an intelligence was there to create time and everything in that one timeless moment. The natural reaction cannot limit the universe since it has no guiding force or principle.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,333
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by MaxP
But like I said, metaphysical theories are inherently complicated by their nature. Of course the theory that makes less assumptions is more likely, but metaphysical theories tend to at least make a lot of assumptions.
It doesn't matter if the number of assumptions are 2 or a billion, one can still gleam inference as to the relative probability between two opposing premise based on their respective complexity. No where in Occam's razor does it state 'in a premise with less than x assumptions...'
But even non-intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these items outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their reactions. Also, these items outside of time, with no direction, cannot react or indeed do anything, given they would not differ, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer if these naturalistic forces caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because forces outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe.
Intelligence requires thought
The act of thinking is not instantaneous
Since the act of thinking is not instantaneous, it takes time
If thinking takes time, intelligence relies upon time
Therefore intelligence cannot exist without time
"But even intelligence outside of time is impossible, lest one should assume these intelligences outside of time would actually create an entirely new dimension in their thoughts. Also, these intelligences outside of time would never think, ever, without time. So you would then have to infer that if these thoughts caused our universe, our universe alway existed, because thoughts outside of time cannot progress, change, or develop. Now you assume an infinite universe."
The same argument made to conclude an infinite universe on non-intelligent forces can be made for intelligent forces. Unless you can prove that thought can take place instantaneously in such a way that it cannot be applied to forces, then your argument against one is the same as the argument against the other since both thought and reaction take time.
Since the rest of your argument relies upon reaction taking time while thought does not, it collapses without this difference being proven.
//I'd like to note that jumping from 'thoughts/reactions can't take place outside time' to 'infinite universe' is an unfounded leap of logic. But at this moment it's not necessary for me to go into that discussion because of the above simpler argument.
A spirit still has to be made of something, energy, dark matter, etc. If God is able to interact with the physical world he still has matter of some form. Energy is matter.
If God exists, he is made of matter. If God always existed, matter always existed. The matter of the universe was never at zero.
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
A spirit still has to be made of something, energy, dark matter, etc. If God is able to interact with the physical world he still has matter of some form. Energy is matter.
If God exists, he is made of matter. If God always existed, matter always existed. The matter of the universe was never at zero.
I think this is where you're confusing yourself.
Energy is not matter; rather, matter is energy.
Energy can exist apart from matter.
However, even this point is moot, as I'm pointing out that even energy didn't exist prior to the Creation.
You're espousing creatio ex materia --- I'm espousing creatiio ex nihilo.
We take data, we find a hypothesis to explain said data, we use hypothesis to make predictions, we test predictions. If enough predictions prove true then we upgrade the hypothesis to a theory. Let's break down your argument:
A Evolution relies on data, data must be interpreted, if we do not interpret data then evolution cannot be proven.
B Evolution is a theory, Evolution is not an answer, Evolution looks backwards but not forwards, therefore a theory is not an answer and does not look forwards.
The A statement is true in so far as it's true in all things. If we refuse to interpret the data for any premise then that premise cannot be proven. This has no meaning in this discussion since it fails to set evolution apart from any other premise.
The statement B makes no sense, a theory is an answer, since it attempts explain natural phenomena, and an explanation is a valid answer. Further, a scientific theory MUST make predictions, therefore it must 'look forwards' as you put it. We can hence conclude that statement B is absolutely unsound.
The ultimate answer is 'n' because it answers everything. 1+1 = n; 3x^2+2x+5 = n; Where does the planet reside? coordinates (n,n). So I can take any question and answer it with an arbitrary variable. This makes 'n' the ultimate answer, it can answer the origin of things 'What is the coordinate for the origin?' '(n,n)' 'when did the universe begin?' 'n' 'How did the universe begin?' 'n+/-n=n' So there is a method by which I can answer any question using the undefined variable 'n'. Does this mean it I can extract any value, any meaning, or prove that 'n' is the actual answer? No. While it is an answer, it's void of any value. Goddidit is equal to n, it answers all questions, makes no predictions, cannot be falsified, and provides no new insight into the question asked.
1+1 = n, but 1+1=2 as well. 2 gives valuable insight, n is just a variable, a place holder. If we accept n without looking beyond it and call n the end of our exploration into 1+1 then we have learned nothing. We only learn something about 1+1 when we arrive at 2. Creationism is n, it's value is undefined, and if taken as a valid answer it serves only to block us from arriving at the real answers, the 2's.
--- I love it!
Linear Mode
