A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

I don't think you're in a position to deem it illogical until I have found that article

fair 'nuff.

Let me frame it in one of the most famous ways:

How do you know you're not a brain in a vat, being stimulated by mad scientists to have all the experiences of a real, material world - Matrix-style?

Because I do not believe the mind can be simulated by a scientist or computer.

Do you really think that time is the same sort of thing as a bridge?

I've never seen the tree in my garden not exist, but I know it cannot build itself. Er, wait...

What reason can you give me for thinking that bridges and time are similar in this regard?

Because time is a passive force in it nature. It doe not directly cause anything, but allows it to happen. How could it cause itself into existence? Do you posit time is existence? Do you posit time has no possibility of being or not being?

 

[MaxP]

Sometimes. But the point of cosmology is to explain what we see and what follows logically from what we see. It is not supposed to provide an empirical endpoint whose discovery allows us to say, "Ah, so that's where God goes."

I don't think the understanding of where God fits in has changed at all in the last 2000 years. He created existence, and is existence(to an extent). Our method of explaining everything past the beginning has.

I have no more than a superficial understanding. You are probably better off doing your own research; I could not knowingly point you in any more precise direction than wikipedia or google.

Alright, I will.

A barely scholarly supposition: A combination of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.

From my understanding, we don't even know what gravity is, and dark matter and energy are a theory...
So I don't see how that is more reasonable than God.

 

[cantata]

Because I do not believe the mind can be simulated by a scientist or computer.

Whyever not?

When you look at something (simply speaking), light hits your retina, electrical signals go down your optic nerve, and these signals eventually arrive at your brain.

Why couldn't a scientist send those signals?

And, by the way, if scepticism is true, then your entire knowledge base about the world, including the relationship between brain and mind, is invalidated. The whole point is that you don't know anything at all except that you exist. So saying "Scientists couldn't do that" is outside the realms of your knowledge at the moment.

Because time is a passive force in it nature. It doe not directly cause anything, but allows it to happen. How could it cause itself into existence? Do you posit time is existence? Do you posit time has no possibility of being or not being?

Why does it need to cause itself into existence? Why can't it just be there?

What if time's existence is necessary?

 

[MaxP]

Whyever not?

When you look at something (simply speaking), light hits your retina, electrical signals go down your optic nerve, and these signals eventually arrive at your brain.

Why couldn't a scientist send those signals?

And, by the way, if scepticism is true, then your entire knowledge base about the world, including the relationship between brain and mind, is invalidated. The whole point is that you don't know anything at all except that you exist. So saying "Scientists couldn't do that" is outside the realms of your knowledge at the moment.

Well, if sceptisism says we cannot argue against scepticism form what we know, then there is simply no way to counter it.
It does not, however, make it true, just absolutely, in it definition, unarguable.

Why does it need to cause itself into existence? Why can't it just be there?

What if time's existence is necessary?

"Just be there," sounds like you would say time is existence. Is it?

Why would time be necessary for proper function of super or un-natural things?

 

[MaxP]

Also, I would posit time cannot be infinite.
Because if you were asked to say what an infinite amount of years is, you would:
1) Not know where to begin
2) Not know where to end
3) A circle would imply experiencing the same, exact moment in time - and all the matter affected by it experiencing that same, exact moment - over and over again.

 

[cantata]

Well, if sceptisism says we cannot argue against scepticism form what we know, then there is simply no way to counter it.
It does not, however, make it true, just absolutely, in it definition, unarguable.

You can only argue against scepticism using information that you do not require any sensory experience to know.

(Descartes also thinks you can't rely on your reason. And, by the way, he thinks you can disprove scepticism. I don't agree with him!)

"Just be there," sounds like you would say time is existence. Is it?

I don't see why I'm obliged to conclude that time is existence.

I think that the number 4 is just there, but I don't believe that the number 4 is existence.

Why would time be necessary for proper function of super or un-natural things?

I didn't say it would be necessary *for* anything. I just said its existence might be necessary, in the same way that it is necessary that all bachelors are unmarried or that 2+2=4.

 

[cantata]

Also, I would posit time cannot be infinite.
Because if you were asked to say what an infinite amount of years is, you would:
1) Not know where to begin
2) Not know where to end

Why do you demand a beginning or end?

3) A circle would imply experiencing the same, exact moment in time - and all the matter affected by it experiencing that same, exact moment - over and over again.

Okay. What's wrong with that?

 

[MaxP]

You can only argue against scepticism using information that you do not require any sensory experience to know.

(Descartes also thinks you can't rely on your reason. And, by the way, he thinks you can disprove scepticism. I don't agree with him!)

Well, there is no way to argue against something that would claim everything we can possibly use to argue is not valid for argument.
By that same argument, I could claim God exists because He told me so Himself, and He didn't tell you. You can't argue against it; it disregards any experience you may have had, or any reason you have.

I don't see why I'm obliged to conclude that time is existence.

I think that the number 4 is just there, but I don't believe that the number 4 is existence.

The number 4 is not an actual thing(it is an abstraction of the mind), whereas time is.
If you say "time just exists" you are implying time is, at least, necessary to the function of existence.

I didn't say it would be necessary *for* anything. I just said its existence might be necessary, in the same way that it is necessary that all bachelors are unmarried or that 2+2=4.

Both are abstractions of the mind. Bachelors is a word invented by humans to explain a certain state of an unmarried person. It would not exist if people did not. Mathematics is an abstraction of the human mind; it is how we quantify the things around us. It would not exist if we did not. Neither is essentially necessary.
So why is time?

Why do you demand a beginning or end?

I don't, I say time must have beginning and end, time and infinity are incompatible.

Okay. What's wrong with that?

It would mean we were locked in an eternal cycle. Any cycle is started. When you seem a ball bouncing back and forth, back and forth, does it bounce because it bounces? No, the ball cannot make itself bounce, like time cannot make itself exist.
So what does?

 

[MaxP]

BTW, the reason infinity and time are contrary is because time is, in its nature, always quantifiable. It is a natural, quantifiable progression. Infinity is never quantifiable. It has no start, no end, and no increments in between. Cutting up infinity into segments would make it no longer infinite.
Time = l
Take a segment out and quantify it, you don't change the nature of the representation.
Infinity = 8
Take a segment out and quantify it, you break the infiniteness of it.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I don't think the understanding of where God fits in has changed at all in the last 2000 years. He created existence, and is existence(to an extent). Our method of explaining everything past the beginning has.

Hm. While a sufficiently vague divine ontology traces back to Anselm at least, the set of things which we have historically attributed to the direct workings of God is self-evidently larger than it is today.

From my understanding, we don't even know what gravity is, and dark matter and energy are a theory...

It's true that the mechanism of gravity eludes us, but there is little reason to believe it is a non-natural entity given gravity's obvious natural properties.

Dark matter and dark energy are place-holders for sets of observed phenomena, and their study is in its relative infancy. We are certainly not justified in throwing up our hands and genuflecting to Newton's god just yet.

So I don't see how that is more reasonable than God.

Because God is the ultimate place-holder, but one which when invoked puts the ultimate kibosh on further understanding. No cosmologist is sitting around saying to his lab-mates, "Well, we've given this set of phenomena a vague name; job well done. S'mores at my place in 20 minutes."

Frankly, I can think of no less satisfying explanation for gravitational lensing and idiosyncratic galactic motion than "God."

 

[WhatThe]

Because I do not believe the mind can be simulated by a scientist or computer.

Perhaps your belief in the impossibility of such a scenario is a part of your programming?

 

[MaxP]

Hm. While a sufficiently vague divine ontology traces back to Anselm at least, the set of things which we have historically attributed to the direct workings of God is self-evidently larger than it is today.

Simply because back then, we could not explain average things because we lack understanding of the rules God put in place.
Now that we can explain average phenomena, the "place" of God has not been restricted, but better defined.

It's true that the mechanism of gravity eludes us, but there is little reason to believe it is a non-natural entity given gravity's obvious natural properties.

I didn't say it was non-natural; I just don't think our understanding of it sufficient to say it helps in the contraction of the universe. Also, if the universe all sucked in occasionally, what would cause sufficient force for gravity to relinquish all that matter?

Dark matter and dark energy are place-holders for sets of observed phenomena, and their study is in its relative infancy. We are certainly not justified in throwing up our hands and genuflecting to Newton's god just yet.

I don't think a belief in God is a compromise in science, but essential.
Without God, everything is random, and order came from disorder. That doesn't make sense to me. A broken vase, put in a wind tunnel, would not assemble into a vase. A tornado going through a junkyard would not assemble a jet(also given it lacks certain components; in a junk yard, jet fuel, in life, consciousness).

Because God is the ultimate place-holder, but one which when invoked puts the ultimate kibosh on further understanding. No cosmologist is sitting around saying to his lab-mates, "Well, we've given this set of phenomena a vague name; job well done. S'mores at my place in 20 minutes."

God is not a vague name; I have already delved slightly into His nature that can be determined.

Frankly, I can think of no less satisfying explanation for gravitational lensing and idiosyncratic galactic motion than "God."

I'll just smile and nod.

 

[MaxP]

Perhaps your belief in the impossibility of such a scenario is a part of your programming?

Well, then, so would thought. So we don't exist.

Point is, I refuse to argue with a position that in its nature(reason is not real - anything we see is not real) precludes argument, and precludes the possibility of logical argument for it beyond contradicting everything we know, including logic.
Science would not advance if such a belief was wide-spread. People would spend all their time in a fruitless effort to prove existence as we know it exists.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Simply because back then, we could not explain average things because we lack understanding of the rules God put in place.
Now that we can explain average phenomena, the "place" of God has not been restricted, but better defined.

How do you know? Science has a pretty solid track record of subsuming God whenever they go head-to-head. What makes you think this time will be any different?

I didn't say it was non-natural; I just don't think our understanding of it sufficient to say it helps in the contraction of the universe. Also, if the universe all sucked in occasionally, what would cause sufficient force for gravity to relinquish all that matter?

Gravity might or might not eventually cause the totality of matter to recoalesce, but I think that can happen independently of the fate of space-time itself.

I don't think a belief in God is a compromise in science, but essential.
Without God, everything is random, and order came from disorder. That doesn't make sense to me. A broken vase, put in a wind tunnel, would not assemble into a vase. A tornado going through a junkyard would not assemble a jet(also given it lacks certain components; in a junk yard, jet fuel, in life, consciousness).

Bah, curse the rotting bones of Fred Hoyle for that abominable straw-man of a characterization. "Order" and "disorder" are hopelessly over-general terms and do not by themselves come close to describing cosmology.

God is not a vague name; I have already delved slightly into His nature that can be determined.

Actually, my intent was to imply "dark energy." But I have to strongly disagree that "God" is at all specific.

 

[MaxP]

How do you know? Science has a pretty solid track record of subsuming God whenever they go head-to-head. What makes you think this time will be any different?

Yes. In the natural world. The origin of the universe, though, can be un natural.

Gravity might or might not eventually cause the totality of matter to recoalesce, but I think that can happen independently of the fate of space-time itself.

Fair enough, but there is not sufficient evidence, or logic, for this.

Bah, curse the rotting bones of Fred Hoyle for that abominable straw-man of a characterization. "Order" and "disorder" are hopelessly over-general terms and do not by themselves come close to describing cosmology.

Order is the state of that a system exists best in.
Disorder(entropy) is the state of the system that has lost order.

Actually, my intent was to imply "dark energy." But I have to strongly disagree that "God" is at all specific.

Well, if we agree He is a "first mover" there is much that can then be inferred by that characteristic.

 

[Nathan45]

edit: post deleted i'll repost this later once i can make it make sense.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Yes. In the natural world. The origin of the universe, though, can be un natural.

I think it must be by definition. But I think that positing a conscious, purposeful cause is completely unwarranted.

Fair enough, but there is not sufficient evidence, or logic, for this.

I'm not convinced it even matters in a philosophical sense.

Order is the state of that a system exists best in.
Disorder(entropy) is the state of the system that has lost order.

Second Law entropy deals with the distribution of heat. See Nathan's post.

Well, if we agree He is a "first mover" there is much that can then be inferred by that characteristic.

I don't think so. I think you conflate "infer" with "make things up." Cosmological arguments have been proffered by various thinkers as far back as Plato and Aristotle, with Aquinas' and the Kalam being perhaps the most famous. In all cases, the arguers found it necessary to construct additional arguments for characteristics that would identify the "Prime Mover" as their own deities.

Many of the Enlightenment deists were big Platonic CA proponents and acknowledged that identifying properties did not flow naturally from the CA, hence the deist creator's characterization as essentially an uninterested, uninvolved amorphous entity.

 

[Nathan45]

Second Law entropy deals with the distribution of heat. See Nathan's post.

I actually deleted it because i realized it wasn't totally accurate, i need to do a quick refresher course on entropy. lol.

eitherway my point was that conflating qualitiative or moral concepts like "Best (for what purpose?)" or "Perfection" with scientific concepts like "Entropy" should not be done.

Entropy is not good or evil, and high entropy is not necessarily "best".

 

[SiderealExalt]

eitherway my point was that conflating qualitiative or moral concepts like "Best (for what purpose?)" or "Perfection" with scientific concepts like "Entropy" should not be done.

Entropy is not good or evil, and high entropy is not necessarily "best".

This reminds me of conversations I've had with Christians who felt the need to say that light is good and that darkness was evil or that death(not murder or other circumstances of WHY someone died, but dying in and of itself) was evil.

/facepalm.

 

[cantata]

K, I'm bored with repeating myself now.

*hops off the thread*