God the middleman

[disciple Clint]

Why can it not be that the matter of the universe and the basic forces of the universe always existed?

"Because I said so" is not an answer.

There can only be one uncaused cause, that is God and not the universe.

 

[cloudyday2]

What does it mean for a mind to be greater than a simulation?

God needs to be able to know everything knowable in the simulation. The simulation might be imagined as a computer program running on a computer, so God's brain probably needs to be more capable than the minimal computer required to run the simulation? God's brain probably needs at least enough memory to remember the initial conditions he chose for the simulation, and then he needs to be able to derive answers to any questions instantaneously (from the perspective of somebody within the simulation).

I wonder if a person could measure the "greatness" of God's mind and the simulation with Kolgomorov compexity in some way? Anyway, hopefully that explains what I mean even if it isn't fully fleshed-out.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

very simple, all I have to do is consider what they are saying, the Holy Spirit is never going to ask me to anything against the will of God, the Bible tells us what the will of God is and is not. I can simply command in the name of Jesus depart from me satan.

How do you know you can command Satan?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

God needs to be able to know everything knowable in the simulation. The simulation might be imagined as a computer program running on a computer, so God's brain probably needs to be more capable than the minimal computer required to run the simulation? God's brain probably needs at least enough memory to remember the initial conditions he chose for the simulation, and then he needs to be able to derive answers to any questions instantaneously (from the perspective of somebody within the simulation).

I wonder if a person could measure the "greatness" of God's mind and the simulation with Kolgomorov compexity in some way? Anyway, hopefully that explains what I mean even if it isn't fully fleshed-out.

I'm unfamiliar with Kolgomorov complexity, but I like everything you said here except God's brain needing to know the initial conditions. Why those?

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm unfamiliar with Kolgomorov complexity, but I like everything you said here except God's brain needing to know the initial conditions. Why those?

I'm imagining that God's brain might simply know the initial conditions of the universe and know how the universe works and know that the universe is deterministic. If somebody asks God about the state of the universe at some arbitrary time then God can merely recall the relevant initial conditions and deduce the state at the later time. God would need to be able to give instantaneous answers from the perspective of some human within the universe to qualify as omniscient. I don't think it is good enough for God to answer "come back in a week after I do some thinking". But God might exist in transcendent time so that he could spend some time thinking yet appear to give an instantaneous answer, and that would be o.k.

Sorry, that is probably kind of disorganized and confusing, but hopefully you can decipher the intent.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ @Nihilist Virus , I had another thought regarding God's omniscience: God's own future interventions need to be considered when he is simulating the universe to answer questions about future states. For example, in the Garden of Eden story God gives a prophecy about the Eve's offspring crushing the head of the serpent, and that prophecy is understood by Christians to predict Jesus (born of a virgin) defeating Sin and Satan. God needs to know all his interventions between the time of the Garden of Eden and the time of Jesus - essentially all God's activities in the Old Testament. God needs to decide on his script and stick to that script as he interacts with the universe.

Many of God's interventions are tips about future events. So taking the prophecy mentioned above (where God told Adam and Eve about Jesus), God needs to run his simulation of the universe forward until his next prophecy - maybe that is the prophecy of the Flood given to Noah. God would need to set aside the calculations he is doing for the prophecy of Jesus and work on the calculations for the Flood. Then after God knows what he will tell Noah he can return to his calculations for the prophecy of Jesus until he reaches another intervention such as the prophecy given to Abraham about the birth of Isaac.

The problem is that God can't know exactly what he will tell Adam and Eve about Jesus until he determines what he will tell Noah and Abraham and Joseph and Moses and Elijah and so on. And the information God gives to Adam and Eve might be a factor making all his calculations for Noah and Abraham and Joseph and Moses and Elijah change. And of course those changes might change the calculations for Adam and Eve so that the process must start again.

It might be an impossible problem for God to solve. (Again, sorry this is probably hard to follow.)

 

[Moral Orel]

What evidence do you have that it just exists and is an exception to everything we know about the way the universe works.

We know a lot about how stuff inside the universe works. We don't know much at all about how the universe itself as a structure works.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There can only be one uncaused cause, that is God and not the universe.

And how exactly do you know that there cannot possibly be two uncaused causes?

Let's say that what you say is true, that there can only be one uncaused cause. How do you know that the universe itself is not that one and only uncaused cause?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The universe cannot be uncaused because it is a reaction. A ball does not just fly through the air, someone or something caused it to fly.

Ah, so you use the proof from flying balls.

The proof from flying balls
1. A flying ball needs a cause.
2. Therefore the universe also needs a cause.
3. Of all the possible causes of the universe, I pick God.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Needless to say, your argument is bunkers.

 

[Paulomycin]

That’s all well and good, but the problem occurs when apologists try to use these definitions to extrapolate facts about reality. That’s not how logic works.

Who told you this alleged "pseudo-rule?" What authority?

Logic tells us how to make coherent statements about reality, not what reality is obligated to be.

If the statements are neither coherent, nor correspond to reality, then it's not logic. You recognized the real relationship between (bivalent) statements about reality, and then you arbitrarily "nuh-uh'd" that relationship away in the very same breath.

In reality, we can’t actually determine causal relationships with metaphysical certainty.

Citation anywhere? Is this a reference to Hume's billiards? Why do your assertions create more questions than answers?

After this, you hand-wave, "Causation is an inference we make based on a variety of correlative factors," which is painfully vague, but then you draw an absolute conclusion from it, "We cannot, therefore, determine whether the universe was caused to exist by something else merely by playing with the definitions of cause and effect."

 

[Paulomycin]

3. Of all the possible causes of the universe, I pick God.

No, it is deductively eliminated instead.

Given that Big Bang Theory falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.

Thus, cause rationally supersedes nature. Or is simply known as "supernature."

To account for ultimate cause, the only options* are as follows:

- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.

^ Material cause invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational, because it ultimately never concludes anything. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

"Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -AC Doyle (lol)

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on purpose. Q.E.D. (double lol)

*Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

 

[doubtingmerle]

1. Because Steady State was falsified.

How does that prove that the universe was not an uncaused cause?

For all we know, there could have been matter and forces similar to what we now call the universe that go back forever. And whatever it is that is at the root of these forces and particles may be uncaused.

2. Due to #1, the universe begs the question of its own existence. Question-begging fallacies are never rational.

What do you mean when you refer to the universe? Are you referring to just the observable universe? Or are you referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which could be much larger than the observable universe? Or are you referring to the total state of reality, which could include the results of an infinite number of Big Bangs in an infinite space-time of many dimensions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, it is deductively eliminated instead.

How did you prove there can only be one possible uncaused cause?

And if there is only one uncaused cause possible, how did you deductively eliminate the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Paulomycin]

How does that prove that the universe was not an uncaused cause?

I'm saying "intent" that is non-contingent to the universe is omnipotent by default. Since it is at the same time both the potential of the omni, as well as non-contingent of the omni all at once. <-- Thus, literally omnipotent. That's the only description and attribute of God that I advocate for, really.

For all we know, there could have been matter and forces similar to what we now call the universe that go back forever.

Infinite regress is never a rational answer.

What do you mean when you refer to the universe? Are you referring to just the observable universe? Or are you referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which could be much larger than the observable universe? Or are you referring to the total state of reality, which could include the results of an infinite number of Big Bangs in an infinite space-time of many dimensions?

^ Which is also an appeal to infinite regress. It's truly the effort to evade "God" by any means necessary.

How did you prove there can only be one possible uncaused cause?

It's deductively eliminated. Elimination is a form of deductive proof. Deductive logic = bivalent algebra. Proof is exclusive to math, etc.

And if there is only one uncaused cause possible, how did you deductively eliminate the flying spaghetti monster?

Because "spaghetti" is limited to form, by definition. Therefore, not omnipotent. If you claim FSM is omnipotent, then "FSM" is not limited to "FSM."

The same argument applies to Russell's teapot, Leprechauns, the dragon in Sagan's garage, etc. etc.

 

[Pommer]

Maybe another God created the universe and the God of the Bible took credit for it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm imagining that God's brain might simply know the initial conditions of the universe and know how the universe works and know that the universe is deterministic. If somebody asks God about the state of the universe at some arbitrary time then God can merely recall the relevant initial conditions and deduce the state at the later time. God would need to be able to give instantaneous answers from the perspective of some human within the universe to qualify as omniscient. I don't think it is good enough for God to answer "come back in a week after I do some thinking". But God might exist in transcendent time so that he could spend some time thinking yet appear to give an instantaneous answer, and that would be o.k.

Sorry, that is probably kind of disorganized and confusing, but hopefully you can decipher the intent.

^ @Nihilist Virus , I had another thought regarding God's omniscience: God's own future interventions need to be considered when he is simulating the universe to answer questions about future states. For example, in the Garden of Eden story God gives a prophecy about the Eve's offspring crushing the head of the serpent, and that prophecy is understood by Christians to predict Jesus (born of a virgin) defeating Sin and Satan. God needs to know all his interventions between the time of the Garden of Eden and the time of Jesus - essentially all God's activities in the Old Testament. God needs to decide on his script and stick to that script as he interacts with the universe.

Many of God's interventions are tips about future events. So taking the prophecy mentioned above (where God told Adam and Eve about Jesus), God needs to run his simulation of the universe forward until his next prophecy - maybe that is the prophecy of the Flood given to Noah. God would need to set aside the calculations he is doing for the prophecy of Jesus and work on the calculations for the Flood. Then after God knows what he will tell Noah he can return to his calculations for the prophecy of Jesus until he reaches another intervention such as the prophecy given to Abraham about the birth of Isaac.

The problem is that God can't know exactly what he will tell Adam and Eve about Jesus until he determines what he will tell Noah and Abraham and Joseph and Moses and Elijah and so on. And the information God gives to Adam and Eve might be a factor making all his calculations for Noah and Abraham and Joseph and Moses and Elijah change. And of course those changes might change the calculations for Adam and Eve so that the process must start again.

It might be an impossible problem for God to solve. (Again, sorry this is probably hard to follow.)

It sounds like you're following a rabbit hole that you view as the other option to Christians saying that God "just knows" everything, including the future. If you are truly trying to discern the "nuts and bolts" of how God works, recall that we're talking about a God who chose to take the form of a human being billions of years before human beings evolved, or potentially an eternity before human beings evolved. So he would have to know how the future plays out, presumably regardless of if he intervenes.

 

[Paulomycin]

If you are truly trying to discern the "nuts and bolts" of how God works, recall that we're talking about a God who chose to take the form of a human being billions of years before human beings evolved, or potentially an eternity before human beings evolved.

An omnipotent being is never limited to any particular form. Omnipotence implies omniscience. If not omniscient, then not omnipotent (apologies to the Oneness Pentecostals out there).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Infinite regress is a non-answer, and just as irrational.

It doesn't have to be infinite regress. It could just be that the fundamental cause of existence always was.

If you're referring to "reality" in a purely naturalistic sense, then you mean the universe that started with the Big Bang, which could be much larger than the observable universe, yet still begs the question of its existence.

When I speak of all of reality, I am referring to what well could me much more than just that which came from the Big Bang.

 

[doubtingmerle]

^ Which is also an appeal to infinite regress. It's truly the effort to evade "God" by any means necessary.

Huh? You say this in response to a simple line of questions:

What do you mean when you refer to the universe? Are you referring to just the observable universe? Or are you referring to the universe that started with the Big Bang, which could be much larger than the observable universe? Or are you referring to the total state of reality, which could include the results of an infinite number of Big Bangs in an infinite space-time of many dimensions?
​

I notice that you did not answer the questions, or even make the slightest attempt to answer them.

In your previous posts you have referred to the universe. Can you not tell me what you mean by "universe"? You seem to be taking statements that apply to the observable universe, and saying that these statements apply to any possible multi-verse of all of existence. You cannot do that.

So to make any sense of your word salad, you are going to need to tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe". Can you answer the question, please?

 

[Paulomycin]

It doesn't have to be infinite regress. It could just be that the fundamental cause of existence always was.

You said, "that go back forever." It's a very Mormon cosmology. Are you ex-LDS? Just curious.

When I speak of all of reality, I am referring to what well could me much more than just that which came from the Big Bang.

Like God?

I notice that you did not answer the questions, or even make the slightest attempt to answer them.

Maybe because I don't believe you really want an answer, in any case.

In your previous posts you have referred to the universe. Can you not tell me what you mean by "universe"? You seem to be taking statements that apply to the observable universe, and saying that these statements apply to any possible multi-verse of all of existence. You cannot do that.

No matter what I define the "universe" as, you'll just force it back to the same ambiguity, so why bother? Can't we just agree that the universe is finite? Or are you insisting on shoehorning-in steady state theory after it was already scientifically falsified?

So to make any sense of your word salad, you are going to need to tell us what you mean when you use the word "universe". Can you answer the question, please?

^ Whoops, this is definitely word salad. What an amusing game you invented. Can I play?

So, to make any sense of Merle's word salad, Merle is going to need to tell us what he means when he uses the word "word salad," as well as "universe," oh, and the word "sense" as well, since he demands equivocating words in-order to stall any further progress in the thread. Can you answer the question, please? I'll just keep insisting on it until you do, because it's a fun little tactic.