The Creator

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Physical or not it presents us with an infinite. Why a God based infinite is preferable to other types seems odd.

Because it explains biocentrism and the finely tuned nature of the universe for life to exist.


Started a thread on it: http://www.christianforums.com/t7836170/#post66125637


Feel free to criticize!

 

[Freodin]

I try to be a fideist, but I can't help but find validity in this argument:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This can't be an infinite regress of causes, because an actual infinite is impossible (given that it would never allow us to reach the present moment given an infinite past).

Therefore, everything that begins to exist ultimately must have a primary cause.

God can fit here pretty well.

But I don't think it's proof of God, but it makes room for him metaphysically.

The main objection to that position is of course that such a "primary cause" does not have to be a "creator".

But I wanted to adress another point in this post:
"This can't be an infinite regress of causes, because an actual infinite is impossible (given that it would never allow us to reach the present moment given an infinite past)."

This is incorrect. It would assume that the passage of time in itself takes time. Instead, in an infinite regress of causes, every single event IS the present.

 

[Received]

In that argument God would not begin to exist and present us with an actual infinite.

God isn't an actual infinite given that he's not composed of causes.

 

[Received]

Some part of the universe maybe. It depends on if things can exist out of time or not. Then you only need one cause to give you an infinite.

And it's fishy how this was one single cause, rather than an infinite number. You'd think the latter if the universe (or part of it) has had an infinite amount of times to do things, which means every possible relation between atoms is expressed (within constraints of physics, of course), which would pretty much mean an infinite number of causes. Leading to an infinite number of universes.

But, well, I can only see one, and can only conjecture on a very abstract, mathematical level that there are more.

At some point a creator just has to have validity as a possible explanation.

 

[Received]

The main objection to that position is of course that such a "primary cause" does not have to be a "creator".

But I wanted to adress another point in this post:
"This can't be an infinite regress of causes, because an actual infinite is impossible (given that it would never allow us to reach the present moment given an infinite past)."

This is incorrect. It would assume that the passage of time in itself takes time. Instead, in an infinite regress of causes, every single event IS the present.

And with this, there is an infinite past of present moments, and we either take this to mean that there is a past, which counts as all present moments in this set except one (the actual present), at which point "present" and "past" sort of lose meaning, or there is nothing but the present moment and the past is illusory. Or something.

But this was just one argument against it. Do you have a response to Hilbert's Hotel?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

God isn't an actual infinite given that he's not composed of causes.

Why cannot God be the infinite Cause?

 

[Received]

Why cannot God be the infinite Cause?

I think God pretty much *is* infinity. But saying he's an infinite cause (or the only infinite cause) is different than saying that he's like an actual infinite; actual infinites are infinite collections of causes, not an infinite cause.

 

[Received]

God help us for the complicated direction this thread is going, btw.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I think God pretty much *is* infinity. But saying he's an infinite cause (or the only infinite cause) is different than saying that he's like an actual infinite; actual infinites are infinite collections of causes, not an infinite cause.

I'm thinking He's an actual infinite. A never ending expanse of real substance that makes room within itself for finite time/space to exist.

 

[Received]

I'm thinking He's an actual infinite. A never ending expanse of real substance that makes room within itself for finite time/space to exist.

But he's not composed of causes or discrete stuff. Actual infinites, IIRC, are from set theory; and with sets you have specific and discrete numbers. An actual infinite stands for a set with an infinite amount of numbers. God isn't divisible in this sense. Therefore he's infinity, not an actual infinite.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

But he's not composed of causes or discrete stuff. Actual infinites, IIRC, are from set theory; and with sets you have specific and discrete numbers. An actual infinite stands for a set with an infinite amount of numbers. God isn't divisible in this sense. Therefore he's infinity, not an actual infinite.

Well then he would be the discreet number of 1 beside which there is no other. This 1 is divisible but when it is divided it becomes a nested wave form expression of what was once unified "particle". Like the 7 colors from white light. The division is wholoarchical, and simultaneously arising.

In existent Reality, this wave form wholarchy is 3d and radial...and we are both within and composed of this Image.

 

[Received]

Well then he would be the discreet number of 1 beside which there is no other. This 1 is divisible but when it is divided it becomes a nested wave form expression of what was once unified "particle". Like the 7 colors from white light. The division is wholoarchical, and simultaneously arising.

In existent Reality, this wave form wholarchy is 3d and radial...and we are both within and composed of this Image.

And the divisibility is, basically, a function of consciousness, not the nature of reality as a whole, which is monistic.

 

[variant]

God isn't an actual infinite given that he's not composed of causes.

It would require at least one infinity to be timeless.

Infinite regress is no more a problem of infinites than timelessness.

 

[variant]

And it's fishy how this was one single cause, rather than an infinite number. You'd think the latter if the universe (or part of it) has had an infinite amount of times to do things, which means every possible relation between atoms is expressed (within constraints of physics, of course), which would pretty much mean an infinite number of causes. Leading to an infinite number of universes.

Well once the universe exists it wouldn't need to be caused again, unless universes get caused inside universes...

But, well, I can only see one, and can only conjecture on a very abstract, mathematical level that there are more.

Well it's all pretty much conjecture if you're asking the question of how universes come into being or if they do.

It's a question we are fairly ignorant of as of yet.

At some point a creator just has to have validity as a possible explanation.

How would we calculate that point?

But I agree that it is as valid as any other explanation that does little if any explaining.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

It would require at least one infinity to be timeless.

How about a really substantial infinity like a quark matter ocean with no top, bottom, or sides?

Relative time would a patterned finite void space created within the body of the Original Infinity.

The O.I. is still infinite outside relative space. It is the Eternal.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Well once the universe exists it wouldn't need to be caused again.



Well it's all pretty much conjecture if you're asking the question of how universes come into being or if they do.

It's a question we are fairly ignorant of as of yet.



How would we calculate that point?

But I agree that it is as valid as any other explanation that does little if any explaining.

Would you be interesting in a model of infinite numbers of universe creation that renders them each finely tuned for life to exist?

I will be getting to it in here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7836170/

I'm sure it'll be a boisterous fray!

 

[variant]

How about a really substantial infinity like a quark matter ocean with no top, bottom, or sides?

Relative time would a patterned finite void space created within the body of the Original Infinity.

The O.I. is still infinite outside relative space. It is the Eternal.

We're asking questions that are pretty fundamental, and yet also straight forward.

A question like:

Did time start in a distinct moment in the past and if so how.

Is remarkably hard to deal with, without clouding the issue with lots of extraneous concepts.

 

[variant]

Would you be interesting in a model of infinite numbers of universe creation that renders them each finely tuned for life to exist?

Not particularly, sorry.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

We're asking questions that are pretty fundamental, and yet also straight forward.

A question like:

Did time start in a distinct moment in the past and if so how.

Is remarkably hard to deal with, without clouding the issue with lots of extraneous concepts.

I would answer yes: The time of the universe and contained phenomenon did begin at a distinct moment in the past. How: A pre-existent substance moved out of the way for the void space of the universe to exist and "time" is the vortex street pattern left in the wake of the original substance's contraction.

There is no space of movement or space for separate form of any kind in the original saturated substance, it's "time" is eternal. It has always been. The "unmoved"* Mover.


*I have found that it actually does move itself in a specific super-symmetric wave form that creates an infinite numbers of equal sized void spheres as a horizontal plane that has no edge. The wave front keeps creating and stacking sphere planes as it travels "downwards" forever. It will never stop traveling and creating.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Not particularly, sorry.

Why not? It would explain exactly why our universe is finely tuned for life without resorting to rolling the Multiversal dice of fortunate surroundings.