Was life inevitable?

SelfSim · Mar 12, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
... Exactly. Ultimately, at some level, the universe just is. Inventing inexplicable and incoherent supernatural ontologies using special pleading as a causal backstop is just magical thinking.

So its either:

i) The universe 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
ii) Something else (God) 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
iii) I'm just going to make it all up .. (just for the fun of it) or;
iv) I 'just am' .. because that's what I mean by 'just am'. (Now, let's see what else about me I can explore)

?

Seems to me (i) and (ii) are pretty much the same thing because the reasoning is the same (aka a 'true' posit). Options (iii) and (iv) however, are least testable, in that they can be shown to require what we mean by a human mind.

Chriliman · Mar 12, 2019

SelfSim said:
So its either:

i) The universe 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
ii) Something else (God) 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
iii) I'm just going to make it all up .. (just for the fun of it) or;
iv) I 'just am' .. because that's what I mean by 'just am'. (Now, let's see what else about me I can explore)

?

Seems to me (i) and (ii) are pretty much the same thing because the reasoning is the same (aka a 'true' posit). Options (iii) and (iv) however, are least testable, in that they can be shown to require what we mean by a human mind.

You might find this interesting.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 12, 2019

SelfSim said:
So its either:

i) The universe 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
ii) Something else (God) 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
iii) I'm just going to make it all up .. (just for the fun of it) or;
iv) I 'just am' .. because that's what I mean by 'just am'. (Now, let's see what else about me I can explore)

?

Seems to me (i) and (ii) are pretty much the same thing because the reasoning is the same (aka a 'true' posit). Options (iii) and (iv) however, are least testable, in that they can be shown to require what we mean by a human mind.

(i) and (ii) are different - we have evidence of the universe, i.e. we know (i) is fact; but we have no evidence for (ii) - unless you're a panentheist so one implies the other.

I'm not sure what you mean by (iii) or (iv) - solipsism and Descartes "I think therefore I am", respectively?

All the options require a human mind - what else ponders the question?

Mark Quayle · Mar 12, 2019

Tinker Grey said:
This reminds me of CSL's attempt at explaining the trinity (IIRC); the son is dependent on the father (ala "procedes from the father") but is co-eternal (past and future, not just future). He said to picture a book on a table; then imagine that the book has always been on the table. Something like that anyway.

The same thought occurred to me, but the Son's dependence on the Father --indeed submission, even-- by no means says he was created.

Mark Quayle · Mar 12, 2019

Speedwell said:
No equality is implied by the use of the phrase "co-eternal" merely duration. It just means that the universe is created by God and has always existed as His creature. Mind you, I am not arguing for this state of affairs, merely advancing it as a metaphysical possibility. It is not necessary that the universe have a beginning in order to have been created by God.

But see, there you have the principle of time involved. That is only eternal as a function of time, not co-eternal as a function of cause-effect, and, obviously, not self-existent.

Tinker Grey · Mar 12, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
The same thought occurred to me, but the Son's dependence on the Father --indeed submission, even-- by no means says he was created.

Which, as I recall, was why CSL put it that way. It eternally depends (in the illustration), but always was there.

Speedwell · Mar 12, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
But see, there you have the principle of time involved. That is only eternal as a function of time, not co-eternal as a function of cause-effect, and, obviously, not self-existent.

Yes, "co-eternal" means only eternal as a function of time, not self existent. That's what I have been trying to tell you.

Belk · Mar 12, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
Ask your physics experts --they are saying it even happens within this universe, where a decision in the present caused an observable earlier effect.

According to Hawking, time began with the Big Bang. Yet the BB had to have been caused.
And so, we have an effect caused in a logical sequence, not caused in a time sequence.

Not according to Hawking.

Mark Quayle · Mar 12, 2019

Belk said:
Not according to Hawking.

I'm guessing here, since it has not been attributed to anyone else that I know of, that Hawking is of the opinion that all principles by which the BB and post BB is/was governed, was emergent with the BB? Fine. Is that not also a principle antecedent to the BB?

But last I heard, the BB began from an "infinitesimal speck" (and yes, I understand that is the term they used simply for lack of some more representative way to put it --I'm not picking at the terminology). Nevertheless, there WAS something --according to them. THAT is not self-existent. Nor is the principle by which it expanded.

Mark Quayle · Mar 12, 2019

Speedwell said:
Yes, "co-eternal" means only eternal as a function of time, not self existent. That's what I have been trying to tell you.

lol, ok. I've been trying to tell you that co-eternal is terminology that implies more than time dependent logic.

Well, good. Now we've got one of our definitions understood......

SelfSim · Mar 13, 2019

@FrumiousBandersnatch;

Perhaps I misunderstood you then(?)

The sub conversation was:

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Mark Quayle said:

It seems to me at this point, that one might as well say, "It is the nature of existence to exist."

Click to expand...

Exactly. Ultimately, at some level, the universe just is.

Your statement surprised me a little .. so I then attempted to summarise:

SelfSim said:
i) The universe 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or;
ii) Something else (God) 'just is' .. (and I'm a product of it) or; ...

So you then responded:

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
(i) and (ii) are different - we have evidence of the universe, i.e. we know (i) is fact; but we have no evidence for (ii) - unless you're a panentheist so one implies the other.

I'm certainly no Panentheist .. (but point taken). If I understand correctly; your distinction for (i) being different from (ii) is only the testability of the definition of 'universe' and the untestability of the definition of 'God'. If this is so, then I might point out that it appears that the significance of the implied existence included in both (i) and (ii) may have been overlooked(?)
In other words, both (i) and (ii) simply (and miraculously) 'zap' both the universe and God into existence ... (along the lines of the truism: 'It is what it is'). I see Realism as the basis in common here.

Frumiousbandersnatch said:
SelfSim said:

iii) I'm just going to make it all up .. (just for the fun of it) or;
iv) I 'just am' .. because that's what I mean by 'just am'. (Now, let's see what else about me I can explore)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by (iii) or (iv) - solipsism and Descartes "I think therefore I am", respectively?

(iii) was intended to summarise the metaphysical position (as per the William F. Buckley quote) and (iv) was intended to summarise the position where we invoke existence via the meanings in our descriptions (using language).

Its not all that important anyway .. just interesting.
Cheers

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 13, 2019

SelfSim said:
... I might point out that it appears that the significance of the implied existence included in both (i) and (ii) may have been overlooked(?)
In other words, both (i) and (ii) simply (and miraculously) 'zap' both the universe and God into existence ... (along the lines of the truism: 'It is what it is').

No 'zapping' necessary - the universe is self-evidently here, and may always have been. The 'something else' in (ii) has no referent, is ill-defined, & unjustified.

(iii) was intended to summarise the metaphysical position (as per the William F. Buckley quote) and (iv) was intended to summarise the position where we invoke existence via the meanings in our descriptions (using language).

I'm sorry, I still don't quite 'get' the point of (iii) and (iV). My mind can be very literal at times; sometimes I need things spelt out in detail.

Its not all that important anyway .. just interesting.

Yes.

Speedwell · Mar 13, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
lol, ok. I've been trying to tell you that co-eternal is terminology that implies more than time dependent logic.

Well, good. Now we've got one of our definitions understood......

Where did you get your understanding of "co-eternal?" I can't find a definition that requires it to mean "self-existent."

But in any case my point was only that the universe need not have had a beginning to have been created by God.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 13, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
But last I heard, the BB began from an "infinitesimal speck" (and yes, I understand that is the term they used simply for lack of some more representative way to put it --I'm not picking at the terminology). Nevertheless, there WAS something --according to them. THAT is not self-existent. Nor is the principle by which it expanded.

The observable universe would have been a tiny speck, but it would have been a tiny part of the universe as a whole, which may have been infinite (a typical default BB assumption for cosmologists). Current measurements suggest the whole universe must be at least 250 times the size of the observable universe.

Also, General Relativity does, apparently, allow a spatially infinite universe to emerge, in a finite time, from a finite volume of a suitable metaverse (which surprised me!).

Belk · Mar 13, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
I'm guessing here, since it has not been attributed to anyone else that I know of, that Hawking is of the opinion that all principles by which the BB and post BB is/was governed, was emergent with the BB? Fine. Is that not also a principle antecedent to the BB?

But last I heard, the BB began from an "infinitesimal speck" (and yes, I understand that is the term they used simply for lack of some more representative way to put it --I'm not picking at the terminology). Nevertheless, there WAS something --according to them. THAT is not self-existent. Nor is the principle by which it expanded.

According to Hawking it is entirely possible that the BB happened without a cause. We also know of events that happen within our own universe without any known cause.

Mark Quayle · Mar 13, 2019

Belk said:
According to Hawking it is entirely possible that the BB happened without a cause. We also know of events that happen within our own universe without any known cause.

Agreed --without any KNOWN (to empirical science) cause. So Hawking, of his own authority, sees it possible the BB happened without a cause. Does that mean that principle(s) of reality were self-generated at that point?

I'm sorry. I mean, I really do admire Hawking --more than you know. But if you press him on the question of a mechanical fact emerging with its controlling principles, I have to think all he is referring to is the math, which exists quite outside of the BB. It makes no sense to me that anything "just happened". I think he would agree. But who knows. I would like to see me proven wrong on that.

Mark Quayle · Mar 13, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The observable universe would have been a tiny speck, but it would have been a tiny part of the universe as a whole, which may have been infinite (a typical default BB assumption for cosmologists). Current measurements suggest the whole universe must be at least 250 times the size of the observable universe.

Also, General Relativity does, apparently, allow a spatially infinite universe to emerge, in a finite time, from a finite volume of a suitable metaverse (which surprised me!).

Well, I am glad to hear that.

Mark Quayle · Mar 13, 2019

Speedwell said:
Where did you get your understanding of "co-eternal?" I can't find a definition that requires it to mean "self-existent."

But in any case my point was only that the universe need not have had a beginning to have been created by God.

Ok

Belk · Mar 14, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
Agreed --without any KNOWN (to empirical science) cause. So Hawking, of his own authority, sees it possible the BB happened without a cause.

No. Hawking, being a physicist, created a mathematical model by which the universe could have come into existence without a cause.

Mark Quayle said:
Does that mean that principle(s) of reality were self-generated at that point?

What is a "principle(s) of reality"?

Mark Quayle said:
I'm sorry. I mean, I really do admire Hawking --more than you know. But if you press him on the question of a mechanical fact emerging with its controlling principles,

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to convey here. What is a "mechanical fact emerging with its controlling principles" mean?

Mark Quayle said:
I have to think all he is referring to is the math, which exists quite outside of the BB.

Only prior to plank time after the start of the expansion.

Mark Quayle said:
It makes no sense to me that anything "just happened". I think he would agree. But who knows. I would like to see me proven wrong on that.

Why would you expect it to make sense to you?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 14, 2019

Mark Quayle said:
Agreed --without any KNOWN (to empirical science) cause. So Hawking, of his own authority, sees it possible the BB happened without a cause. Does that mean that principle(s) of reality were self-generated at that point?

I'm sorry. I mean, I really do admire Hawking --more than you know. But if you press him on the question of a mechanical fact emerging with its controlling principles, I have to think all he is referring to is the math, which exists quite outside of the BB. It makes no sense to me that anything "just happened". I think he would agree. But who knows. I would like to see me proven wrong on that.

If you haven't already seen it, you might be interested in this lecture by Hawking, in which he explains, in very general and non-mathematical terms, his no-boundary proposal, and how the universe has a beginning in real time but not in imaginary time, so that the universe did not 'just happen', but just exists, in a self-contained way.

This kind of explanation does require that you can conceive of the flow or arrow of time that we experience, to be, in a sense, a special case, dependent on an entropy gradient. In general, i.e. outside our special situation, time, like the spatial axes, is a dimension no preferred direction, and, like space, can be warped - to the extent that time and space can exchange roles.

As I understand it, this was a model Hawking thought plausible at one time, but has since been discredited - see Did the Universe Begin? VIII for the bigger picture.

Was life inevitable?

A non "-ist"

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency