Why does God leave no tracks?

[bhsmte]

LOL is appropriate, I was being funny too, because NV told me that I seem to not understand relativity, implying that he did. Good luck with that.

I have a PhD in CS (Common Sense).

How did you earn this PhD and who determined you were worthy of it?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If it's not time travel, why did you use these words:
"In fact, if they (humans) travel at that close to c it might take them a few minutes on their own clock, not tens of thousands of generations." (my parenthesis)

It's not time travel because you are not being displaced in time. Time is dilating. There is a difference.

Why would it take them a few minutes on their own clock to reach a distant galaxy? Because they're travelling very close to c. What is the causal link there? Einstein laid that out in his theory of Relativity. You have an internet connection, so there's no excuse for not knowing how it works.

So we have tested time dilation? You say, "we tested Einsteins theory with such a device multiple times and the time dilation was exactly as his theory predicted."

Correct. Use that internet connection of yours to look up something like "Confirming Relativity using atomic clocks."

Can you tell me more about the test? I would think something would have to travel at c in order to test the theory completely.

If something traveled at c, it would falsify Einstein's theory.

Some clock or a human would have to travel at c and come back to earth and be x years younger than his wife who stayed on earth. So give me a short version of the test that proved Einsteins theory correct. Thanks.

Here, this is the first thing that popped up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

I didn't even read it. I have that much faith in search engines.

 

[Ed1wolf]

and how do you know what 'most atheists and agnostics' believe? Do you have some sort of fancy mind-reading apparatus?

No, it is called many years of experience of debating them.

dav: Or you just telling them what they believe?

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

On what basis then do you cherry-pick from their opinions?

The evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

No, it is called many years of experience of debating them.



The evidence.

What evidence?

I always found, if you want to know what someone believes or thinks, just ask.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I already covered this earlier, but I will repeat it, there is evidence that there is more than one dimension of time. So our universe was probably caused from that other dimension of time.

nv: Just a punt. Still have to contend with the new issue you're creating.

What new issue?

nv: Also I'm not sure there is actually evidence for what you're saying - just a neat theoretical model. There are other models too, aren't there?

Look up String Theory. But even if there was no evidence for a second dimension of time (even though most of the evidence says there is), it is more rational to assume that the law of causality and logic are valid "outside" the universe. Before we went up into space, we were not sure logic applied to outer space but we assumed that it did and we turned out to be correct. Also, since time is just the position of objects relative to other objects, there is no real reason that not having time would prevent causal events.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What new issue?

Recall I dispensed with the Kalam argument earlier:

The first cause argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.

You then made the claim that this is solved by there being another dimension of time, and that our universe was caused to exist by that other dimension of time. So why are you confused when I say this is a punt? You still have the problem of explaining how that other dimension of time exists.

You must first decide whether you want to claim that this extra dimension of time is eternal in both directions (like the set of integers, {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}) or if it had a beginning like the time in this universe, or if it's something else entirely.

If you claim that the extra dimension of time also had a beginning, then my argument applies word for word to that new dimension of time and nothing is solved. If you claim that the extra dimension of time didn't have a beginning, then wherefore do we have a need for God? If it's something else, please specify.

Look up String Theory.

I already have and I understand it to the extent that my academic background permits. My brother, though, is a PhD candidate in physics. He's done with his academics and is finishing with his thesis. He has told me that string theory is no longer taken seriously among physicists.

But even if there was no evidence for a second dimension of time (even though most of the evidence says there is), it is more rational to assume that the law of causality and logic are valid "outside" the universe.

First, that's absurd. There's no reason to think that the laws of logic hold "outside" the universe because they don't even hold within our own universe. Or can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

But even if we grant you this absurd assumption, we are still left with the fact that causality as we know it does not act on nothing to produce something. That is in fact a point that Christians trumpet around, not seeing the problem when they later say that God acted on nothing to produce something. God cannot do that unless he can perform logically absurd tasks, and if you are proposing such a being then you are by definition being irrational.

Before we went up into space, we were not sure logic applied to outer space but we assumed that it did and we turned out to be correct.

That's a bizarre comparison. Even assuming that this was thought of as a problem among a significant portion of people, it's still a stupid idea because we are able to recreate the conditions of outer space in a controlled laboratory. We cannot create the conditions of nothingness.

Also, since time is just the position of objects relative to other objects, there is no real reason that not having time would prevent causal events.

Patently false as shown in my refutation of the Kalam argument.

 

[dlamberth]

I already covered this earlier, but I will repeat it, there is evidence that there is more than one dimension of time. So our universe was probably caused from that other dimension of time.

Just a quick note of observation to add, the Mystics and Shamans have long suggested the existence of multiple dimensions.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What evidence?

I always found, if you want to know what someone believes or thinks, just ask.

If the evidence points to them being correct then I will accept their opinion, when it doesn't or if their assumptions are questionable then I won't accept their opinion.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
What new issue?

nv: Recall I dispensed with the Kalam argument earlier:

The first cause argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.

Causality can definitely occur without space and matter. Ideas which are not made of space or matter can cause minds to change which also are non-physical. So if it doesn't need those things, it may very well not need time. Since time is just the relative positions of objects to each other there is no real reason why causality cannot occur.

nv: You then made the claim that this is solved by there being another dimension of time, and that our universe was caused to exist by that other dimension of time. So why are you confused when I say this is a punt? You still have the problem of explaining how that other dimension of time exists.

There could be an eternal time dimension that has always existed with the Cause or Creator.

nv: You must first decide whether you want to claim that this extra dimension of time is eternal in both directions (like the set of integers, {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}) or if it had a beginning like the time in this universe, or if it's something else entirely.

We don't need to know that to determine the cause of this universe.

nv: If you claim that the extra dimension of time also had a beginning, then my argument applies word for word to that new dimension of time and nothing is solved. If you claim that the extra dimension of time didn't have a beginning, then wherefore do we have a need for God? If it's something else, please specify.

Since the eternal time does not contain physical objects then if God wanted to create physical objects and finite beings then He needed to create finite time in order for finite beings to exist. So that is why we need God.

ed: Look up String Theory.

nv: I already have and I understand it to the extent that my academic background permits. My brother, though, is a PhD candidate in physics. He's done with his academics and is finishing with his thesis. He has told me that string theory is no longer taken seriously among physicists.

Does he have any evidence to support this? I know it is a minority view but I think there are still some advocates. But anyway see above about eternal time. And also how there is no evidence that time is required for causality or the lack of time can not allow causality.

ed: But even if there was no evidence for a second dimension of time (even though most of the evidence says there is), it is more rational to assume that the law of causality and logic are valid "outside" the universe.

nv: First, that's absurd. There's no reason to think that the laws of logic hold "outside" the universe because they don't even hold within our own universe.

Without the laws of logic science would be impossible, but since science has been shown to explain this universe pretty well, then it would be a serious mistake not to use logic when studying events "outside" the universe.

nv: Or can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

Not all cosmologists believe that quantum events don't have causes such as David Bohm. Some just think we cannot determine the cause. Also, according to the Copenhagen interpretation QM are caused by an observer, so plainly at the origin of the universe if there is no God then there was no observer so no universe would occur if it is caused by a quantum event. But if there was a God then the quantum event would occur.

nv: But even if we grant you this absurd assumption, we are still left with the fact that causality as we know it does not act on nothing to produce something. That is in fact a point that Christians trumpet around, not seeing the problem when they later say that God acted on nothing to produce something. God cannot do that unless he can perform logically absurd tasks, and if you are proposing such a being then you are by definition being irrational.

No, the bible just says that God acted on nothing detectable by humans. IOW no matter or energy.

ed:Before we went up into space, we were not sure logic applied to outer space but we assumed that it did and we turned out to be correct.

nv: That's a bizarre comparison. Even assuming that this was thought of as a problem among a significant portion of people, it's still a stupid idea because we are able to recreate the conditions of outer space in a controlled laboratory. We cannot create the conditions of nothingness.

At the time there were many conditions of space that we could not recreate. So the analogy is valid. We knew very little for certain about space.

ed: Also, since time is just the position of objects relative to other objects, there is no real reason that not having time would prevent causal events.

nv: Patently false as shown in my refutation of the Kalam argument.

Explain how not being able to determine the relative position of objects in relation to each other does not allow causality.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Causality can definitely occur without space and matter. Ideas which are not made of space or matter can cause minds to change which also are non-physical. So if it doesn't need those things, it may very well not need time. Since time is just the relative positions of objects to each other there is no real reason why causality cannot occur.

Ideas and minds are not known to exist without physical brains to house them. To suggest otherwise requires either evidence or a solid philosophical argument. You've provided neither. Also you have not even defined what you mean by "causality" and you are disagreeing with the definition I gave, so you need to clarify your terms before we can proceed.

There could be an eternal time dimension that has always existed with the Cause or Creator.

Then why is God necessary? Was he necessary for the act of creatio ex nihilo? It first must be shown that such a thing is even a coherent concept.

What did God act on to causally bring about the universe? Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity. Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that the universe was created without a cause, so the most you can possibly say is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

If God didn't act on nothing and he didn't act on the universe, what did he do? Or is it your contention that God did not create the universe ex nihilo but that the stuff of the universe is eternal and exists independent of God, just as your proposed dimension of time? Is God just a potter who works with pre-existing clay? If that's the case, why does God need to exist at all? Your argument will then reduce to intelligent design, and we would go from there.

We don't need to know that to determine the cause of this universe.

Even if that's true, you do need to show that the universe having a cause is even a coherent concept, and it is a non-negotiable requirement that you define what you actually mean by causality.

Since the eternal time does not contain physical objects then if God wanted to create physical objects and finite beings then He needed to create finite time in order for finite beings to exist. So that is why we need God.

Why can finite objects or physical objects not exist in an eternal dimension of time?

5 is finite, yet it "exists" in an infinite set of integers.

Does he have any evidence to support this? I know it is a minority view but I think there are still some advocates. But anyway see above about eternal time. And also how there is no evidence that time is required for causality or the lack of time can not allow causality.

He said about 10% of physicists still lean toward String Theory. I don't know what kind of source you want from him, he is the source. As a PhD candidate he is in collaboration with physicists on a daily basis. He also travels a lot to use the largest magnets in the world for the purposes of stress-testing his graphene devices, so he's spoken with a diverse population of his peers. Not to mention that he presumably learned about String Theory when he was still in the academic phase of his PhD and if that occurred it would likely entail the detail that the theory is no longer dominant among physicists.

Without the laws of logic science would be impossible, but since science has been shown to explain this universe pretty well, then it would be a serious mistake not to use logic when studying events "outside" the universe.

If you insist on asserting that logic holds in all possible realities then you are all the more accountable to explain exactly how creatio ex nihilo is in any way a coherent concept.

Not all cosmologists believe that quantum events don't have causes such as David Bohm. Some just think we cannot determine the cause. Also, according to the Copenhagen interpretation QM are caused by an observer, so plainly at the origin of the universe if there is no God then there was no observer so no universe would occur if it is caused by a quantum event. But if there was a God then the quantum event would occur.

Not what I asked. I asked you to reconcile quantum superposition with the law of identity and/or the law of excluded middle. I didn't say anything about the cause of such a phenomenon, whether there is a cause, why it occurs, or etc. I'm simply asking you to show that such a phenomenon is consistent with the aforementioned logical laws.

No, the bible just says that God acted on nothing detectable by humans. IOW no matter or energy.

What did he do? Was it creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia?

At the time there were many conditions of space that we could not recreate. So the analogy is valid. We knew very little for certain about space.

Again, you can have that, but if you insist on asserting that logic holds in all possible realities then you are all the more accountable to explain exactly how creatio ex nihilo is in any way a coherent concept.

Explain how not being able to determine the relative position of objects in relation to each other does not allow causality.

I do not know your definition of causality so I currently cannot answer this.

I reject your definition of time, which you say is "the position of objects relative to other objects". You've actually defined space instead. By that definition I cannot explain what a clock is measuring. But I'll admit that time is a bit trickier to define than space. I did a quick search and found this:

Time is the dimension on which the evolution of state of a system is allowed to occur.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Just a quick note of observation to add, the Mystics and Shamans have long suggested the existence of multiple dimensions.

Good for them, but the rest of their beliefs would hold science back and cause huge problems for society especially in science and morality. Why do you think modern science was invented by Christians and not pagans?

 

[dlamberth]

Why do you think modern science was invented by Christians and not pagans?

Because they were mystics, or influenced buy them?

 

[Peter1000]

Recall I dispensed with the Kalam argument earlier:

The first cause argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.

You then made the claim that this is solved by there being another dimension of time, and that our universe was caused to exist by that other dimension of time. So why are you confused when I say this is a punt? You still have the problem of explaining how that other dimension of time exists.

You must first decide whether you want to claim that this extra dimension of time is eternal in both directions (like the set of integers, {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...}) or if it had a beginning like the time in this universe, or if it's something else entirely.

If you claim that the extra dimension of time also had a beginning, then my argument applies word for word to that new dimension of time and nothing is solved. If you claim that the extra dimension of time didn't have a beginning, then wherefore do we have a need for God? If it's something else, please specify.



I already have and I understand it to the extent that my academic background permits. My brother, though, is a PhD candidate in physics. He's done with his academics and is finishing with his thesis. He has told me that string theory is no longer taken seriously among physicists.



First, that's absurd. There's no reason to think that the laws of logic hold "outside" the universe because they don't even hold within our own universe. Or can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

But even if we grant you this absurd assumption, we are still left with the fact that causality as we know it does not act on nothing to produce something. That is in fact a point that Christians trumpet around, not seeing the problem when they later say that God acted on nothing to produce something. God cannot do that unless he can perform logically absurd tasks, and if you are proposing such a being then you are by definition being irrational.



That's a bizarre comparison. Even assuming that this was thought of as a problem among a significant portion of people, it's still a stupid idea because we are able to recreate the conditions of outer space in a controlled laboratory. We cannot create the conditions of nothingness.



Patently false as shown in my refutation of the Kalam argument.

Nihilist Virus says again:
definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.

You seem to be saying that "causality" can only act upon an "existing system." Therefore you reason, if we are not talking about a "system", we can not talk about "causality".

Then you make a remarkable statement that, "prior to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist." And then you think you can be more precise by saying, "in a state of reality(???), wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist." And so if there is no system, because t=0 has not occurred, causality does not exist. Therefore the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality. Sounds scientific all right.

But what you have done is made up your own definition of causality and applied it to only what you want to apply it to. So the result is that through your made up logic, you have removed the cause of the universe coming into existence.

You have done this to try to eliminate ID as the "cause". Good luck. All your spinning and twisting and logic and reality might work on a teenager that is losing his sense of who God is, but for a mautre person who is grounded in their belief that God is the creator, you have no efffect, in fact you look silly in the attempt.

The problem that you have is: no scientist anywhere knows that prior to t=0 space and time did not exist. This statement is not testable or unfalsifiable. Therefore you have nothing.

So in the absence of any logical cause, instead of taking a logical step toward ID being the cause, you rewrite the definition of causality to fit your godless theory. Now you say, because I have proved there is no cause, I have proved there is no god. NO YOU HAVE NOT, you have proved nothing, either from the scientific side of the question or the religious side of the question. You have proved nothing.

If you think you have, show me the test that proves space and time did not exist before big bang. Show me the test that proves that the Planck Epoch really happened. It is all theory and guesses. You actually have nothing.

Sorry, but until you can show me the tests, I don't believe you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist Virus says again:
definition of causality:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot havebeen brought about via causality.

You seem to be saying that "causality" can only act upon an "existing system." Therefore you reason, if we are not talking about a "system", we can not talk about "causality".

Then you make a remarkable statement that, "prior to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist." And then you think you can be more precise by saying, "in a state of reality(???), wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist." And so if there is no system, because t=0 has not occurred, causality does not exist. Therefore the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality. Sounds scientific all right.

But what you have done is made up your own definition of causality and applied it to only what you want to apply it to. So the result is that through your made up logic, you have removed the cause of the universe coming into existence.

You have done this to try to eliminate ID as the "cause". Good luck. All your spinning and twisting and logic and reality might work on a teenager that is losing his sense of who God is, but for a mautre person who is grounded in their belief that God is the creator, you have no efffect, in fact you look silly in the attempt.

The problem that you have is: no scientist anywhere knows that prior to t=0 space and time did not exist. This statement is not testable or unfalsifiable. Therefore you have nothing.

So in the absence of any logical cause, instead of taking a logical step toward ID being the cause, you rewrite the definition of causality to fit your godless theory. Now you say, because I have proved there is no cause, I have proved there is no god. NO YOU HAVE NOT, you have proved nothing, either from the scientific side of the question or the religious side of the question. You have proved nothing.

If you think you have, show me the test that proves space and time did not exist before big bang. Show me the test that proves that the Planck Epoch really happened. It is all theory and guesses. You actually have nothing.

Sorry, but until you can show me the tests, I don't believe you.

I'm not twisting anything. I defined my terms and proved my case beyond any doubt using my definitions. Your only refutation is that no scientist knows that prior to the t=0 event that space and time did not exist? Then why don't you enlighten us and tell us all what happened before anything ever happened. Invest an hour in casual research so you can be an armchair cosmologist like the rest of us. You're simply not up to speed in any sense. And I find that to be a bit odd: despite presumably believing in celestial marriage you clearly have zero knowledge about how the cosmos works, and then you are arguing with me here. No, I'm not saying you're wrong because you're an LDS, that would be ad hominem. I'm saying you're wrong because you don't know the first thing about cosmology on any level. You continue to prove that in every post.

You're quite free to disagree with my definition of causality as definitions are pure assertions that prove nothing. However, if you want to explain how God caused the universe to exist, you must define what you mean by causality and this is non-negotiable.

But before you bother to come up with your own definition of causality, how about you try this one on:

Causality is the relation between a thing that is acting, a thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results. For example, consider a man sculpting a statue. The man is the thing that is acting, the marble is the thing that is being acted on, and the effect that results is the statue. With this in mind, allow me to recycle my alternative rebuttal to the Kalam argument:

What did God act on to causally bring about the universe? Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity. Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that the universe was created without a cause, so the most you can possibly say is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

 

[Davian]

First of all, apologies for taking a week and a half get this response up. I'm just not able to participate on these forums as much as I'd like nowadays, but hopefully none of my future responses to you will take as long as this one has...

Not a problem at all. Family and work have stepped in to interrupt my time here, and I appreciate the thoughtful response, as I will attempt here myself.

But don't we still use our cognitive faculties to determine that such pictures aren't actually moving, even if we do so by means of some methodology?

That picture may not be the best example, as it was constructed in a manner that purposely creates interference with our vision system.

And we do use methodology, but that methodology may range from "does that look real to you, George?" to "Let's analyze this with state of the art instrumentation, with control groups and double-blind data gathering, and publish our data for peer review, based on this testable, falsifiable hypothesis", with understandably differing degrees of accuracy.

Why is it that we come use methodologies, unless we rely on our cognitive faculties to have told us that doing so produces accurate results reliably?

From what I gather, we rely on our cognitive faculties to produce accurate results until they don't. The Earth looks flat until we climb a high peak. The speed of light appears to be instantaneous until it doesn't. What we observe at the macroscopic scale is not necessarily reflected in the quantum level.

Whether we use methodologies or not, I don't see any way for us to escape the fact that we rely upon our cognitive faculties to give us true beliefs,

At this point, do you mean "true", or "accurate"? While I believe that the surface on which my computer monitor resides is solid, it might be more accurate to describe it as mostly empty space, or more accurate to describe it as space filled with quantum... stuff.

perhaps not all of the time, but at least most of the time.

Most of the time? And how do we pick this "most"? When we like the results? When it the "makes sense" when compared to our other [preconceived] notions?

I think such people have a tendency to take certain Bible stories a bit more literally than they should. I also think their efforts to proselytize tend to be seriously misguided. Beating people over the head with the Bible and telling them that God's gonna torture them forever if they don't literally believe it is the wrong way to go about preaching the Gospel, IMV.

I do understand, that if the Bible claims are true, and we need to believe (or else!), then they are justified in their motivation to convey their interpretation of this message to whomever will listen; however, in a venue such as this, they should be prepared to have their "message" and how much (or how little) of it comports with observations of reality, rather than arguing from a position of infallibility.

I can certainly understand why you would think so. Something like that would certainly be radically different from anything we could directly perceive in the world of our everyday experience, but to those of us who accept such a view -- and there are many theists who do not accept it (including Plantinga and William Lane Craig, to drop a couple of big names) -- anything less than that could not be absolute and ultimate in the way that God's supposed to be.

I am very familiar with WLC's attempts at a theistic slight-of-hand, where he trots out all of the non-specific "greatest being/kalamity/etc" arguments, calls this thing he describes as "God", and then, as if no one is going to notice, attempts to swap in the God-of-the-Bible, declaring them to be the same thing.

I will note that WLC does not openly declare that virtually all of mainstream science must be wrong in order to accommodate his beliefs, preferring to waffle and evade that topic when cornered.

Well, I think they're wrong. Or at the very least, I think they have a deep and profound misunderstanding of how Christianity works.

Indeed, it surprises me when I see two religionists agree on more than a few points.

Yes, you make a good point here. Actually, I think a third condition is needed to constitute a genuine religious experience. I should have addressed it in my last post, but for whatever reason it just didn't occur to me.

In my last post, I offered these two conditions as sufficient to constitute a genuine religious experience:

(1) that the experience be of a sort that falls in line with what we would typically call “religious experience,”

I have no idea of what you mean by a "typical religious experience". Without evidence to the contrary, I can only conclude that they are all simply imagined.

and

(2) that it have some sort of positive effect on the life of the person who's experienced it.

Is that all it takes? What about the birth of a child, or a brush with death? Does this not trivialize the "religious" experience to make it really no different than other experiences?

To those I'd like to add the following:

(3) that the experience convey to the person who's had it justified true belief to the effect that it was caused to happen by some sort of reality that is imperceptible by way of the faculties that we ordinarily use to perceive and understand the world around us.

Now, I'd like to point out that while I'm sure it's the case far more often than not that those who have had religious experiences have far more detailed and specific (and even contradictory) sets of beliefs regarding those experiences than simply what I've provided in (3), I do not see such beliefs as being always and necessarily sufficient to invalidate their attendant experiences, provided that such beliefs not be both false and directly communicated by said experiences. For example, I think it's perfectly normal for people to have a tendency to try to interpret such experiences within a familiar religious context, by using familiar religious concepts and language to try to express what it is they've experienced, and I don't see why the presence of such interpretations should serve to undermine the validity their attendant experiences. However, I think it's important to note that I do not believe that a genuine religious experience would directly communicate false information to its subject, as I think that doing so would constitute a violation of (2) above. So a genuine (i.e. a veridical) religious experience would not directly tell someone that P is the case (for any false proposition P) if in fact it is not the case that P.

I might also briefly mention that in my view (and I suspect you'll agree with me here), condition (3) is the most problematic of the lot, not only because its notion of “reality” is so ill-defined, but also because it operates on the assumption that said “reality” is, well, really real. In fact we might even go so far as to add this as a fourth condition -- and one that I think would actually be necessary for a genuine case of religious experience to boot. Perhaps you might object, “But you haven't established that your extremely vague notion of 'reality' is real.” Indeed I haven't. I'm not even sure how one would go about arguing for the existence of something that's so ill-defined, but that aside, what I'm trying to do here is establish what I see as ontologically-sufficient conditions for what it is to actually be a genuine religious experience, not epistemically-sufficent conditions for what it would be to have justified belief that such an experience has occurred (whatever those might entail). As I see it, in order for you to have justified belief that a genuine religious experience has occurred, you'd have to have justified belief that my all-too-vague notion of “reality” is real, and even if I thought I could convince you of that with some argument, that's not what I'm aiming for here.

I don't think we could ever tell with absolute certainty whether or not a case of someone else's supposed religious experience is genuine. From our vantage point, it's at least epistemically possible for any such case to be false. I mean, anyone can just lie, right? How could we possibly prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that someone did not have an experience she claims to have had? I don't think we could. What's left for us to do, then, is to assign an epistemic probability to that person's claim, and our assessment of whether or not she is probably telling the truth will depend upon the epistemic resources available to us. In other words, it will depend upon what all it is that we happen to know (or perhaps otherwise justifiably believe) that's of relevance to the circumstances, and this will vary from person to person. Also, one's epistemic resources might not always be sufficiently communicable in order to convince someone else, and I think this is especially true for cases where we're talking about claimed experiences.

That was not where I was going with my point; I can assume reality is that which is observable, repeatable, and testable (if it acts like reality, assume it is reality) and it doesn't matter if the experience is "genuine" or not, or if the person is being sincere or is delusional, or is lying; it boils down to what is most parsimonious: if what the person relates from their "supernatural/religious" experiences is indistinguishable from an experience that is simply a product of their internal imagination, then it can safely be treated as such, whether is be a psychic's prediction, a dowser's pointing, or a religionist's revelation.

 

[Davian]

No. It has not been given how ID originated the universe, only that He did.

And how do you know your particular "id" created the universe? It sounds very generic.

 

[Davian]

LOL is appropriate, I was being funny too, because NV told me that I seem to not understand relativity, implying that he did. Good luck with that.

It's easy enough to pop over to Cosmoquest and post your understanding of GR, and see how it stands up to scrutiny by credentialed professionals. Let me know if you would like to try your luck with that.

I have a PhD in CS (Common Sense).

Common sense is not science.

 

[Davian]

No, it is called many years of experience of debating them.

Guessing then, with no means of testing accuracy.

The evidence.

What evidence?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Causality can definitely occur without space and matter. Ideas which are not made of space or matter can cause minds to change which also are non-physical. So if it doesn't need those things, it may very well not need time. Since time is just the relative positions of objects to each other there is no real reason why causality cannot occur.

nv: Ideas and minds are not known to exist without physical brains to house them. To suggest otherwise requires either evidence or a solid philosophical argument.

Maybe, but minds and ideas themselves are not physical, so that shows that non-physical entities CAN cause things and events. There is some evidence for the mind not needing a brain, with some cases of out of body experiences that have not been explained and then also if transgenderism is real then that is evidence that the mind can in some way be independent of the brain and body.

nv: You've provided neither. Also you have not even defined what you mean by "causality" and you are disagreeing with the definition I gave, so you need to clarify your terms before we can proceed.

The law of causality is that every effect needs a cause. Contrary to the popular definition that every THING needs a cause.

ed: There could be an eternal time dimension that has always existed with the Cause or Creator.

nv: Then why is God necessary? Was he necessary for the act of creatio ex nihilo? It first must be shown that such a thing is even a coherent concept.

Because just having an eternal time can not create a universe.

nv: What did God act on to causally bring about the universe?

We don't know because it was not detectable, read Hebrews 11:3.

nv: Did he act on the universe? Then the universe existed before it existed so it could be acted upon and brought into existence... an absurdity.

Of course not, the universe did not exist.

nv: Did he act on nothing? Then nothing was causally effected, which is to say that the universe was created without a cause, so the most you can possibly say is that the universe spontaneously popped into existence and that God was present but not participating.

No, according to Hebrews 11:3 it was created out of something that is not visible or detectable by humans. Just as the BB theory has basically confirmed.

nv: If God didn't act on nothing and he didn't act on the universe, what did he do? Or is it your contention that God did not create the universe ex nihilo but that the stuff of the universe is eternal and exists independent of God, just as your proposed dimension of time? Is God just a potter who works with pre-existing clay? If that's the case, why does God need to exist at all? Your argument will then reduce to intelligent design, and we would go from there.

See above about what He created it out of, but the stuff of the universe did not exist that is why God is needed.

ed: We don't need to know that to determine the cause of this universe.

nv: Even if that's true, you do need to show that the universe having a cause is even a coherent concept, and it is a non-negotiable requirement that you define what you actually mean by causality.

The universe has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning and it changes, therefore it needs a cause.

ed; Since the eternal time does not contain physical objects then if God wanted to create physical objects and finite beings then He needed to create finite time in order for finite beings to exist. So that is why we need God.

nv: Why can finite objects or physical objects not exist in an eternal dimension of time?

Well physical objects need a dimension of space to exist. I am not sure if finite objects can exist in the infinite. I will concede I could be wrong about that. But nevertheless finite time was created in order to destroy evil forever since a universe such as ours is necessary to accomplish that goal.

nv: 5 is finite, yet it "exists" in an infinite set of integers.

Yes, but numbers are not physical entities.

ed: Does he have any evidence to support this? I know it is a minority view but I think there are still some advocates. But anyway see above about eternal time. And also how there is no evidence that time is required for causality or the lack of time can not allow causality.

nv: He said about 10% of physicists still lean toward String Theory. I don't know what kind of source you want from him, he is the source. As a PhD candidate he is in collaboration with physicists on a daily basis. He also travels a lot to use the largest magnets in the world for the purposes of stress-testing his graphene devices, so he's spoken with a diverse population of his peers. Not to mention that he presumably learned about String Theory when he was still in the academic phase of his PhD and if that occurred it would likely entail the detail that the theory is no longer dominant among physicists.

10% is still a rather sizable number.

ed: Without the laws of logic science would be impossible, but since science has been shown to explain this universe pretty well, then it would be a serious mistake not to use logic when studying events "outside" the universe.

nv: If you insist on asserting that logic holds in all possible realities then you are all the more accountable to explain exactly how creatio ex nihilo is in any way a coherent concept.

See above.

ed: Not all cosmologists believe that quantum events don't have causes such as David Bohm. Some just think we cannot determine the cause. Also, according to the Copenhagen interpretation QM are caused by an observer, so plainly at the origin of the universe if there is no God then there was no observer so no universe would occur if it is caused by a quantum event. But if there was a God then the quantum event would occur.

nv: Not what I asked. I asked you to reconcile quantum superposition with the law of identity and/or the law of excluded middle. I didn't say anything about the cause of such a phenomenon, whether there is a cause, why it occurs, or etc. I'm simply asking you to show that such a phenomenon is consistent with the aforementioned logical laws.

It may not be compatible with those laws of logic but it may well be compatible with the law of causality.

ed: No, the bible just says that God acted on nothing detectable by humans. IOW no matter or energy.

nv: What did he do? Was it creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia?

It was creatio nihilo detectable. Read Heb. 11:3.

ed: At the time there were many conditions of space that we could not recreate. So the analogy is valid. We knew very little for certain about space.

nv: Again, you can have that, but if you insist on asserting that logic holds in all possible realities then you are all the more accountable to explain exactly how creatio ex nihilo is in any way a coherent concept.

See above.

ed: Explain how not being able to determine the relative position of objects in relation to each other does not allow causality.

nv: I do not know your definition of causality so I currently cannot answer this.

I reject your definition of time, which you say is "the position of objects relative to other objects". You've actually defined space instead. By that definition I cannot explain what a clock is measuring. But I'll admit that time is a bit trickier to define than space. I did a quick search and found this:

Time is the dimension on which the evolution of state of a system is allowed to occur.

Time is detected by the motion of objects and their relative positions to our planet, such as the revolutions of the earth around the sun.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe, but minds and ideas themselves are not physical, so that shows that non-physical entities CAN cause things and events.

Can you tell me what minds or ideas physically effect? Nothing. They might inform our actions, but it is our actions which have causal implications. Ideas and concepts do not.

There is some evidence for the mind not needing a brain, with some cases of out of body experiences that have not been explained

The only way in which an out-of-body experience can even be taken seriously at all is if the person involved exploited the experience to acquire knowledge that they couldn't have otherwise obtained. I've never seen such a case; what I see is that the events seem so real that the person is completely convinced it is real. But of course,

and then also if transgenderism is real then that is evidence that the mind can in some way be independent of the brain and body.

The mind is determined by the brain. What you are saying hardly even makes sense on any level.

If we do our best to take what you're saying to heart then we should expect to find people who feel that they are really dragons, but that their physical bodies do not match their own mental image. I do not know of this occurring, and if it did it would be so rare and unique that it would likely be the result of something else rather than the known, regularly occurring transgender mental identity phenomenon. From what I can tell, the sex of a fetus is determined after the brain has already begun to form and so in people who self-identify with the other sex there was probably an "error" that occurred. I'll admit this is a complete guess on my part and I'm nowhere near qualified to discuss this, but I can definitely say that your explanation is way off.

The law of causality is that every effect needs a cause. Contrary to the popular definition that every THING needs a cause.

Because just having an eternal time can not create a universe.

We don't know because it was not detectable, read Hebrews 11:3.

Of course not, the universe did not exist.

No, according to Hebrews 11:3 it was created out of something that is not visible or detectable by humans. Just as the BB theory has basically confirmed.

See above about what He created it out of, but the stuff of the universe did not exist that is why God is needed.

The universe has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning and it changes, therefore it needs a cause.

I'm struggling to understand why you believe God is necessary, given all of your assumptions. You say that there exists some eternal dimension of time which exists for no reason and with no cause, and that there is this stuff which exists for no reason and no cause. If an atheist were to be of the persuasion that there was a natural cause for the Big Bang, he would require those two exact conditions and nothing more.

Well physical objects need a dimension of space to exist. I am not sure if finite objects can exist in the infinite. I will concede I could be wrong about that. But nevertheless finite time was created in order to destroy evil forever since a universe such as ours is necessary to accomplish that goal.

This does not seem to be coherent.

Yes, but numbers are not physical entities.

Well you already conceded you could be wrong about the point we are arguing here, and furthermore I do not even think the things you are describing are coherent, so I guess we can let this one die.

10% is still a rather sizable number.

10% of the population is left handed, yet the world is certainly arranged in favor of righthandedness anywhere you go.

See above.

It may not be compatible with those laws of logic but it may well be compatible with the law of causality.

Your responses have been divorced from the meaning of what I said from the very start. So let's go back to the start:

You said,

But even if there was no evidence for a second dimension of time (even though most of the evidence says there is), it is more rational to assume that the law of causality and logic are valid "outside" the universe.

I replied,

First, that's absurd. There's no reason to think that the laws of logic hold "outside" the universe because they don't even hold within our own universe. Or can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

Observe the structure of my response. I'm claiming that the laws of logic do not hold within our own universe. Do you think I am also contending that the laws of causality do not hold within our universe as well? Even if you think that's my contention, did I say so?

You continue, over and over, to invoke causality in your responses and ignore the point at hand. So once again, please read carefully:

Can you reconcile quantum superposition with the law of excluded middle and/or the law of identity?

Time is detected by the motion of objects and their relative positions to our planet, such as the revolutions of the earth around the sun.

OK so you seem to generally agree with my definition now.