A universe without God.

[RussDill]

That's a very weak response. In fact, it's terrible.
You asked me why a primal-cause would possess free-will. Well, my reasoned answer is that without free-will other causes are invoked. "Other causes" cannot be invoked when we are discussing the primal-act of a primal-cause. Therefore, a primal-cause must possess free-will.
Now, if you really want to argue against this, you really need to explain how a primal-cause could produce a primal-act without willing that act to occur. If you can do that, I shall concede to you.
If not, then you should concede to me instead of doing this silly tango.

I should point out that only something random will not have a cause or a why. Free will will always have a cause and a why. "Why did you leave her?" "Why did you paint that picture". Like I said before, you can say god did it, but it will only raise the question, why did god do it.

 

[Flatworm]

That's a very weak response. In fact, it's terrible.
You asked me why a primal-cause would possess free-will. Well, my reasoned answer is that without free-will other causes are invoked.

"Other causes" cannot be invoked when we are discussing the primal-act of a primal-cause. Therefore, a primal-cause must possess free-will.

There you go again, begging the question. Let me show you that this assertion is equivalent to assuming that a primal cause must have free will.

Let A(X) be "X has free will".

let B(X) be "X invokes other causes"

let C(X) be "X is the primal cause"

Our first premise is ~A(X) -> B(X), "without free-will other causes are invoked."

Our second premise is B(X) -> ~C(X), "If X invokes other causes, it cannot be the primal cause."

Can you agree with both of these?

____1. ~A(X) -> B(X) (premise)
____2. B(X) -> ~C(X) (premise)
____3. C(X) (assumption)
2,3__4. ~B(X) (2,3 Modus Tollens)
1,2,3_5. A(X) (1,4 Modus Tollens)
1,2 __6. C(X) -> A(X) (3,5 Conditional Proof)

There you have it, in symbolic logic. The conclusion C(X) -> A(X) says "X is a primal cause, therefore X has free will". It is a direct result of the two premises "If X does not have free will, other causes are invoked", and "If X invokes other causes, it is not the primal cause."

This proves that your statement presupposes that primal cause must have free will.

Now try to listen very carefully here:

most people here do not accept premise (1) just on your say-so. You must provide proof of this statement before your argument can be considered sound.

Now, if you really want to argue against this, you really need to explain how a primal-cause could produce a primal-act without willing that act to occur. If you can do that, I shall concede to you.
If not, then you should concede to me instead of doing this silly tango.

It is inarguably true that causes in general do not require will. Think of the floods caused by spring melt. It is unreasonable to suppose that primal cause must have will without a special proof.

Note, I am not saying that I know that primal cause does not have free will, or even that there is or was a primal cause. I'm saying I don't know these things, and neither do you (no matter how much you lie to yourself about it). In the absence of firm knowledge about such things, I rely on the best scientific evidence and reasoning available, which does not require the introduction of free will or even first causes at this point.

 

[Iacchus]

Funny you should say that. A radio wave is an electromagnetic wave. Not only do EM waves have momentum and can push things, but they are also the mediator of the electrical and magnetic forces. When you touch things, or trip someone, you aren't actually touching them. you are just getting so close, that the rapid exchange of photons (EM waves) between the two objects do not allow you to get any closer.

So yes, in a way, I have been tripped by a radio wave.

And perhaps you've been touched by the hand of God then as well?

 

[Iacchus]

Wow, can the nonsense get any thicker?

No thicker than the hair on the back of your neck? ... Bray you say? ... Haw Hee Haw!

 

[c4ts]

No thicker than the hair on the back of your neck? ... Bray you say?

Apparently it can.

 

[RussDill]

And perhaps you've been touched by the hand of God then as well?

Really? I have a book here entitled "Principles of Electrodynamics" that describes everything about this god. Perhaps you should order a copy of this deeply religious text.

 

[Iacchus]

And what about the notion of time? Just because there was nothing "relative" to measure it against, doesn't mean it didn't exist did it?

Nothing relative? Huh? If there are no apples, then there are no apples. There are not "apples relative to something".

Are you aware that the Eternal Moment always Is, and always Will be, and doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space?

Ever see the movie, The Truman Show?

No, but what does that have to do with anything.

It was all about the props. It wasn't real. And it didn't exist. And the only one who didn't realize this was the "meat-head" in the middle.

Oh well, so much for this propped up life we call materialism, which begins nowhere and ends nowhere.

Your posts have constituted jargon, circular arguments, meta-arguements, and engrish.

Yeah, but where else is there to go with it?

 

[Iacchus]

No I think I am pissed off (or was) that you kept misquoting and misrepresenting what i said. Considering most of my posts were obvious lampoonjs of LG, I didn't expect a response.

Yeah, and why do you insist on playing the only "Joker" in the deck?

 

[Iacchus]

I should point out that only something random will not have a cause or a why. Free will will always have a cause and a why. "Why did you leave her?" "Why did you paint that picture". Like I said before, you can say god did it, but it will only raise the question, why did god do it.

Yeah, and what's wrong with asking why God did it?

Hmm ... First of all you would have to change your views now wouldn't you?

 

[Iacchus]

Immaterial suggests a dualism, with matter and energy, there is no dualism, matter is energy. Also, it took a while after the big bang for matter to be able to hold together and apear at all, and even longer for matter as we know it (stable hydrogen)

A dualism which exists nonetheless in the same universe, which is to say they can't help but have an impact -- and/or a relationship -- with each other.

I can show you evidence if you like. The models we use to describe particles (such as quantum theories) can be used to "run the tape backwards"" to attempt to determine what happened further and further back in time. It quickly becomes aparent that the time and space dimensions become less and less dissimilar, and before, becomes more like "over there" until it doesn't really make sense to ask about "now and then". Similar to if the universe is very small, it doesn't do you much good to move anywhere, because you end up where you started really quick. I can show you the equations if you like. I say this not because it is what I want to believe, or I like it, or whatever, but because it is what makes the most sense out of what we know.

Evidence of what? Can you show me what the energy is doing at the same time?

Your god however, and your visions, you cannot show me any evidence for.

Except that you're more aquainted with the outward appearance of things, and I'm more aquainted with myself -- which, is internal -- and hence the only point of reference any of us really has ... our "conscious selves."

 

[Iacchus]

Hmm, have you figured out why your butt doesn't hit the floor when you sit on a chair?

I wonder why microwaves heat up food.... hmmm.

All matter is energy, that is one of the many things that drove people nuts during the quantum revolution. there is no 'solid matter', there is energy that behaves a s solid matter, but all the effects of solidity are part of the 'energy nature' of matter. So everything youi know that makes something solid is just part of energy.

Even scarier is Bose-Einstein condensate, where solid matter shows that it isn't solid at all.

Then it is possible to conceive of a God that exists outside of our senses then, except perhaps in "our heart."

 

[Iacchus]

You take time for a universal constant, just as you take length, depth and height for constants. Would it make sense to talk about length or width in non-existence? Then why should it make sense to talk about time?

Because maybe total non-existence never was?

 

[Iacchus]

Of course there are coincidences. And there is apparent cause and effect. Synchronicity supposedly lies somewhere in the middle.

Jung said:

"...a meaningful coincidence of two or more events, where something other than the probability of chance is involved."

Any idea what he was referring to with "something other than"?

~~ Paul

Sure do ...

 

[Dancing David]

Then it is possible to conceive of a God that exists outside of our senses then, except perhaps in "our heart."

It is alos possible to concieve that Lifegazer will find the path to unity without god. Highly unlikely however.

So do you still think that matter exists or does your response mean that you understand that matter is energy and all there is is energy. Which is not immaterial by the why.

I see no reason to conceive of anything beyond my senses, except for food.

 

[Iacchus]

Your lack of understanding is truly impressive. Nothing I said even remotely implied to those conclusions.
Okay, I'll grant you, I was brief in my summation of the argument, but the existence of time does not depend on what one measures it against. The existence of time and, more generally, spacetime is dependent on the presence of matter/energy. No matter/energy = no spacetime. There is no "before" the start of the universe because there "was" no time "then".

I think you misunderstood me in the previous post when I forgot to include the "caused" ...

"So what -- i.e., there has to be a 'what' which came before -- caused the Big Bang then?" In other words ... "What caused the Big Bang then?"

Okay, I'll grant you, I was brief in my summation of the argument, but the existence of time does not depend on what one measures it against. The existence of time and, more generally, spacetime is dependent on the presence of matter/energy. No matter/energy = no spacetime. There is no "before" the start of the universe because there "was" no time "then".

What about the Eternal Moment then, which for all intents and purposes doesn't require time and space in order to exist?

As Zero pointed out, there may have been, and probably were, other quantum fluctuations "before" ours, but it still isn't accurate to talk about it in terms of a chronological sequence of events. I know it is difficult, but like I said, no one ever said the universe was a simple place.

Yes, but isn't it possible to remain perfectly still and still allow time to pass?

Oh, and to answer your question about EM waves and blowing things over, check out this article on
solar sails.

Yeah that makes sense, especially when there's no resistence in space.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, but isn't it possible to remain perfectly still and still allow time to pass?

It may not be. Think of all the ways time is revealed. A sundial requires the relative movement of the earth around the sun. Wind-up clocks have all sorts of moving parts. Electronic clocks have currents of energy moving around. Atomic clocks rely on the pulses of atomic radiation eminating from an atom.

Try speaking of time in any sense that does not somehow relate back to the relative occurrence or positions of objects or energy. Now try to envision a place with no matter and no energy. Nothing happens relative to anything because there isn't anything. In such a scenario, the concept of time has no value.

Certainly it is difficult for us to conceive of a thing, never having experienced the absence of time. But if you try, you can. If you can envision a God, surely you can envision this concept, which is much simpler than God.

 

[DarkMagician]

Are you aware that the Eternal Moment always Is, and always Will be, and doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space?

I have two big questions for you.
1. What are you smoking?
2. Where can I get some?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I asked:
Any idea what he was referring to with "something other than"?

and Iacchus responded:
Sure do ...

What?

And by the way, Lifegazer and Iacchus, you ought to define free will before you go slinging it about with abandon.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

It is alos possible to concieve that Lifegazer will find the path to unity without god. Highly unlikely however.

Why? Doesn't the shepherd call to his sheep?

So do you still think that matter exists or does your response mean that you understand that matter is energy and all there is is energy. Which is not immaterial by the why.

Then where is God then?

I see no reason to conceive of anything beyond my senses, except for food.

What about food for the pysche or, spiritual food, which is born of the understanding? ... Ever hear of a discerning palate?

Yes, this is what feeds the soul.

 

[Iacchus]

What?

Are you saying he doesn't go so far as to explain it himself or, would you like to hear me explain it?

And by the way, Lifegazer and Iacchus, you ought to define free will before you go slinging it about with abandon.

~~ Paul

Perhaps that's an indication of what you ask right there?