A universe without God.

[RussDill]

Exactly. Quanta exhibits base indeterminism, whilst also progressing to the classical order seen within our awareness.

The probabilites I'm talking about have nothing to do with the classical order of things. They have to do with the quantum properties.

My philosophy states that God's free energy has been ordered. My philosophy is consistent with QM and would predict the order of the classical.

It is not freewill if you can predict with perfect accuracy the probability that someone will do something.

 

[Atlas]

Has anyone told you you're funny?

Well, no - but I get alot of smirks - Does that count?

 

[Flatworm]

An effect is the yield of all previous causes. Essentially, any effect is the product of previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + ad infinitum. Therefore, an effect is the definite sum of all its causes. And there is no sum to an infinite number of causes.

No, an effect is by definition, caused by its cause, and by nothing else. You are trying to introduce an operator on the set of effects (namely, addition) that you have not even defined. BTW, we can indeed find a sum to an infinite series of terms, even if the terms go both backwards and forward to infinity. Laurent series come to mind.

Naming any integer i is a game that speaks of a finite number.
Clearly, you do not understand that "infinity" is not a finite number (of anything, least of all causes). Infinity is a potential, that's all.

No, obviously you do not understand the mathematical meaning of infinity. It is essentially a statement about the non-existence of a limit. To say that something continues to infinity is to say that no matter how far you go, you can always go farther.

This is, in effect, exactly what is meant by the "name any integer game". The fact that you cannot name an integer, no matter how large, to which I cannot find a corresponding cause and effect proves that this limit does not exist and, consequently, the series continues infinitely in both directions.

You ask me to name any integer i, forgetting that I cannot name infinity itself since it is unattainable and unknowable.

Obviously, you lack the mathematical background to understand and analyze the concept of infinity. Infinity is not in the set of integers, but the set is infinite in extent. Similarly, to say that the universe extends backwards infinitely in time in no way implies that t=-infinity must be defined. If there is no moment in the past beyond which you cannot go any further in the past, then by definition the universe would extend infinitely in the past. There is no need (and indeed, no meaning in trying) to travel to some point in the past and saying "Ok, now I am infinitely far in the past."

I've had the sums-of-infinities speech on several occasions.

I guess you never understood it.

You can only know the trains position in regards a finite amount of time.

False, since my variable t is defined over the entire real line, extending to infinity in both directions. I can only evaluate the expression at finite numbers, but that in no way implies that some boundary exists in the -t direction, or the domain of my expression is finite.

All integers mirror a finite existence.

I guess you forgot that the set of integers has an infinite number of members?

 

[Riddick]

i think elliotfc is referring to God defined in the Bible. at least he doesn't seem to indicate it's the hindu god of fertility which drags his dick on the ground.

i would wager most God references are to the generally accepted bible God. i would assume that, at least, but that's just me.

a logical paradox? it seems if one were God, they could define logic as they saw fit. unlimited authority means you can screw logical paradox and practical impossibility in the buttocks.

impossible? for God? the only thing not possible for him is your choice.

i can imagine God laughing, "these guys are humans, and they're trying to limit me. they can't even lift themselves 3 feet off the ground without a ladder. christ."

 

[Yahweh]

Flatworm,

I am impressed with your superior smartness

Keep it up

 

[RussDill]

Re: There's only one primal-cause.

1. Existence is.
2. Whatever existence is, we can say that this existence is boundless.

already shown perfectly valid existences with boundries.

Existence as a whole cannot be finite in nature,

already shown this too, infact, all evidence points to our own existence being finite.

possessing a surface [a surface distinguishes the finiteness of an entity]

A universe does not need a surface to be boundless and finite. By definition, a boundry is a surface, so if you are describing something with a surface, you are describing something with a boundry.

that is embraced by absolute-nothingness.

Reality is only embraced by absolute-nothingless if it has an accessible boundry.

Clearly, the advocation of nothingness embracing (stretching around) a tangible finite existence is a rational nonsense. Existence must be boundless. Absolutely so.

an assumption, but ok, just for fun, I'll play along.

3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, then existence is reducible to a singularity. Distance means zilch.

Distance is a term that makes sense within the universe, not to any realm beyond it. I don't know why you would want to describe the universe (even your "Mind") as floating in some empty 3d construct.

4. The realm of a singularity is without beginning or without end. There are no real bounds within this realm.

Bounds only exist as they effect any realm.

Therefore, we know that existence is, essentially, indivisible.

You'll have to define indivisible better, because I can describe plenty of ways your "Mind" is divisible. By another definition, existence by definition cannot be divisible. So, the above is another useless statement.

Two separate points do not exist within a singularity.
5. From 4, existence is reducible to one entity.

It would be much easier argued from a anti-dualism standpoint

6. From 5, we know that there is only one primal-cause.

primal-cause is still a made up term that assumes that all events have specific causes. Also, again, no matter what you choose as a primal-cause, you can never be sure it is really the primal-cause, and not just some other entity that has been fabricated to look just like the primal cause.

Proceeding further (than I was asked to proceed):-
7. Every-thing perceived to exist within a singularity, must do so as an illusion, since two separate points do not exist within a singularity. Therefore, the universe resides within a Mind (as an illusionary perception) of the primal-cause.

"exist within a singularity" Here is your picture again of a singularity floating in an empty 3d construct. Reality does not exist within an empty 3d construct, sorry, so calling the universe a singularity does not describe it internally in anyway, and does not give you any reason to say that distance does not exist as an absolute concept within the universe.

8. Boundless singular existence, omnipotent, omnipresent, and possessing will, where all effects are created by and perceived within its mind.

If you insist on describing existence as a singularity, then you are describing it in reference to distance, and thus creating a boundry, ie, what is beyond the singularity.

Once more, I present God to you all.
Once more, I bow down to you all, my God.

Your arguments are just getting worse and worse.

 

[Dancing David]

Exactly. Quanta exhibits base indeterminism, whilst also progressing to the classical order seen within our awareness.

My philosophy states that God's free energy has been ordered. My philosophy is consistent with QM and would predict the order of the classical.

Well maybe you can answer some of the questions of QM then:

When an electron goes from one 'orbit' to another level it makes a quantum 'leap' in that it 'absorbs' the photon or emits the photon and changes states in it's postion around the nucleus. The cool thing is that the electron does not transit the 'space' between the two states, it just leaves one and is in the other. I think this happens in 'tunneling' in a diode as well. Similar phenomena happen for protons at the heart of the sun allowing for nuclear fusion.
This is one of the effects of HIP, so where is the electron while it makes the jump?

Then the question I asked Wraith, can an electron chose to run a stop sign? can it choose to violate the laws of physics? If both slits are open in a double slit experiment can the electron chose a position where it would act as though there was a single slit open?

 

[Beleth]

Re: There's only one primal-cause.

2. Whatever existence is, we can say that this existence is boundless. Existence as a whole cannot be finite in nature, possessing a surface [a surface distinguishes the finiteness of an entity] that is embraced by absolute-nothingness. Clearly, the advocation of nothingness embracing (stretching around) a tangible finite existence is a rational nonsense. Existence must be boundless. Absolutely so.

Hold that thought.

3. If we acknowledge that existence as a whole is boundless, then existence is reducible to a singularity. Distance means zilch.

But a singuarity is finite. A singularity's existence is necessarily finite. Every singularity we know of or can imagine is finite; there is an inside, and an outside, and a weird warning-track-like thing around it called an "event horizon."

By describing all of existence as a singularity, you are implying that there is an outside to it, which violates what you said in #2 above. You can't equate an infinite thing like existence with a finite thing like a singularity.

And the rest of your argument falls apart here. If you want to use another words besides "singularity" to define what all of a necessarily-infinite Existence is, feel free. But you do your philosophy a disservice by using this word incorrectly here, and then applying the proper definition later on.

Infinity is not the same as dividing by zero.

 

[RussDill]

An effect is the yield of all previous causes. Essentially, any effect is the product of previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + previous-cause + ad infinitum. Therefore, an effect is the definite sum of all its causes. And there is no sum to an infinite number of causes.

and same with the mind, thought + previous thought + previous thought + previous thought + previous thought + previous thought + ad infinitum. Eventually, by the same line of reasoning, you'd have to answer what is the mind's first thought.

Naming any integer i is a game that speaks of a finite number.
Clearly, you do not understand that "infinity" is not a finite number (of anything, least of all causes). Infinity is a potential, that's all.
You ask me to name any integer i, forgetting that I cannot name infinity itself since it is unattainable and unknowable.

Have you ever heard of convergence? If you add together 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... what number do you get? Do you realize that that result comes about because an infinite number of fractions has been added? What about Pi? Pi is the result of an infinite number of numbers being added as well. Infinity is a realy mathematical concept, not just a potential.

All integers mirror a finite existence.

And we have extended are math far, far beyond integers. Real numbers, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, and equations and number theory involving infinity.

 

[Atlas]

Can an electron chose to run a stop sign? can it choose to violate the laws of physics? If both slits are open in a double slit experiment can the electron chose a position where it would act as though there was a single slit open?

Oo, Oo - Can I try this?

The electron is God and has Free Will. It can do any damn thing it wants.

Oh I hope I get it right.

 

[Flatworm]

Flatworm,

I am impressed with your superior smartness

Keep it up

Thanks, but I obviously have an unfair advantage here, in that I have some or the mathematical background it takes to talk coherently about infinities and singularities.

LG, on the other hand, is a buzzword philosopher.

Buzzword philosopher: n. A person who seeks to impress others with his intellect by pretending to understand a handful of large or poorly understood words rather than through rational arguments. A buzzword philosopher might, for example, begin a rant about "primal cause" and, when his audience is unimpressed, resort to droning on about "infinity". Words borrowed from science and mathematics are a favourite of this species, especially "quantum", and "singularity".

 

[RussDill]

Buzzword philosopher: n. A person who seeks to impress others with his intellect by pretending to understand a handful of large or poorly understood words rather than through rational arguments. A buzzword philosopher might, for example, begin a rant about "primal cause" and, when his audience is unimpressed, resort to droning on about "infinity". Words borrowed from science and mathematics are a favourite of this species, especially "quantum", and "singularity".

Did you actually find this definition somewhere? It fits *excactly*! Its like we are on one of those who's line is it anyway episodes with the dates or party go'ers that act a certain way, and you have to guess what they are.

 

[Atlas]

Did you actually find this definition somewhere? It fits *excactly*! Its like we are on one of those who's line is it anyway episodes with the dates or party go'ers that act a certain way, and you have to guess what they are.

I think Lifegazer is telling us to expect this weird stuff because of the imaginary existence we share inside this singularity.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Flatworm,

It was nice to see you so neatly (and mathematically) define what some of us KNEW but struggled to put into intelligible terms.

Lifegazer,

In some ways I admire your taking on a VERY well informed bunch of sceptics with a not unreasonable approach to defining the need for a God.

The trouble you have is accepting that your “proof” is a very circular argument which includes rules that your explanation is not subject too but everyone elses is. There are MUCH more likely answers for a primal cause that do NOT infer a sentient God like being.

In fact a sentient God explanation makes the whole Universe seem WAAAY more confusing.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Good thing Flatworm's not new here, or Atlas's position as New Guy of the Month might be in jeapordy.

 

[Atlas]

Hey guys,

I'm having a lot of fun and earlier when I asked the question about lifegazer's assertions - What do I get out of being God that I don't already have... Dancing David was quick to point out that I might just get a feeling of well...spirituality (that could possibly be mistaken for gas.)

Now I don't want you to think that I'm just here for the prizes...

But can anybody tell me what the prize is this month for the 'New Guy of the Month' - I know it's unlikely I'll win but I've never been this close.

Once I almost got Father Guido Sarducci's own Bible - Signed by Jesus himself. But there were penalties associated with peeing in the baptismal font that nobody told me about. It was all very unfair and I'm still not completely over it.

Anyway this is very important to me - I suppose I didn't have to say that. You all seem like very sensitive people.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you win, you get one "Get out of a Lifegazer Thread Free Card."

 

[Iacchus]

In fact a sentient God explanation makes the whole Universe seem WAAAY more confusing.

Universal Consciousness ... Consider the fact that most people can agree that 1 + 1 = 2 ... Which by the way, can only be obtained via consciousness.

 

[Beleth]

Universal Consciousness ... Consider the fact that most people can agree that 1 + 1 = 2 ... Which by the way, can only be obtained via consciousness.

Thus Spake Our Other Buzzword Philosopher.

 

[CWL]

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...&threadid=30781

"Behold, your God.
Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...

Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.
Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.
God is a singularity of being - without beginning or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time.
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens."

God becomes everything because God is [existence].

... and as far as I can see, you just made him up. Good for you, I don't mind a little fiction.

Shall we make some more gods up? People have been doing it for a very long time you know. It seems to cater for some sort of psychological need...

Sure. One can make things up and then decide that it is so. One can make a theory and then try to fit facts into it.

Another way of looking at the world is to discover and examine the facts, then produce the theory, then test the theory, then produce a new theory, then test that theory, etc.

Which method do you think produces the results which are more consistant with actual reality?

Can you apply this method and prove the existence of your particular "God"? That's the simple question you are being asked you see.