A universe without God.

[Tricky]

btw flatworm, I acknowledge your superior learnedness. Largely in the hope that you'll stop trying to out-learnedness me.

I'll bet you do hope that. After all, learnedness is the enemy of BS philosophy. But thanks for admitting your inferiority when it comes to actual knowledge.

What you learn is largely dependent upon the truth that it is based upon.

And real truths are based on observation and repeatable experimentation. Philosophical "truth" is not based on anything. That is why there isn't any such thing as a "correct philosophy".

Remember that mathematics was borne of philosophy.

You remember that? You were there when the first cave men learned to count mammoths? Exactly what was their philosophy?

What do you think came first, observation, or reflection on observations? The first is science, the second is philosophy.

So, mathematics is the servant of reason... not its master.

Yet everyone argues about correct reasoning, but few dispute correct math. Sounds to me like you've got it back-asswards again.

 

[lifegazer]

You must have missed my proof above. If the universe is all that exists, then ideed there cannot be anything external that embraces it, since that thing would necessarily be part of the universe.

How does this constitute a proof of a finite universe?
I agree that if the universe is all that exists then indeed there cannot be an external realm embracing it. But the consequence of this observation is that the universe cannot be finite.
You say that it can on account that nothing within the universe can escape spacetime (being a part of that spacetime itself).
But this isn't acceptable.
... I would never insist upon stating, for example, that the absolute-proof for only the mind existing is apparent by the fact that we cannot escape from our own awareness. Yet this is true - we cannot escape our awareness. Does this automatically infer that only the mind/awareness exists?

"It's simply a [eternally unfulfilled] potential of an entity.
I tried to explain to you in my previous post (or the post to Russ) that a boundless-singularity does not have true extension."

A new term- "true extension"- also undefined. You seem to like terms you can't or won't define.

Don't be so pedantic. You know it means "real distance" as opposed to conceptual/imagined distance.

"Even God itself cannot embrace infinity. If God could embrace infinity, then God's potential/power would be finite/limited."

I don't know why you even bring this up, but again it doesn't follow. If 'infinity' is unbounded "power or potential" and God embraced it, wouldn't that imply that God did indeed have "unbounded power or potential"?

Herein resides the crux of our dispute, I think.
Infinity is an intangible concept. It cannot be grasped or fulfilled or come to an end or be contained/embraced. In short, it does not relate to the reality of anything... just the potential of those things.
There must still be things, for example, that God (assuming God exists for this argument's sake) has not created or thought of. Otherwise, to continue arguing that God embraces infinity, you would have to argue that God has already finished creating an infinity of things or has finished having an infinity of thoughts. Now, that is plainly silly. There is no end to infinity. So we see that infinity is not contained or embraced - even by God - but just refers to God's potential of being/doing. God's infinite potential remains unfulfilled, for eternity. There is no end to what God can do. Yet there must be an origin to what God can do: and that origin is God itself.

So now we're left with deciding what is included in "the whole of existence". You posit the universe + something else making up a totality that is god. The problem is that it is not necessary to add anything beyond the universe. That has been the fundemental problem since we began. It doesn't matter how many times you assert or define that the universe alone cannot be all that exists- you need to give support.

This universe of time is a changing existence of effects. Change is effected by forces. Force is effected by an enforcer. Forces are effects of an enforcing agent.
By default of this logic, the enforcer is the essence of force/change = the essence of time, since the enforcer is the cause of forces which have caused time.
The Enforcer creates time... and must exist beyond time. I.e., the existence of the enforcer must precede the changes/time which It proceeds to instigate. Therefore, the enforcer itself does not exist in time. It is timeless. Changeless.

Work is being done in creating change/time. Hence, a Working agent is invoked as the cause of that work.
The universe contains its own forces. Therefore, the universe contains its own enforcer. This enforcer is distinct from the effects which those forces have created. A primal-cause (of effects created by force), is infered, by default.

Yay- solipsism. We all create our own realities. Of course, that means that everyone I talk to is just a creation of my mind, therefore my reality is the only reality. If other minds had independent existence, then their existence would therefore be obejctive, contradicting the claim that we all made our own realities. Solipsism is self-defeating.

I'm a solipsist within the context that only God's mind exists. Everything else (me, you, and my hamster included), are mere perceptions of that mind.
So, we are not separate beings, but separate perceptions of one being.

Mathematics is simply a tool for formalizing reason.

True. But once again, remember that reason forged that tool in the first instance.

I use it to avoid the pitfalls that come with talking about infinities, distance, containment, time, space, etc. without clearly-defined terms. Mathematical proofs are clear and unambiguous.

The problem with mathematics, is that it so often fails to distinguish between intangible and tangible. As such, all conceptual mathematics is assumed to relate to tangible existence.
Some things cannot exist within perceived reality (what we assume to be the external world). They can only exist within our minds. One-dimensional strings, for example. Or two-dimensional planes. Hence the folly of string theories.
Math must learn to distinguish between what can exist within the world and what must exist within our mind. Until it does, it will yield alsorts of dunce philosophies relating to "reality".

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by Lifegazer
How does this constitute a proof of a finite universe?
I agree that if the universe is all that exists then indeed there cannot be an external realm embracing it. But the consequence of this observation is that the universe cannot be finite.
You say that it can on account that nothing within the universe can escape spacetime (being a part of that spacetime itself).
But this isn't acceptable.

This is an interesting dilemna in topography.
If the universe is all that there is then there can be nothing external to it. So if we define the universe the way you have defined god, then it is all that there is or conceivably could be, however the universe is commonly defined as the observable space time that we see.
So there is the issue of the semantics but it gets worse,

The universe can be 'ifinite and unbounded' but still be finite. Which is a contradiction of modern physics.

The moebius strip points the way, say that the edges of the universe flip and turn back upon themselves in a manner analogous to a moebius strips. The surface of the strip is unbounded in a ceratin set of directions, in that you can traverse the strip and never reach a bound.

Theorheticaly our universe could be closed like that where if you continue in a straight line you will end up back where you started.

So in someways the dilemna is much worse than the semantic one.

But since we are stuch inside space time, How could we determine that we are within a boundless singularity?

Posted by Lifegazer

.. I would never insist upon stating, for example, that the absolute-proof for only the mind existing is apparent by the fact that we cannot escape from our own awareness. Yet this is true - we cannot escape our awareness. Does this automatically infer that only the mind/awareness exists?

I thought that that was the basis of all your argument right there, now I am confused, so you aknowledge that the external world 'might' exist, or do you believe that only the 'awareness' is what exists?

 

[Flatworm]

How does this constitute a proof of a finite universe?

I'm not trying to prove that the universe is finite, the proof demonstrates that it is incoherent to say that "if the universe is all of existence, it must exist within something else"

I agree that if the universe is all that exists then indeed there cannot be an external realm embracing it. But the consequence of this observation is that the universe cannot be finite.

No, that again doesn't follow. The proof does not depend on whether or not the universe is finite. It still remains incoherent to demand the existence of something beyond the realm of all that exists.

You say that it can on account that nothing within the universe can escape spacetime (being a part of that spacetime itself).

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that volume doesn't enter the question of whether space needs some external container.

But this isn't acceptable.
... I would never insist upon stating, for example, that the absolute-proof for only the mind existing is apparent by the fact that we cannot escape from our own awareness. Yet this is true - we cannot escape our awareness. Does this automatically infer that only the mind/awareness exists?

I frankly don't care whether you find it acceptable or not- the question is whether you can show it is logically inconsistent, which you can't. Remember, my proof doesn't show that the universe is finite, merely that it can be without requiring any sort of external container. Similarly, you would certainly agree that your mind exists, and it is not logically incoherent for you to posit that it is all that exists. That's essentially the only logically valid form of Solipsism in a nutshell- there is one reality, and it's mine. Not terribly useful, but logically coherent nonetheless.

Don't be so pedantic. You know it means "real distance" as opposed to conceptual/imagined distance.

No, seriously- you need to either define your terms up front or stop inventing new ones on the fly. If you meant "real distance" vs. "illusory distance", then you once again beg the question what real distance is, since everything that exists is an illusion. Distance in this universe continues to have the same properties, except now you call it illusory rather than real. I guess, then, that optical illusions that give a false impression of distance are illusions of illusory distance? What have we gained from making this distinction?

Herein resides the crux of our dispute, I think.
Infinity is an intangible concept. It cannot be grasped or fulfilled
or come to an end or be contained/embraced.

I think I can settle for embracing and fulfilling a 9 or a 10.

Seriously, though.

Infinity is simply a way of expressing the absence of a limit. An subset of an infinite number of elements can indeed be contained within another set.

In short, it does not relate to the reality of anything... just the potential of those things.

There must still be things, for example, that God (assuming God exists for this argument's sake) has not created or thought of. Otherwise, to continue arguing that God embraces infinity, you would have to argue that God has already finished creating an infinity of things or has finished having an infinity of thoughts. Now, that is plainly silly. There is no end to infinity. So we see that infinity is not contained or embraced - even by God - but just refers to God's potential of being/doing. God's infinite potential remains unfulfilled, for eternity. There is no end to what God can do. Yet there must be an origin to what God can do: and that origin is God itself.

But you already insisted that God is infinite- so what you're talking about is God (all that exists) as a subset (with an infinite number of elements) of some larger infinite set (say, the set of all things that "could be").

There is actually a coherent way of talking about different "sizes" of infinities- it's called Aleph notation, but I digress. Strictly speaking, it is possible for an infinite set to be contained within an infinite set of the same cardinality, without the two sets being equal.

As fascinating as all this is, none of it implies that the universe, finite or not, cannot be the whole of existence.

This universe of time is a changing existence of effects. Change is effected by forces. Force is effected by an enforcer. Forces are effects of an enforcing agent.

I'm afraid that's just a (rather silly) anthropomophisation of the universe. Forces are quite simply interactions. We have no need to posit some external agency that must be present to "make forces work". It is certainly not necessary for there to be only one such agency.

By default of this logic, the enforcer is the essence of force/change = the essence of time, since the enforcer is the cause of forces which have caused time.

Forces do not cause time. Time is a dimension in the universe, whether change is happening or not.

The Enforcer creates time... and must exist beyond time. I.e., the existence of the enforcer must precede the changes/time which It proceeds to instigate.

Must precede time- I must remember that one.

Logically incoherent.

If I remember correctly, Upchurch pointed out that spacetime cannot exist without matter/energy. Obviously, matter/energy cannot exist without spacetime (where would it have been?), so the only logical conclusion is that if time has a lower boundary, then matter/energy was present at that boundary and it is meaningless to ask what came before.

Work is being done in creating change/time. Hence, a Working agent is invoked as the cause of that work.

Since it has already been shown that mass/energy (therefore work) can come from nothing and be caused by nothing (i.e. vaccuum fluctuations), your statement doesn't follow.

The universe contains its own forces. Therefore, the universe contains its own enforcer.

You have never shown a need for an enforcer.

This enforcer is distinct from the effects which those forces have created. A primal-cause (of effects created by force), is infered, by default.

A great leap forward indeed. Instead of assuming a primal cause and then plugging our ears, we can assume an enforcer, make some nonsensical statments about time, and then deduce a primal cause (and then plug our ears).

I'm a solipsist within the context that only God's mind exists. Everything else (me, you, and my hamster included), are mere perceptions of that mind.
So, we are not separate beings, but separate perceptions of one being.

But once again, you have never given any reason why such a mind must exist. You get so caught up in your pet philosophy that you fail to consider alternative possibilities.

True. But once again, remember that reason forged that tool in the first instance.

So Mathematics is a formalization of reason and it follows the rules of reason. Fine. Does this in any way mitigate or make invalid my use of mathematics in my arguments?

The problem with mathematics, is that it so often fails to distinguish between intangible and tangible. As such, all conceptual mathematics is assumed to relate to tangible existence.

No, mathematics is completely abstract. It is distilled reasoning. There are no assumptions about tangibility. Can you even define tangibility in a mathematical context?

Some things cannot exist within perceived reality (what we assume to be the external world). They can only exist within our minds. One-dimensional strings, for example. Or two-dimensional planes. Hence the folly of string theories.

I'd rather not digress into your egregious misunderstanding of string theory and the physical interpretation of its mathematical underpinning.

Math must learn to distinguish between what can exist within the world and what must exist within our mind. Until it does, it will yield alsorts of dunce philosophies relating to "reality".

That's right. Let's start another campaign with mathematicians like we did for the world of physics. Don't forget to remind the latter about the error of their ways regarding string theory.

Your arrogance really knows no bounds, does it?

Mathematics indeed does not make the distinction between what is physically possible and what is only conceptually possible. This doesn't matter, however, to my use of maths in my arguments, because I'm using them to prove what is logically possible and not possible. You like to make categorical statements about this or that not being logically possible, and mathematics is a perfectly valid way of shooting them down.

BTW, to only way to distinguish between what is physically possible and what is only logically possible it through the study of the natural sciences. Since these cannot study what is beyond the universe, that pretty much limits arguments on our current subject to logic alone.

Hey, since you've already decried the folly of physicists and mathematicians, now and throughout history, why don't you just declare that logic itself is in error? That way, you can satisfy your need to feel superior and hold onto your irrational beliefs, while the rest of us can safely dismiss you as beyond the reach of rational argument (most of us, I'm sure, already have.)

 

[lifegazer]

No, mathematics is completely abstract. It is distilled reasoning. There are no assumptions about tangibility. Can you even define tangibility in a mathematical context?

Exactly. Thanks for highlighting my point. And yet you use mathematics willy nilly in relation to existence without any consideration whatsoever as to whether something is tangible or intangible.

I'd rather not digress into your egregious misunderstanding of string theory and the physical interpretation of its mathematical underpinning.

Then stop wasting my time and take a hike. That point was more than valid.

That's right. Let's start another campaign with mathematicians like we did for the world of physics. Don't forget to remind the latter about the error of their ways regarding string theory.

Your arrogance really knows no bounds, does it?

Oh shut up. If you want a debate then have a debate. But don't talk down your nose to me.
I have made reasonable points concerning physic's misuse of language and math' indifference towards whether something is tangible or intangible. Either deal with it rationally or go away. I'm tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy because they're good at math or physics.

Mathematics indeed does not make the distinction between what is physically possible and what is only conceptually possible.

LOLOL. First you slag me off and then you agree that my point is valid.
Forget it. C ya.

 

[lifegazer]

I thought that that was the basis of all your argument right there, now I am confused, so you aknowledge that the external world 'might' exist, or do you believe that only the 'awareness' is what exists?

The conclusion for God's existence is not made from that realisation alone.

 

[Iacchus]

The conclusion for God's existence is not made from that realisation alone.

Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

 

[lifegazer]

Hey, did you know that cause and effect won't work after death, unless of course there is an afterlife?

Death is a perception, had by the one true life.

 

[RussDill]

You said that since the universe did exist, that it could, evidently, exist within nothing. That's a poor response because it doesn't explain why. There's no sense there.
It's an unbelievable statement.

False dichotomy. You have attempted to show that there are two possibilities, one of which being clearly false, and then you expect that anyone who disagrees with the first, should argue for the latter, and end up looking stupid.

Sorry, but we are not here to play your game. Those are not the only two choices.

I take care (though probably make the occasional gaffe) not to use the term "infinite", because I'm of the reasoned-opinion that there is no life/meaning/tangibility/reality within that term. It's simply a [eternally unfulfilled] potential of an entity.

Too bad, the concept of infinity is a very well defined, very usefull term. And if your god has no beginning and no end as far as time is concerned, then your god exists for guess what, an INFINITE amount of time. You can't have it both ways.

I tried to explain to you in my previous post (or the post to Russ) that a boundless-singularity does not have true extension. Distance has to be an illusion. Therefore, the term "infinity" is purely conceptual.

Ahem...an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of thoughts, an infinite amount of memories, shall I go on?

If the mind does not have an infinite amount of thoughts, then your mind has a first thought, if you mind does not have first thought, then we are back to that X-1 thing you hate so much.

Even God itself cannot embrace infinity. If God could embrace infinity, then God's potential/power would be finite/limited.

When did we start talking about embracing infininity. What is it with you and embracing, were you not hugged enough as a child?

There can be no external reality to a boundless singularity.

Exactly, and there can be no external reality to the universe, otherwise it would not be reality, it would be part of reality. (I assume when you said boundless singularity, you meant reality as a boundless singularity, because if it just a boundless singularity, it could happily exist within anything)

Read my post (tonight) to Russ. You're merely subjectifying the concept of "volume" whilst simultaneously trying to defend the objectivity of that characteristic. Your argument is self-defeating.

umm..right, you haven't a clue lifegazer, you haven't done a thing to defend your positition except repeat you own.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28677&highlight=existence
or...
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30506&highlight=existence

laughable, your arguments were torn to shreds in those threads, and all you could do was insult and repeat your assumptions.

Our knowledge of the universe stretches-out to our combined awareness of it. My knowledge of the universe stretches-out to my awareness of it, which stretches-out to the knowledge embraced by everyone within it.

OK...so now you are claiming that your awareness exists where you are aware of something. So if I am aware of my desk, that is where my awareness exists. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Whatever. That's irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is that you see my usage of the term makes sense. If you don't say why.

Umm..right, if it the wrong usage, it doesn't make sense.

 

[scribble]

An interesting game...

<pre>
xox
oxx
oxo
</pre>

 

[Flatworm]

Exactly. Thanks for highlighting my point. And yet you use mathematics willy nilly in relation to existence without any consideration whatsoever as to whether something is tangible or intangible.

I don't need to, since I have been using mathematics strictly to show what is and what is not logically possible, for which purpose it is ideally suited. Much more so, in fact, than your pathetic collection of ill-defined buzzwords.

Then stop wasting my time and take a hike. That point was more than valid.

Well, no it wasn't. Often, when scientists try to explain string theory in layman's terms, they can give the impression that if you had a really, really powerful microscope, you would be able to see all kinds of colourful wriggling lines everywhere. The strings of string theory describe the behaviour of small bits of matter, not what they actually "look like", since appearance doens't really have much meaning on the scales we're talking about.

BTW, there's nothing logically wrong with having a 1-D object in a 3-D space.

Oh shut up. If you want a debate then have a debate. But don't talk down your nose to me.
I have made reasonable points concerning physic's misuse of language and math' indifference towards whether something is tangible or intangible. Either deal with it rationally or go away. I'm tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy because they're good at math or physics.

I have yet to see any indication that you know anything about philosophy, math and physics aside. Physics has not misused language at all. It borrowed the term from mathematics, and their use makes perfect sense. Singular, when it is used in common speech, does not mean unified or indivisible, but strange or extraordinary. A Singular point, or singularity, is a point that stands out from those around it with regards to a particular function.

Just because you choose to redefine the term doesn't mean physics has abused it.

As to mathematics, I noticed that you conveniently left out the part where I explained the difference between logical and physical possibility. The physical possibility of things beyond the universe is necessarily beyond human knowledge, leaving us to debate logical possibility. Mathematics and Symbolic Logic are in fact the tools of choice for this task.

Mathematics may not tell us about physical possibility, but your ill-defined buzzwords and wishy-washy granolaspeak tell us nothing about anything, except possibly your state of mind.

LOLOL. First you slag me off and then you agree that my point is valid.
Forget it. C ya.

Your point would be valid if we had any way to know what physical laws apply outside the universe, or even if there is such a thing as "outside our universe." It would then be simple for you to invoke those laws to determine whether or not your hypothesis is correct. However, just because this information is unavailable to us doesn't mean you, of all people, get to make it up. Given our inability to determine what is and is not physically possible in this case, we have only logical possibility to guide us. Judging logical possiblity is the domain par excellence or mathematics and symbolic logic.

 

[RussDill]

Oh shut up. If you want a debate then have a debate. But don't talk down your nose to me.
I have made reasonable points concerning physic's misuse of language and math' indifference towards whether something is tangible or intangible. Either deal with it rationally or go away. I'm tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy because they're good at math or physics.

Sorry lifegazer, he is right on every count, and to have you of all people call someone a bozo for sounding like they have some authority with philosophy...it is highly likely that EVERYONE on this thread has studied more philosophy than you. Plus, his argument is based on logic.

LOLOL. First you slag me off and then you agree that my point is valid.
Forget it. C ya.

My god, you are so clueless, you just love your false dichotomies.

 

[scribble]

BUMP

Hey, Lifegazer, I think you forgot, we weren't done ridiculing you for THIS thread. Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[uruk]

Thanks, Flatworm. That was totaly enjoyable.
Lifegazer must be tired from running in circles.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Either deal with it rationally or go away.

I'm tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy because they're good at math or physics.

At least they are good at something. You have yet to demonstrate competence at anything other then persistence.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Posted by LooBrusher :

I'm tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy......

...as opposed to yourself, a person who thinks he knows everything about philosophy whilst openly deriding anyone who actually chooses to study it!

Getting bored of being dogpiled yet, Lifegazer? Still think you're on a mission to save the world? Still haven't figured out that in your entire time posting at this forum you have achieved a grand total of absolutely nothing whatsoever?

Still haven't figured out why you feel so desperately unhappy?

Still haven't figured out that the reason nobody is taking any notice of you is because you are not actually saying anything worth listening to?

Still haven't figured out that the "big idea" you think you invented was in fact the starting point for western philosophy, and that the whole of that discipline has been a detailed examination of precisely what can and cannot validly be said about this "big idea"?

Still haven't figured out that to be taken seriously you actually have to study the subject you claim to be knowledgable of?

Still haven't figured out that your own conduct and your own state of mind are the prime indicators to other people of the value of your philosophical understanding?

Still want to live in a paradise where "there is no more eating"?

Still tired of listening to bozos such as yourself who think that they know everything about philosophy......?

 

[elliotfc]

To be distinct from God is to be outside of God.
To be outside of God is to give form to God.
To give form to God is to make God a finite entity.

You belittle God.

When a creator creates something, the created is distinct from him. That is not to say there is no connection.

To be outside of something does not give that something form. How do you get that? If I am outside of a house, to I give house form? The house will have form inspite of where I am.

-Elliot

 

[CWL]

Originally posted by lifegazer

To be distinct from God is to be outside of God.
To be outside of God is to give form to God.
To give form to God is to make God a finite entity.

You belittle God.

I guess what Lifegazer is saying is that I am not distinct from God, i.e. I am God.

Alrightie folks. Bow down to your Creator. There's gonna be some changes from now on.

 

[kuroyume0161]

My only comment to this comedy of errors brought to us by lifegazer is:

He has the nerve, in one hand, to dismiss mathematics, logic, and science and in the other, to use at the base of this hilarity an ARGUMENT BASED ON LOGIC (as ill-conceived and riddled-with-error that it is).

So, in a nutshell, here's LG's contribution to humanity:

"I, LG, have constructed a set of LOGICAL steps (one statement logically supports the next - in my own twisted mind)..."

If we apply reason to the term "primal cause"

show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God

"...and provided an equivalence as the logical result. BUT, logic, reason, science, and mathematics are man-made constructs and therefore do not apply to considerations of the universe and, especially, to what is 'outside' of it."

In other words, no construct of this universe can be used to show anything about anything that may or may not 'exist' (I use this term very, very loosely) externally to the universe.

If "God is the universe and the universe is God" is the rebuttal, then one must show, using reason, logic, and evidence, that there is anything supporting such a conclusion. There is none that can be proferred since "God" is ill-defined.

Kuroyume

 

[Zero]

I guess what Lifegazer is saying is that I am not distinct from God, i.e. I am God.

Alrightie folks. Bow down to your Creator. There's gonna be some changes from now on.

Hey! If you are God, then so am I?!? Ok, you take the odd-numbered days, I'll take the even, and we'll let Lifegazer run the show on alternate leap year days?