Thought Experiment

[Athena]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You guys are just fighting over terminology. Everyone has their own pet definitions for words. It isn't worth fighting over. If you were to express all of these concepts in visual representations, your representations would be very similar to each other. I do think that young people have a lot to offer, and debates like these are good for both young and old, because they help us focus our thinking.

Yes, I would say my thinking has definitely developed with the effort of thinking about what I think, in order to communicate what I think. Just this morning a realized God is not tangible, and what that means. How completely foolish our arguments over something that is not tangible, and therefore is not something we can experience and know, really are. I am like to do think Marsian women are fat and bossy? How can you judge such a thing without experiencing a Marsian woman?

[Kamehameha34]

Do you have any evidence, or logic to back the claim "god is not tangible"?

Or did you just go with the thought that you found most eloquent?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Do you have any evidence, or logic to back the claim "god is not tangible"? Or did you just go with the thought that you found most eloquent?

The tangible nature of a deity would depend on what God you were looking for. If you were looking for a hands-on Biblical God that the Bible bears witness to, there is nothing tangible in today's world that you could consider evidence. The best evidence available is strictly anecdotal.

If you are looking for a natural God that reflects the nature of creation 'as it is', than the tangible evidence is nature itself, but without further evidence, it would be the same as if God did not exist.

[Kamehameha34]

God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe

A being with intent and the ability to create our universe can certainly be tangible - just as the scientist who will have recreated the big bang is "tangible".

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A being with intent and the ability to create our universe can certainly be tangible - just as the scientist who will have recreated the big bang is "tangible".

Yes, avery natural God would be a very tangible God, the Big Bang (the natural expansion of our universe from a singularity, may be a very natural event with natural causes, within a natural matrix of many natural universes, ad infinitum

[Kamehameha34]

Nothing can be purely natural in an infinite regress, unless proven otherwise.

[rez]

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
stop thinking about it."
--Robert A. Wilson


Kame you should be banned for your obsession with baiting people into trying to prove their explanations, when really nothing in our universe has been fully proven.

[Kamehameha34]

I've only asked people to prove statements that they regard as absolute.


You should be banned for being concurrently atheist and a fettered thinker :)

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nothing can be purely natural in an infinite regress, unless proven otherwise.

By the way your statement is a little absolute to be believable. I am not making absolute statements, but demonstrating that a universe without a source that is not natural is a very viable option. Infact the most compelling, based on the evidence in math, physics and the present knowledge of cosmology. I believe in God, and evidence for God, but so far you have chosen not to respond to this argument.

The only evidence we have directly in science is for a purely natural universe and existence. There is no evidence otherwise.

Infinity has far more aspects than 'infinite regress'. Modern cosmology and math have no problems with infinities today when modeling various multiverse models of existence within an infinite medium or matrix that includes the very viable possibility of an infinite universe that cycles in and out of a singularity. Check out some of the recent Scientific American and Discovery magazines. If there not to deep some to the recent Physics publication that present some interesting stuff.

The necessity of a source other than a natural source in the Aristitilian/Aquinas arguments such as the Kamal argument are a little old hat, when considering the modern options.

[Kamehameha34]

Before we continue, how are we defining "natural"?

I am not making absolute statements, but demonstrating that a universe without a source that is not natural is a very viable option.

Yes, it's viable, but infinitely unlikely.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Before we continue, how are we defining "natural"?

Occuring according to natural law without an outside agent as the cause.

Yes, it's viable, but infinitely unlikely.

If it is viable, it is infinitely likely.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon By the way your statement is a little absolute to be believable. I am not making absolute statements, but demonstrating that a universe without a source that is not natural is a very viable option. Infact the most compelling, based on the evidence in math, physics and the present knowledge of cosmology. I believe in God, and evidence for God, but so far you have chosen not to respond to this argument. The only evidence we have directly in science is for a purely natural universe and existence. There is no evidence otherwise. Infinity has far more aspects than 'infinite regress'. Modern cosmology and math have no problems with infinities today when modeling various multiverse models of existence within an infinite medium or matrix that includes the very viable possibility of an infinite universe that cycles in and out of a singularity. Check out some of the recent Scientific American and Discovery magazines. If there not to deep some to the recent Physics publication that present some interesting stuff. The necessity of a source other than a natural source in the Aristitilian/Aquinas arguments such as the Kamal argument are a little old hat, when considering the modern options.

I would suggest that a god is not a necessary cause for the world we observe. However, I would also suggest that godhood is a necessary consequence of infinite emergence.

[Fonceai]

I would think that infinite regress implies being completely natural.

I still think pointing to causes back forever through infinite regression is nonsensical.

But I agree with Captain Chaos that godhood is possible with infinite emergence.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai I would think that infinite regress implies being completely natural. I still think pointing to causes back forever through infinite regression is nonsensical. But I agree with Captain Chaos that godhood is possible with infinite emergence.

Infinite regression might be useful for saying that the emergence of a god has already occurred.

However, I see what you mean, Fonce. It is not much use if we are pointing to a god way way back, to say he caused us, if he did not care about that as an outcome.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I would suggest that a god is not a necessary cause for the world we observe. However, I would also suggest that godhood is a necessary consequence of infinite emergence.

The problem is that if the reality of the medium or matrix within which our universe or universes exist is infinite there is no regress or emergence. These would only be from our own reference point.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon The problem is that if the reality of the medium or matrix within which our universe or universes exist is infinite there is no regress or emergence. These would only be from our own reference point.

Emergence is the process of complex things arising from simple things. We see this around us all the time.

If time is infinite, how can it not regress infinitely?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Emergence is the process of complex things arising from simple things. We see this around us all the time.

Infinite emergence would be different from the emergence of life from simple forms to complex forms. The emergence of life is finite. Life had a beginning on this planet either in a natural manner or created by an outside source, usually described as God in English.

The emergence of life from non-life is called abiogenesis in science, if this is a natural process, biogenesis is the term often used if one believes life can only arise from life. I do not view emergence as a philisophical or theological problem on whether there is a divine source for life or a natural one as support for the fact as to whether ther is a God or not.

Scientists do not view abiogenesis as some spontaneous event in the primal soup of non-life without a cause. The scientist view this as a step by step process with natural causes. At present all the steps are not known, but the science of abiogenesis is a young science (less than 10 to 15 years) due to the lack of basic chemistry knowledge concerning genetics and possible origin scenarios.

If time is infinite, how can it not regress infinitely?

Contemporary cosmology would view 'infinite regress' as one limited human view of infinity looking backward. A true infinite in time would not have such a reference point. Regress or emergence require reference points or some marking reference and all this represents arbitrary human time references.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Captain Chaos If time is infinite, how can it not regress infinitely?

The answer to that is easy, but the implications are complicated.

Finding cause through infinite regress is nearly impossible. You would need to isolate an infinite number of branched causes.

Finding effect through infinite emergence is simple. You don't need to worry about every cause and effect, just the ones that lead you further to whatever effect you're attempting to isolate.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: shunyadragon Infinite emergence would be different from the emergence of life from simple forms to complex forms. The emergence of life is finite. Life had a beginning on this planet either in a natural manner or created by an outside source, usually described as God in English. The emergence of life from non-life is called abiogenesis in science, if this is a natural process, biogenesis is the term often used if one believes life can only arise from life. I do not view emergence as a philisophical or theological problem on whether there is a divine source for life or a natural one as support for the fact as to whether ther is a God or not. Scientists do not view abiogenesis as some spontaneous event in the primal soup of non-life without a cause. The scientist view this as a step by step process with natural causes. At present all the steps are not known, but the science of abiogenesis is a young science (less than 10 to 15 years) due to the lack of basic chemistry knowledge concerning genetics and possible origin scenarios. Contemporary cosmology would view 'infinite regress' as one limited human view of infinity looking backward. A true infinite in time would not have such a reference point. Regress or emergence require reference points or some marking reference and all this represents arbitrary human time references.

OK...

but it is not inaccurate to say that cause and effect regresses infinitely from the point in time that we occupy.



As for emergence, we certainly have evidence that life and intelligence emerge naturally - without apparent intent. However, once intelligence arises, the process of emergence can than continue under intelligent intent. Human evolution will cease to be a matter of happenstance determined by natural selection. It is becoming a matter of deliberate selection and genetic manipulation.

Also, we are making great progress in building artificial intelligence.

If the laws of physics permit god-level beings to exist, then at some point somewhere some intelligent species will succeed in creating or becoming such a being.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Captain Chaos OK... but it is not inaccurate to say that cause and effect regresses infinitely from the point in time that we occupy.

But concerning true infinities our reference point is an illusion. We do use our planet and sun as reference points to measure many things in the cosmos, but progressively modern cosmology is is trying to find other reference points in our universe, such as the center of our galaxy is a good reference point for our movement through space and relationship to it, and to our galactic group collectively which gives us a greater reference, but not a center, our galaxy is in gravitational dance with our group and on a collision course with at least one. Beyond this we are beginning to develop references and relative movements to the universe without being concerned with one particular point as the center. Ultimately we may find a relative center for our universe, but that is a while away.

As for emergence, we certainly have evidence that life and intelligence emerge naturally - without apparent intent. However, once intelligence arises, the process of emergence can than continue under intelligent intent. Human evolution will cease to be a matter of happenstance determined by natural selection. It is becoming a matter of deliberate selection and genetic manipulation. Also, we are making great progress in building artificial intelligence. If the laws of physics permit god-level beings to exist, then at some point somewhere some intelligent species will succeed in creating or becoming such a being.

Interesting points. If we do not destroy ourselves we develop many qualities that in the past we considered God-like.